rubber bullets

[hermeneutika]

I hate to spoil the festive and new year merriment....BUT.....I really do think it is about time our police were fully armed....and if not fully armed then at least they should be equipped with rubber bullet firing guns,taisers and water canons......
After all, the animals which have made it to our gentle shores are lawless savages who only understand one thing....extreme pain and violence. I think the days of "arnt our policemen wonderful" are fully over and the rule of law needs to be just that....the rule of law backed up by the full power of the State with lethal violence if need be

Ro 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

I had the privilege of being acquainted with a Englishman(remember them?) who had been a member of the French Foreign Legion. He had served all over the world including some time spent with European police. He told us that the European police forces dealt with the muslims better than the British police. The Euro muslims respected their police forces as they knew that the euro police were not to forgiving!

After the disgraceful disorder between eritreans and ethiopians in London i think the time has surely come for our police to be armed at least with rubber bullets and it is time for the law to be fully enforced, even on and especially towards the immigrant communities.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 31/12/2023 19:26, hermeneutika wrote:

> I hate to spoil the festive and new year merriment....BUT.....I really do think it is about time our police were fully armed....and if not fully armed then at least they should be equipped with rubber bullet firing guns,taisers and water canons......

I understand what you are saying, but I deplore the arming of our
police. It has, unfortunately, been made necessary by two things:

First, the way the government withdrew protection from the police by
abolishing the death penalty for those who attack or kill policemen.

Secondly, the way the police have lost public trust. By withdrawing
bobbies who walked the beat in their area and knew everyone on a first
name basis, by targetting the law-abiding majority with stupid penalties
just to raise money, by at the same time failing to fight crime. A few
major scandals haven't helped either.

When I first came to Britain, policing by consent was the mantra. Now it
is policing by enforcement.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Timreason]

On 31/12/2023 19:26, hermeneutika wrote:

> I hate to spoil the festive and new year merriment....BUT.....I really do think it is about time our police were fully armed....and if not fully armed then at least they should be equipped with rubber bullet firing guns,taisers and water canons......

Our police often are armed, when it is deemed necessary. But we don't
want to go the way of the USA, where the answer to violence is ever more
guns.

So the system we have now is probably about right.

Tim.

[Robert Marshall]

On Sun, Dec 31 2023, hermeneutika <hermen...@msn.com> wrote:

> I hate to spoil the festive and new year merriment....BUT.....I really
> do think it is about time our police were fully armed....and if not
> fully armed then at least they should be equipped with rubber bullet
> firing guns,taisers and water canons......

That's cannons rather than cathedral clergy wanting to do lots of
baptisms

> After all, the animals which have made it to our gentle shores are
> lawless savages who only understand one thing....extreme pain and
> violence. I think the days of "arnt our policemen wonderful" are fully
> over and the rule of law needs to be just that....the rule of law
> backed up by the full power of the State with lethal violence if need
> be

Ah yes keep the darkies (or at least off-whites) under control.
I think you should remember the right wing thugs responsible for
violence in London on 10th November

I just shudder to think what you're reading that causes you to think
like this. I suggest to try quoting what you say to the Ukrainian refugees
in this area (and obviously far more different origins than this).

Robert
--
I do not want a God whose love is less generous than my own pale
imitations of it. Sara Maitland
Robert Marshall he/him twiX:@rajm https://mastodon.world/@rajm

[John]

Robert Marshall wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31 2023, hermeneutika <hermen...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> I hate to spoil the festive and new year merriment....BUT.....I really
>> do think it is about time our police were fully armed....and if not
>> fully armed then at least they should be equipped with rubber bullet
>> firing guns,taisers and water canons......
>
> That's cannons rather than cathedral clergy wanting to do lots of
> baptisms
>
>> After all, the animals which have made it to our gentle shores are
>> lawless savages who only understand one thing....extreme pain and
>> violence. I think the days of "arnt our policemen wonderful" are fully
>> over and the rule of law needs to be just that....the rule of law
>> backed up by the full power of the State with lethal violence if need
>> be
>
> Ah yes keep the darkies (or at least off-whites) under control.

It would certainly seem so.

