Forum Topic

Petition to close Down Brown account

This is a petition for the w4 owners to seriously consider closing down Michael Brown's account for spreading propaganda on this website. Thank you

James Smith-Jones ● 2378d50 Comments

Michael's posts bring joy and hilarity into my life. Long may he continue. It there a petition to have your inane witterings banned?

Paul Corcoran ● 2378d

When I see a post from MB, usually I don't bother to open it. Which probably makes me a shill, or a sheeple or something else from the Universal Brotherhood of Daft-as-a Brush Conspiracy Theorists approved dictionary.

Ken Munn ● 2378d

It’s never going to happen James. He might not be your cup of tea, but he’s been on this forum for years.

Georgina Flint ● 2378d

Perhaps not a permanent ban. Just a period of respite from Brown's constant attention seeking drivel.

Jeffrey Cope ● 2378d

The problem is that the code of conduct for this forum does not include anything about promoting false information. So the administration here would demand that some other infringement has taken place. Has it? Is repeatedly being dumb actually an offence? Is making wild and unsubstantiated claims an offence? His posts are often offensive but not everyone gets offended. Until the code of conduct addresses one of the biggest problems in social media I suspect it will be claimed that there are no grounds for closing or suspending this account. For me, I’d prefer an update to the code of conduct to address promoting known fictitious information as fact, that is attempts to misinform using false information. Seems like common sense.

Alan Clark ● 2378d

The idea that any forum could become an arbiter of fact isn't really feasible. Armies of people would be required to verify claims made in posts.It is hard to see how anyone could claim Michael's posts do any harm. They are ridiculed or rebutted by this forum's readership which is generally well informed and well educated. He presents an opportunity for such nonsense to be debunked and to suppress his contributions would give them undue credibility.The real public health risk raised by the spread of false information is presented by Facebook Groups where lots of like-minded idiots congregate to reinforce their dangerous views. Facebook is unwilling to do anything about groups like Vaxxed to the UK and Coronavirus UK which sees the sinister hand of Bill Gates behind everything. Unlike here, these views are not challenged and therefore they have become the primary reason why these bogus theories are propagated. The last thing that we should be doing is trying to stop them being shared in an environment where they are subject to some scrutiny. Suppression like this would be used as evidence that these fruitcakes were right all along.The Centre for Countering Digital Hate met with Facebook in the UK last month and the multi-billion pound, tax dodging, data abusing company refused to do anything. YouTube has taken some videos down on the basis that they  were dangerous misinformation but thousands more remain on the site which are arguably just as bad.

Francis Rowe ● 2378d

If you don’t like a post from someone, just don’t read it. Simple

Tim English ● 2378d

How can you know you don't like a post without reading it? (I'm joshing)

Alan Clark ● 2378d

James, DON'T PANIC! Michael's not the Messiah - he's just........

Cindy Carloss ● 2378d

How caan a  grown man get up at 6 o'clock in the morning and the first thiing  he thinks about is MB? Or were you dreaming  about him all night?

Roger Talbot ● 2378d

Your dismissal of a change to the code of conduct is baseless. First, this W4 forum with a few dozen posts a day, not Facebook with billions of daily posts. Second, the administrators would only need to review posts in the event of complaint rather than be obliged to review all posts. That is how it works for the existing rules.

Alan Clark ● 2378d

James Smith-JonesDate/Time: 10/01/20 06:29:00"It is a shame that a few dullards on this forum who seem to think the forum belongs to them hell bent on name calling  when they do not agree with someone's opinion. May I suggest that if you disagree with what anyone has to say, make your point without the pathetic child like name calling, banging on about spelling etc, because some of us like a debate. I expect the bitter and twisted so called  mumbling wine and spelling experts will either be frothing when they wake up or childlike just ignore the post, either way trolls run along as you are very boring. If you find my posts boring as some of you keep banging on just ignore them, simples, but I suspect you get off the name calling people on "your" w4 forum!"Official,MB reinstated as of 09.37hrs

Julian Pavey ● 2378d

So let's say for instance someone posted on this forum that you had a tattoo of Enoch Powell on your backside. You would complain but for the post to be removed it would have to be verified that it was untrue. Would this be something you would want to put another human being through?

Francis Rowe ● 2378d

Not sure how your tattoo example relates to the problem. Surely you need to give an example that is more relevant?

Alan Clark ● 2378d

Like your pueerile competition for forumers to dream u abusive names for MB's kayak (you helpfully set the standard by kicking off with "Coronaturd", for pity's sake) and your Furlough Our MPs nonsense, you're going to find little or no suport for this one,r Smith-Jones.I can't ever remember anyone heading  a thread which deliberately, seriously and openly peitions for the expulsion of another forumer, no matter hop  his views may irritate and annoy, most likely because most forumers are decent people and never went running to their teacher when at school.Since you have no shame, you will, no doubt, take pride in being the first.

