[Richard Williams]

Perhaps James as so many people have an interest/grudge/hatred/love for CPCA we could have a separate thread! (sorry - bit tongue in cheek!)

[James]

I'm sorry Richard but we aren't prepared to host such a discussion. The CPCA have threatened Virtual Norwood with intimations of legal action regarding previous comments made on the site by some of our forum members. Whilst we aren't responsible for the comments made by members there is no desire on our part to get involved in such an ugly dispute. The CPCA have not taken us up on the offer to get involved and respond to comments directly and neither have they actually singled out exactly what it is they object to. Instead they have been fishing for the identities of the forum members which we are not prepared to disclose.

We'd like to be able to operate Virtual Norwood from a Neutral Point of View (a policy that is widely established in online communities such as Wikipedia) however we have to take account of the way in which CPCA has mobilised against other parties it chooses to disagree with. Unfortunately, we have to regard our self-preservation as the utmost priority.

We have no quarrel with the CPCA (why would we?) so the best thing we can do is to limit the discussion of the CPCA, both negative and positive.

You may have noticed there is another forum at http://www.phpbbserver.com/cpp/ where people have been discussing local politics. We did not have any hand in its creation and we are not involved in its management. It is completely independent of Virtual Norwood and what you may choose to discuss on such a site is up to you.

For the present time any further discussion of the CPCA on Virtual Norwood Forum is restricted and we'd like to ask all our members to respect this policy. All members are responsible for their own comments.

[James]

I am pleased to inform everyone that restrictions on discussing the CPCA are now being lifted.

The original purpose of the ban was to prevent an escalation of legal proceedings against our web site, and now that things have calmed down it makes sense for us to remove this restriction so that things can get back to normal.

I would like to re-iterate that we strive to operate Virtual Norwood from a Neutral Point of View. Membership of Virtual Norwood is open to all members of the public and we neither canvas nor represent any particular segment of our local community. Therefore, as it has been suggested in communications received by me, if anyone would like to assert that Virtual Norwood has an anti-CPCA stance I would like to categorically state that this is not the case. We are neither pro- nor anti- anything, we merely facilitate discussion between members.

We respect your freedom to express your opinions but this must still be within the constraints of our forum guidelines. We are lifting the restriction on discussing the CPCA on the forum but this should not be taken as a green light to say what you want.

As always, you are responsible for your own comments and potentially libellous comments will be removed without notice. You may lose your posting privileges if you do not follow our guidelines so please be careful with how you express your opinions.

I hope everyone will understand the nature of the previous restriction and follow the spirit of our forum guidelines by encouraging sensible discussions. Thank you for your support.

[James]

The CPCA have published a full page article regarding comments made on Virtual Norwood (www.virtualnorwood.com/forum) and Sydenham Town (forum.sydenham.org.uk).

The (unattributed author) suggests that "scrutiny of these sites identifies the same few people, mostly lacking the courage to identify themselves, who are 'posting' defamatory and vindictive statements again and again, maligning and reviling others."

Strong words indeed.

It concludes by saying "CPCA gives no more regard to anonymous website vilification than to anonymous letters and graffiti, but will consider its position, should the Association or any member of the Association be defamed or libelled."

Well likewise but maybe I could direct the author to this article on the web:

Defamation law and free speech

"The law of defamation is supposed to protect people's reputations from unfair attack. In practice its main effect is to hinder free speech and protect powerful people from scrutiny."

"if you are defamed on an electronic discussion group, it is quite easy to write a detailed refutation and send it to all concerned the next hour, day or week. Use of defamation law is ponderous and ineffectual compared to the ability to respond promptly."

I wish the CPCA would take note of the following:
- We strive to operate Virtual Norwood from a Neutral Point of View.
- Membership of Virtual Norwood is open to all members of the public.
- We neither canvas nor represent any particular segment of our local community.

We've previously invited the CPCA to identify comments that they find objectionable and invited them to participate in our online discussions but they haven't done either. Why is the CPCA trying to denigrate the activities of our local community web sites? Seriously though... why shoot the messenger?

[Elmo]

Can't find the article on their site: http://www.cpca.org.uk Did they take it down?

But it's interesting to see the familar sight of legal threats to protect their position... Why not engage in discussion? Even on their own forum if they want? It seems like a far more sensible way forward than closing themselves off... The internet is the closest thing we have to a public sphere (with apologies to students of Habermas)

I would have more repect for them if they did - as James says VN isn't a closed shop, it's open to everyone.

