Shetland Independent Newsletter

[peeriebryan]

I don't do blame, or criticism - that's my choice.

There's plenty of blame and criticism metered out in the newsletter

[stuarthill]

re: the muckle poll

 

There are inherent weakness of 'pull' survey methodologies etc.

 

 

Absolutely right. Although I have instigated this thing, because I thought it could make a worthwhile contribution, I welcome any input to make it more valid and valued. If anyone is interested, I would like to gather a group to refine the idea and make it work on behalf of Shetland. PM me if you are interested.

BTW the councillors I approached generally expressed the view that it would be a valuable tool. This was typical: "Any means of conveying the views and opinions of the electorate to the Council will be of value."

The idea of an SIC fully backed by the electorate on matters of importance to them seems to me to be something worth pursuing with vigour.

[stuarthill]

I don't do blame, or criticism - that's my choice.

There's plenty of blame and criticism metered out in the newsletter

I don't think you can be reading the same one I am.

[Roachmill]

I don't do blame, or criticism - that's my choice.

How's about taking responsibility for publishing one sided anti gay / lesbian BS?

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Quote:

I can only assume Stuart that you have never suffered at the hands of others

-----------------------------------------------

Have you not been following this thread?

I know of many people who would not be able to stand the abuse and ill feeling that has been directed my way

 

Every user on this forum knows that if you spout ill thought nonsense then you run the risk of being called out on it, this is not to spread suffering and abuse but a reflection of peoples thoughts on how they feel about it. If you dont like the game, why run out on the field.

I think what Righter meant by suffering at the hands of others is in reference to persecution on a slightly higher and more personal level than getting a few pelters for putting together a poor quality attempt at what appears to be some self glorification venture. I heard that quote that it was made to look unprofessional so as to not scare people away, how more condesending to the people of Shetland can you be, what can we expect from issue 2, perhaps some sheeps wool taped to the cover so were familiar with the smell and take it to our coffee tables.

And besides the godawful perpetual spam and lame content will be the ones doing the most "scaring".

http://www.shetlandtoday.co.uk/Shetlandtimes/content_details.asp?ContentID=22246

[JustMe]

I don't do blame, or criticism - that's my choice.

How's about taking responsibility for publishing one sided anti gay / lesbian BS?

What is so wrong with a feature entitled "soapbox" publishing one man's view?. Nelson Smith has a view about adoption by same sex couples which he is entitled to and he is entitled to make his view known by any legal means such as letters pages, radio phone ins or indeed by writing in "soapbox".

 

As it happens I do not agree with his views although I can understand his concerns. Perhaps if Shetlink has a gay couple who would like to adopt then they might just see if Mr. Hill will allow them access to the soapbox in a future edition.

[Njugle]

A very balanced approach JustMe.

 

I too disagree with the opinions of Mr Smith, but the fact is clearly apparent that despite the outrage of the liberal modern commentators, the view he expresses - that gay couples should be forbidden from adopting - concurs with that of the Anglican and Catholic churches and, interestingly, 48% of the American population, according to poll statistics. That's an awful lot of erroneous opinions and a fairly weighty cause for public declaration, right or wrong. Hence, to disallow the soapboxing of such numbers of people would be more than difficult and less than wise, perhaps.

[islandhopper]

50 : 50, Njugle and Just Me ...

 

To me it is no question at all that Mr Nelson has an unique right for his opinion.

 

It is backed by internationally agreed human right standrads that he also has the right to publish his opinion.

 

To me it is a minor question how Mr Nelson personally and as the author did express his feelings.

 

To me it is simply a prob of one unexperienced publisher who - implicitly - claims that he acted like a responsible editor should act. Mr Hill simply failed to do what would have been his job as an editor the more than there are obvious "historical faults" within that comment:

 

He simply puts the whole thing under his personal opinion about what "freedom of speech" might be. He had not in his mind that others might be hurt in their feelings and attitude to the same matter, nor does he have any idea about the legal implications of his doing. It is Mr Hill who acted like a lay and not like a professional should do.