> I think you should remember the right wing thugs responsible for
> violence in London on 10th November

Absolutely, shoot 'em dead with lethal violence!

> I just shudder to think what you're reading that causes you to think
> like this. I suggest to try quoting what you say to the Ukrainian refugees
> in this area (and obviously far more different origins than this).

I'm surprised the post was approved at all, as it was highly inflammatory

But Ukrainians are ok as they aren't Muslims, which was the general
thrust of Michael's attack.

[John]

hermeneutika wrote:


> After all, the animals which have made it to our gentle shores are lawless savages who only understand one thing....extreme pain and violence. I think the days of "arnt our policemen wonderful" are fully over and the rule of law needs to be just that....the rule of law backed up by the full power of the State with lethal violence if need be

Could I ask why this post was approved? It is highly inflammatory. I'm
sure that if Michael had tried harder he could have made his point
without the tirade above.

[hermeneutika]

But surely the lawlessness that was reported about the violent conflagration between the eritreans and ethiopians , and the attacks on the police are disgraceful? This kind of lawless behavious ought not to be tolerated. If a bunch of right wingers commit violence they should be stopped too....but then so should lawlessness be stopped in immigrant communities too.....

[Muhammad]

Herm' ALL lawlessness should be stopped.

The point that others are highlighting is, you don't seem to come 'out
all guns blazing' when 'white nationalist' right wing, far right racist
thugs abuse police officers, plan terror attacks… I don't know, perhaps
like other racist apologists, you kinda' like what they do, because you
believe they're fighting the right fight…

But, when you hear of coloured people committing crimes, you're: 'time
to get guns out boys, only one way deal with these animals'.

There's a word in the English language that described that sort of
attitude.

I know you have your troubles. The attitude you put forth in this thread
(IMO) is in part a cause of those troubles.

--

Imagine being stuck in the middle of nowhere, alone, and miraculously
you survive three months. If at the beginning of fourth month the people
that came to save you were 'black', would you rather shoot yourself or
be happy, give one of them a hug in joy, that they came to rescue you.

[Muhammad]

On 01/01/2024 10:09, Robert Marshall wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31 2023, hermeneutika <hermen...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> After all, the animals which have made it to our gentle shores are
>> lawless savages who only understand one thing....extreme pain and
>> violence. I think the days of "arnt our policemen wonderful" are fully
>> over and the rule of law needs to be just that....the rule of law
>> backed up by the full power of the State with lethal violence if need
>> be
>
> Ah yes keep the darkies (or at least off-whites) under control.
> I think you should remember the right wing thugs responsible for
> violence in London on 10th November
>

Ah Obi-Wan, you must not let the dark side overcome you.

> I just shudder to think what you're reading that causes you to think
> like this. I suggest to try quoting what you say to the Ukrainian refugees
> in this area (and obviously far more different origins than this).
>

I guess, things like Daily Mail, GB News... Perhaps he's on some social
media group where things are shown as he wants them to be...

I'm also kinda split 48 or 52 (%), to say Herm' possibly believes that
the 'White' race is in danger of becoming a minority. In actual fact,
the argument is insane, but, it feeds into a certain narrative with the
conclusion being, that everyone other than...must go, be shown their
place, or go.

This is at times added with, an argument that the most gullible will
follow - in addition, Christianity too is at threat by foreigners.
Perhaps they think Jesus was born a stone's throw away from the M25.

---

In part, this is to do with, how things used to be. Looking at things
with a certain lens. An example - I did a property survey in an area
that is now mixed (albeit still mainly 'White' populated). About 50-60
years ago that area was wholly 'White' with very few coloured people.

I don't discuss personal opinions at work, unless it is absolutely
necessary. The then homeowner, an elderly 'White' gentlemen, arrived at
the appointment (he didn't have to), talked about how amazing the area
was back in the day (I made nothing of it)... Honestly, that area was a
s*it-*ole back in the day, a run-down part of the UK, which lacked
investment, opportunities...

Over the years, that area has significantly improved, but so had the
number of coloured people increase over time.

A number of days later, when I got back to the office, a complaint had
been received, a report against me, by that homeowner. Claiming that I
was rude, abusive... I guess the homeowner thought he'd perhaps get me
fired (or put in my place). If I hadn't already sent out the report, I
would've made the office staff refund his money and politely tell him to
find someone else.