[jamesl]

The best free publicity the site will ever have James but how sad that a "community" association is prepared to threaten legal proceedings against members of the community it purports to serve.

As for demeaning those who disagree with their viewpoint by writing them off as hiding behind anonymity perhaps CPCA ought to reflect on the fact the (a) CPCA does not publish a list of it's members so they can be identified and ( Isn't this is the same body that felt the need to have a Police presence at it's AGM . Pot and Kettle ?

When asked about (b ) John Paine (Chairman of CPCA) is quoted in South London Press as saying "It was not as draconian as it sound......... We are a peaceful, democratic organisation with charitable status. The last thing we want is someone shouting and kicking up a fuss. I will leave it to others to judge whether that is a fair and accurate description of the CPCA in the light of recent events

This post has been edited by jamesl: 03 July 2007 - 09:22 PM

[loplop]

I recall an occasion when a member of the CPCA did use a public forum (of sorts) to express their views.....that of a crowded GH station one busy morning. The method was to simply shout his point of view regarding the housing in the park debate, stating that he hoped everyone would attend a forthcoming meeting to show their disapproval of the plans. Reminded me of a street-preacher.

[Silver]

For anyone to have to use the police and legal action to stop people complaining about them is appaling and when it is a small community group it is even worse. When people, even their own members quite rightly complain about their behaviour or take the trouble to say 'hey I am a member of your group and I don't really think you are speaking for me' then why do the CPCA automatically suspect them of being anything other than what they are?. Why are they so frightened of people complaining about them? why don't they take notice of the feedback rather than automatically suspect that they must be an imposter or a spy or something?

If a community association tries to stop the farm being returned to the park, why wouldn't its members complain? If the vast majority of the community want a particualr tram route, what right has a community associtaion to ignore democracy and vote against it in the name of all its members?

In conclusion, this so called community association pulled out of the democratic consultation set up to consult on the park, they are ignoring democratic consultation results on tramlink and they are doing everything they can to deprive our children of the farm and the area of a fantastic horticultural college. It is hardly surprising that people are complaining. A community association should be fighting for the good of the community not as I suspect, for what their committee want.

The CPCA has been going a long time and I don't ever remember anyone saying that it does not reflect the community. This anti CPCA feeling has only occured since the new chairman took over and I suspect that the problem is he is setting his own agenda and using the association to achieve it. Mr. As I understand it their Chair. Mr. Payne was not against development when he had his own plans to build on the top site. His anti development stance appeared when his scheme hit the dust.

This is my opinion and I am entitled to state my opinion and I object to them trying to gag me. If they did I would tell them to bring it on because after all is said and done, they would not only have to prove that what I was saying about them was wrong, they begin to see that the opposition to them is not just a few troublemakers but a genuine outcry from members of the very community they claim to represent and that it is an outcry that is growing with every disstasteful thing they say and do.

This post has been edited by Silver: 04 July 2007 - 07:36 AM

[James]

Silver, on Jul 4 2007, 08:35 AM, said:

This is my opinion and I am entitled to state my opinion and I object to them trying to gag me. If they did I would tell them to bring it on because after all is said and done, they would not only have to prove that what I was saying about them was wrong

Unfortunately Virtual Norwood can't support a complete freedom of speech. We endeavour to remain neutral but even if comments are potentially libelous we remove them from our forum because it still costs money to go to court, even if you are right. Legal aid isn't available for cases of libel.

Instead of using the forum you could consider using Virtual Norwood News. Membership is open to everyone. The messages are transmitted by Yahoo! with the email address of the sender disclosed, and sent out automatically without moderation. The public archives are published on Yahoo!'s web site. VN News is suitable for discussion of a wide range of issues but is ideally suited as a platform for topics that are restricted on the forum, such as crime and politics.

[Angeles]

I am a little bit confused. The CPCA is complaining of defamation?! And what do you call then their statemest about Ken Livingstone, the LDA and Transport for London in their website? It seems to me that what they are complaining against is freedom of speech.

I share some of their ideas but I could only respect that association if they changed their name to something more suitable, omiting the word community, because they have no right whatsoever to speak for the community.

On a funny note, I saw their stand last weekend in the park, when I was with a friend which is a football fanatic. I had to restrain him not to go to them and tease them about the possibility of building an hiper football stadium on the top site of the park (joke). Now I wish I hadn't done it, it could have been so much fun to see their reaction...

[LSPE]

What constitute difamation? Saying that some of their members have some vocal/aggressive approach during the public meetings?

I could not see any "libellious" comment written on here regarding CPCA, am I wrong?