Roger Talbot ● 2378d

I don't usually bother with MB's posts, however they do not cause me offence. What this crisis has brought out on this forum is a proliferation of attention seeking posts by individuals who have a single idea or point of view that they feel the need to repeat ad nauseam (like the OP of this thread). Perhaps this helps their mental health?i

John Connelly ● 2378d

I don't appreciate the conspiracy posts from MB  but..Shutting him down will only spur on more conspiracy theories about the 'shadow media' shutting down the truth.  Keep asking him and people like him to provide proof and keep reminding him of his 'dummy claims' which were far more shocking then his latest bout of theories. And remember this forum has a limited audience and whilst debate can be lively I hardly thing anyone in Chiswick has been swung by the 5G conspiracies and is preparing to torch a local mast.

Matthew Swain ● 2378d

The problem with that is that it's potentially the thin end of the wedge.  Next it's someone who is a bit less extreme in their views, then some a bit less extreme than that ......Take the whole 5G causing Covid 19 silliness.  All you have to do is point out that Iran doesn't have 5G, or one of the early clusters in England was in South Devon, where there is no 5G.If you ban the people espousing the silliness, where do you stop.  If someone says they are worried about the cumulative long term effect of all the phone radiation and WiFi, are you going to ban them?If I had said 10 years ago that diesel cars were evil and caused lots of air pollution, when the government was still pushing them as better than petrol cars, would I have been banned as a crank for spreading misinformation?You do have to allow people to express non-mainstream views.  When they are as obviously wrong as some of the views that have been expressed, it's very easy to refute them.

Al Webber ● 2378d

I don't see any problem with Michaels Postings, you don't have to read them.

Janice Evans ● 2378d

"Down Brown" - I'm having that as a username somewhere!

Carl Wynne ● 2377d

ah Julia you must love my posts to store them, how sweet of you.

James Smith-Jones ● 2377d

What an interesting life you must lead if MB posts bring you joy.

James Smith-Jones ● 2377d

Perhaps he is listening because he has been very quiet today, bliss

James Smith-Jones ● 2377d

Think he won 😳

Janice Evans ● 2377d

Or perhaps he's been out on the river on your "Coronaturd".

Roger Talbot ● 2377d

You perceive no problems in MB's contributions? This is worrying. Whatever his reasoning it does not have a basis in reality.

Jeffrey Cope ● 2376d

I wonder why so many people on here rise to Michael Brown's provocations.  I always want to post when this happens : DON'T REPLY but then I think I'd only be prolonging the thread.Don't feed the troll.

Micki Hawkes ● 2376d

Same Micki!

Kerry Chandler ● 2376d

JC: "You perceive no problems in MB's contributions? This is worrying. Whatever his reasoning it does not have a basis in reality."Agree entirely, Mr. Cope.For the problem with MB is not that he takes a contrary view on things, or even that those views bear no relation to reality.Rather it is that this forum should be a platform for debate and the exhange of views. A lot of the time we will come away from a discussion with our own views unchanged, even reinforced. But sometimes we will be persuaded to amend our opinions as a result of anothers reasoned and reasonable argument.None of which applies to Brown. Instead he takes every opportunity to broadcast his latest crackpot theory, whilst NEVER answering even the most straightfoward question or challenge from someone else. In other words, he's using the forum solely for his own ends, not for the good of the community which it exists to serve.So that when people ask "why shouldn't he be allowed to post?", they might turn the question around and ask themselves: "Why should he?"When they do, they'll realise that with his insulting, offensive and self-serving drive, he is contributing absolutely NOTHING to the forum (As for the danger of censorship, there is nothing to stop him setting up his own Blog/YouTube channel etc, where he can rant and rave to his heart's content.)

Richard Cathcart ● 2376d

It's like the universities - which should be bastions of free speech - trying to close down legitimate debate with their 'safe spaces' nonsense.  There are several people on here whose threads I don't read - one M Brown as if he believes what he writes (which I doubt) he is either on something or mad, and one or two others - including one Alan Clark whose posts I find appalling.  But I would not be in favour of banning anyone permanently unless they are breaking the law with their posts or the Forum rules (and even then, only temporarily - some great people have been banned from this site forever even tho' the admins say they don't do that for relatively minor transgressions given the other stuff that goes on here).  Free speech really does matter, it is up to all of us to decide what to believe.  More worrying to me is the ultra left wing tosh that youngsters at school are force-fed from their teachers who should not be trying to imprint their own political, religious or medical views that are not independent and backed up by fact on impressionable youngsters - I have read of appalling examples.  And I get very upset with religions of all varieties that promote cruelty to animals and prejudice against women, gay people and which is often clearly racist - somehow that is exempt from our laws which aim to protect animals and human rights and our right to believe what we want.  It is deeply worrying to listen to the mad witterings of the far right too, like Trump et al most of which don't break most laws,  but at least there is a counterpoint to these with most sane people putting forward a logical and powerful rebuttal - eg on climate change denial and the wisdom of pretending you know more about medicine than the medical profession.

