Tag Archives: Ian Smith

Censorship!!!

The StS has been accused or many things over the course of this fiasco, and denial of freedoms of opinion or free and frank debate has been at the heart of it. Don’t ever be fooled into thinking that the StS has open debate at the heart of its intentions.

I can now confirm that the StS engages in full censorship. I have recently been silly enough to think that their website is in some way a forum to debate the issues that terrifies them so, but this indeed isn’t the case.

At the post http://www.stopthestadium.org.nz/index.php/2009/04/12/councillors-reject-stadium-meeting/ I made the following comment:

#2 Paul Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.April 14th, 2009 at 9:37 pm

“it wasn’t a debate set up for that”
and that is the point exactly there never has been a debate about the stadium, there have been entrenched opinions with sod all consideration for the facts or considered opinion…

But go to the web site today and comment number 2 is indeed not mine but:

#2 matty_S Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Even I, as a stadium proponent, have to agree with you on this one Peter..

So the MtM show, decrying the death of democracy and freedom of speech are the height of hypocrisy, and as per usual unless you are singing from the same hymn book, your opinion is worthless and must be silenced. This is of course no foundation for a free and frank democracy. Unlike this site, in which a conscious decision was made to invite Elizabeth a prominent and intelligent Anti-Stadium campaigner, if you are madly following the ‘low-risk’ Bev Butler there is no way on god’s clean earth that you are getting a balanced and open view of the stadium development. The Media needs to wake up to her arrogant stupidity and expose her for the frothing mad confused thing she is.

Another sad consequence of this typically dreadful decision is that people can make bloody fools of themselves. Take for instance the comment by Ian Smith:

#8 Ian Smith Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Oh dear! ‘Just when we thought it was safe to go in the water again’, he’s back, with bells-on. Paul, you’ve surely inflicted your endless tedious semantics and voluminous…

Two things, my previous comments had been deleted, but not before Ian Smith attacked me (if you want to see voluminous try boring yourself to sleep with Ian Smith’s rants about how it was done in the good old days – great cure for insomnia). I of course could try and counter his bollocks, but then that too would be deleted. So Ian Smith ends up looking like a school bully calling names at people from the behind the back of mummy.

I wonder how the so called webmasters of the StS feel about their job description. I wonder how roots membership feels about it’s organisation partaking in Censorship? What was in the job description, “Editor and Censor of website”?

This isn’t something new for the StS, previously under Anne’s control I was even banned from their web site.

This is of course the height of hypocrisy, and every time Bev or any in the MtM decry the lack of debate on this issue, all we have to do from now on is come back with “but you delete views you don’t agree with“.

If like most agree that free and open debate is at the heart of democracy, then kiss good-bye to any thought that the StS wants to protect your democracy.

And if you ever hear bloody Bev Butler bleat on about the lack of debate on the stadium, tell her to SHUT UP!

14 Comments

Filed under Hot air, Media, Politics, STS

Disinformation a disservice.

Getting the supposed “ten facts” flier in the mailbox today, I thought it only prudent that I now continue this crusade against the StS (which this unwittingly has become).

Readers of this blog will know well that I believe that the StS is running on hyperbole and loose interpretation of so called “facts”. This is well illustrated in an opinion piece on the StS web site by Ian Smith, in which (along with his prejudices) “facts” are painted with a big fat liberal brush known as disinformation.

The tone of the piece seems to be summarised in one of the opening sentences “We have never been there and never intend to do so, but of course are paying for it“. Later it follows “Ultimately, whether we have a Stadium or not, is down to us. Civil disobedience in the form of subtracting from our rates payment that part of them, which is due to the Stadium, is one solution, but it’s ‘dated’, with a ring of the ‘sixties’ (when people still had the gumption to stand and be counted on matters of principle)“. Continue reading

4 Comments

Filed under Hot air