What about the comments they made about Virtual Norwood during public meetings (to me btw) aren't they difamation too? So they can talk bad about VN and nobody can oppose their view but if we say that we disagree with their approach or views then we are told to be libellious?

They can PM if they want and I can answer personally, they might be doing loads of good to the community but I still disagree with some methodologies to deliver their messages (by some of their members). I doubt this is a diffamatory comment, this is just my view on the way some of their members have approached certain issues in the (admittedly) few occasions I came across them.

James, of course if you believe this post is diffamatory ammend accordingly ....

Alternatively we could ask Cherie Blair to defend our freedom of speech as the threats of few are breaching our human rights .....

LSPE

[James]

Sydenham Town has responded to the article by the CPCA. On their homepage it says: "The CPCA Newsletter has published a strongly worded article criticising this website and some members of the Sydenham Town Forum. The article contains inaccuracies, misleading statements and misconceptions which may mislead its membership."

They have provided the full unedited CPCA article here...
http://www.sydenham....end_or_foe.html

and the webmaster's response is here...
http://www.sydenham....e_response.html

It is probably best for you to read their article and come to your own conclusions.

[LSPE]

Thanks

Read both

Well the posts on the Sydenham site were harsh, however the CPCA reply was neverthless on the same level (which I disagree - on both parties).

They mentioned VN without specifying any of the comments made on here that they considered offensive ...

If I find a comment offensive I reply to the comment politely, many of the comments I have read on VN reflected some behaviour witnessed in certain circumstances; we (myself included) have also appreciated the expertise offered by some members of the CPCA re some planning permission issues.

Does it make sense?

[James]

LSPE, on Jul 4 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

They mentioned VN without specifying any of the comments made on here that they considered offensive ...

I am not aware of any. The chairman of the CPCA called me (over a year ago) with a complaint about comments posted on our forum and seeking the identity of several members. I declined to reveal the identities of our members and invited him to specify exactly which comments he was on about so that I could review them. I also said it was forum policy to remove any libellous statements (see our Forum Guidelines). I then received another phone call from their legal representative. I was never informed of the exact nature of the complaint and without any specific posts for review considered the matter closed. However the threat of legal action prompted me to make discussions about the CPCA off topic for a while. I thought that would help to calm things down.

I am aware that some members of the CPCA have made some disparaging comments about VN in public meetings but I have no desire to initiate legal proceedings against them.

LSPE, I share your disappointment at the lack of substance in these allegations. Your comments reminded me of something I read on a Beginning Reporting web site, written by the writer John McPhee: "A lead should not be cheap, flashy, meretricious, blaring a great fanfare of trumpets, and then a mouse comes out of its hole."

[jamesl]

Whilst the newsletter focusses more on the Sydenham forum it is clearly aimed at virtual norwood and, more significantly, specific members. Whilst the writer does not identify the virtual norwood members they are alluding to some clue is given in the following passage

"although offering opportunity for participation on local issues, scrutiny of these sites [/b]identifies the same few people[/b], mostly lacking the courage to identify themselves, who are ‘posting’ defamatory and vindictive statements again and again, maligning and reviling others "

As someone who regularly posts on this site stating my disagreement with both the CPCA's "No Housing" stance and the methodology it has chosen to promote that stance I regard this part of the newsletter as (potentially) a reference to myself and ,if it is, then quite frankly I find it libellous. It clearly seeks to categorise those who post regularly on this site posting anything other than positive statements about the CPCA as "maligning and reviling others". Let's be clear CPCA- Disagreeing with another's opinion is not libel. Saying you think another's personal,political,moral or religious beliefs are wrong is not libellous. Pointing out that a charitable body is not an elected body with no mandate is not libellous. Saying you object to an organisation setting up camp outside a public consultation is not libelous. Saying that you find shouting and barracking at public meetings intimidating is not libellous. Saying that you do not agree the way a question is posed in a petition is not libelous and expressing bemusement that a local organisation felt it necessary to have Police at a meeting is not libellous.

Regardless of all of the above I also question whether publishing a newsletter with such content falls within the charitable objects of the CPCA as a registered Charity and , at the very least, I wonder what the the Charity Commission would have to say about it ?

But above all of that I will simply end with quoting the newsletter itself "Some, in their anonymous attacks, expose their inability to focus valid argument, and under the new order they seek to impose, dissent becomes disruption, and those who strongly express the same views become a mob, not a majority" Now who does that remind anyone of ?

This post has been edited by jamesl: 04 July 2007 - 09:02 PM