Claire Moran ● 2376d

CM: "It's like the universities - which should be bastions of free speech - trying to close down legitimate debate with their 'safe spaces' nonsense."All of which is perfectly fine, except that Brown doesn't have the slightest interest in "legitimate debate".Rather he is using this forum solely in order to broadcast his own offensive, hurtful and dangerous propaganda.Which is why he always refuses point blank to answer even the most simple and reasonable of questions.

Richard Cathcart ● 2376d

Well, yes but even nutters are entitled to their views.  Look at Trump.  I don't think expressing views, unless they transgress the law, is a reason for a ban.

Claire Moran ● 2376d

I wonder why so many people on here rise to James Smith-Jones's provocations.  I always want to post when this happens : DON'T REPLY but then I think I'd only be prolonging the thread.Don't feed the troll.

Richard Greenhough ● 2376d

"More worrying to me is the ultra left wing tosh that youngsters at school are force-fed from their teachers who should not be trying to imprint their own political, religious or medical views that are not independent and backed up by fact on impressionable youngsters -"What absolute tripe - outrageous thing to say.

Vanessa Smith ● 2376d

No, it's not, Vanessa, sadly.

Claire Moran ● 2376d

After a very poorly formed OP we almost have a meaningful debate on the level and nature of censoring certain types of posts on this forum. I’m saddened that some contributions reverted to insulting individuals. There were some posts that considered the issue and the options meaningfully. This is a big issue. When should the tolerant stop tolerating the intolerant? At what point do forum admin step in when one contributor is promoting something offensive? Some of these choices are easy. Many less so. But this is an issue we should never ignore or side step. As I say, pity some contributions could not have been more considered.

Alan Clark ● 2376d

From what I have seen Michaels Posts cause concern to some that the information could be harming in some way, personally I think people are more sensible than that and no one is forced to read them.

Janice Evans ● 2376d

Sensible?    Are we talking about the same person?  I don't want him banned, but for goodness' sake.

Micki Hawkes ● 2376d

?

Janice Evans ● 2376d

I think someone must be feeling a bit silly right now , namely the OP.  So easy to not read the posts of someone you find annoying, and wrong,  in my book to petition to have them banned.

Maggie Dodge ● 2376d

Not feeling silly at all Magie, I am rather enjoying the forum without having to navigate through Mr Browns ill judged posts which had upset a few people who have lost friends or relatives, myself included. Let the debate continue and interesting to read so many interesting points which has changed my view and agree that the original post should have been approached differently, but I am only human.

James Smith-Jones ● 2376d

He's a figment of his own imagination, beaming 5G death rays from Area 51 Street, Chiswick W4

James Tickell ● 2376d

Interesting reply there James.  I think my back was put up when I read your post because I have been a member of this forum for a very long time .  I’ve been horrified by the bullying and ignorant behaviour that I’ve witnessed. The superior attitude of so so so many people that I felt to pick on one person when so many people are guilty of truly unacceptable behaviour hit a nerve.  I’ve walked away from this forum so many times and often wonder why I come back.

Maggie Dodge ● 2376d

I, on the whole have enjoyed the forum and will continue to engage and add my pennies worth and accept I may not be everyone's cup of tea. However, there is a small group, otherwise known as the Dullards, who think this forum belongs to them who go out of their way to provoke, but I can look after myself and will continue to stand up to them. Now, if Mr Brown was a good friend, i would have had a quiet word encouraging him to turn it down a notch in these very sensitive times, as the "stuff" he has been spouting was making some angry. As for the name calling, i am only playing them at their own game and will continue to show them as what they really are, a bunch of sad, bitter and twisted Dullards.

James Smith-Jones ● 2375d

Maggie,I am sorry if you felt i was singling Mr B but it had become quite apparent that people were getting frustrated with the constant barrage. I admit i may have approached it differently but i still think the moderator should have a quiet word or even better his"friends" and we can all go back to being nice to each other.

James Smith-Jones ● 2375d

James, you should all be nice anyhow, Michael is entitled to his view and you never know some might enjoy reading them.

Janice Evans ● 2375d

Looks like  business as usual then.And it took a "sad, bitter and twisted" article to launch a thread to get a man banned, no matter how much you disagree withhim6 minor

Roger Talbot ● 2375d

"instance someone posted on this forum that you had a tattoo of Enoch Powell on your backside."Doesn't Brown have a tattoo of Enoch Powell on his backside?

Steve Taylor ● 2375d

James, sadly this forum has a reputation and it’s not for being nice to each other, more often than not  I loved the times when people scoured the streets for lost dogs and helped each other.  I’ve been given good advice and help over the years ,but the name calling, dullards for instance, the attack on people for their lesser education, poor punctuation etc by those who think themselves so important never goes away sadly.

Maggie Dodge ● 2375d

Seconded.

Steven Trembath ● 2375d