 

It's far from censorship, but I'm sure that there would be [mod edits] or [mod comments] ... it is as stated by someone else before "clearly, weel, speechless renderin NS article (dir is a distinct line atween freedom o speech and irresponsibility ..." and professional editors of the Scotsman, The Herald etc. would have reacted in a different way, not simply stating that it goes under the headline "The Soapbox" where a lot but not everything might be allowed.

 

Gosh, as a German I'm still bored by that bloody wrong Hitler quote only to justify a private position in a case that should have been treated more seriously, but I hope you will understand what I mean despite all misspellings etc ...

[Roachmill]

I don't do blame, or criticism - that's my choice.

How's about taking responsibility for publishing one sided anti gay / lesbian BS?

What is so wrong with a feature entitled "soapbox" publishing one man's view?. Nelson Smith has a view about adoption by same sex couples which he is entitled to and he is entitled to make his view known by any legal means such as letters pages, radio phone ins or indeed by writing in "soapbox".

Point taken JustMe. Freedom of speech is indeed a wonderful thing - even if you don't agree with what's being said. However, IMO it was irresponsible (and many other things besides) to print such an opinionated and inflammatory piece given that it's only a free monthly newsletter targeted at a whole community.

As it happens I do not agree with his views although I can understand his concerns. Perhaps if Shetlink has a gay couple who would like to adopt then they might just see if Mr. Hill will allow them access to the soapbox in a future edition.

I don't think a monthly newsletter is a good place for debate.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Njugle wrote:

that gay couples should be forbidden from adopting - concurs with that of the Anglican and Catholic churches and, interestingly, 48% of the American population,

 

Yup but then again 60% of Americans dont believe in evolution and all church goers are undergoing a permanant delusional state which does not operate within common causality rules. So neither of these sources are very reliable in an objective or rational debate.

 

I think the biblical view in leviticus is that such practices are an abomination and perperators are to be stoned to death, and I'm not even sure if that would be legal.

[Guest Anonymous]

Good on you Captain Calamity , im a 3/4 thourogh bred bred shelty ( please excuse spellin as im pissed at the moment ) and i have met you once and think doos a fine fellow , im no caring whar anybody comes fae , at da end o da day we likly aa cam fae somwhar else originally ( not the former night club....) whit im sayin is any body dat is willin ta byd here be the mad , unhinged or even happy dan der welcome tae it.

Personally im usually at me maest relaxed when there is no land in sight as there is less problems that way , ahhh the ocean , she is my mistress and begs forgiveness , my one true love............

[Guest Anonymous]

Personally i agree that poofters shouldna be bringing up bairns , lesbians wid probably be aright especially once you got to the age of fifteen or so and then you could join in ?

[sludgegulper]

^^^ Always one isn't there ^^^

[KOYAANISQATSI]

I would if anything be concerned on the effects on the child in the social context in the sense of if they had to grow up next door to the likes of droilker and his kids who would no doubt grow up with the same bigotry and bullying attitude.

If it's the pedo factor your getting at I dont know the percentages that are gay, the ones that mainly make the news seem to be happily married, take our own (** mod edit - name removed **); happily married while happily abusing every kid who walked to close to his shed. He's been out a while now and back at a new address in Lerwick also surrounded by kids again, everybody seems happy with the presumption that he is now cured.

I dont imagine that the main reason most people want to adopt kids is so they have an extra body to throw in on their sex lives and if that's how droilkers parents brought him up to see things I would be a lot less happy about a kid even coming into contact with such an extreme keep it in the family attitude. Mothers day must be a very lively event in your house.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

The name you mod edited out of my reply was a convicted child molester, while I praise your need to protect the innocent, giving out the name of a known pedo who was named in the times as such could only have helped other parents who did not know they may be living next door to such a beast.

 

you and any other of the befriend a pedo bunch can dwell on this after he's been in the paper again for abusing children when the unknowing parents living next door thought he was such a polite and reasonable chap.