But, in his deluded mind, I was part of the problem, as were the 'black'
people, and now due to recent events the 'yellow' people.

[Muhammad]

On 31/12/2023 19:26, hermeneutika wrote:

> I hate to spoil the festive and new year merriment....BUT.....I really do think it is about time our police were fully armed....and if not fully armed then at least they should be equipped with rubber bullet firing guns,taisers and water canons......

Why not fairy dust.

Cus' guns don't kill people right.

> After all, the animals

What animals. Do clarify.

Sometimes, I think, your posts get approved, because you spout out the
racist nonsense Ken won't.

> which have made it to our gentle

Exactly how gentle are they.

> shores are lawless savages who only understand one thing....extreme pain and violence.

Ever been on a night-out, ever been to a football match. If 'British'
folk are so peaceful and law-abiding, what need is there for all the
additional police presence (over or covert).

> I think the days of "arnt our policemen wonderful" are fully over and the rule of law needs to be just that....the rule of law backed up by the full power of the State with lethal violence if need be
>
> Ro 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
>

White supremacist, far right extreme groups presented the highest growth
of threat levels to the UK in recent years. The media has highlighted
this issue. Yet, I haven't seen you ask for brute force against them,
why not?


And, the evil that you spout, what of that. Perhaps you don't know the
difference between good and evil. I wonder, in this wonderful world of
yours would Jesus be allowed in the UK.

> I had the privilege of being acquainted with a Englishman(remember them?)

A man with a woman's genitalia?

Be clear - or it is it, someone with good old-fashioned racist values.

> who had been a member of the French Foreign Legion. He had served all over the world including some time spent with European police.

Oh, that sort.

People who think they should be able to travel, but others should be
restricted.

> He told us that the European police forces dealt with the muslims better than the British police. The Euro muslims respected their police forces as they knew that the euro police were not to forgiving!
>

What if the police, with the use of the weapons you recommend, aim at
the 'good guys' like the ones 'protecting' the Cenotaph. What then,
who's going to police the police.

[John]

Absolutely, and I'm not defending the attacks against the Police that
took place. However it was a local confrontation between a group of
Ethiopians and Eritreans which got out of hand. I don't know whether
these two groups were immigrants here illegally* or settled immigrants
but this led to a rant from you using inflammatory language against all
immigrants here illegally.

Using words like animals and lawless savages and demanding the Police
gun use violence doesn't imo help in any way and you then went to
associate those here illegally as Muslims. Whilst I'm sure a majority
are (and remember 70% of them are allowed to stay when processed so are
considered to be genuine asylum seekers) not all will be.

And was the confrontation and attacks against the Police tolerated? Of
course it wasn't, and the Police dealt with the situation as they are
trained to do.


*Only here illegally because there are no safe routes to get here.

[Muhammad]

People like him believe 'multiculturalism' has failed. And, what
emboldens their stupid belief is the 'good immigrants' like one of our
previous home secretary. Part of the reason she made it as far as she
did, was that she's a closet Islamophobe, but what does that matter to
the deluded, she was good enough to serve a purpose.

A 'brown' Buddhist woman (married to a Jew), that had made it to one of
the highest posts of the UK government, stands in front of the MSM and
says 'multiculturalism' has failed. She said that, in a period when the
PM was(/is) a 'brown' Hindu man, and the PM of Scotland was(/is) a
'brown' Muslim man.

I mean, what's not to believe.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/01/2024 19:02, Muhammad wrote:

> A number of days later, when I got back to the office, a complaint had
> been received, a report against me, by that homeowner. Claiming that I
> was rude, abusive...

I trust the complaint was treated with the scorn it deserved.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/01/2024 13:25, John wrote:

> But Ukrainians are ok as they aren't Muslims, which was the general
> thrust of Michael's attack.

And, I believe, they are legal immigrants whereas it is the illegal ones
that are the target for hemeneutika's ire.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/01/2024 13:25, John wrote:

> Could I ask why this post was approved?  It is highly inflammatory.

But no more so than some of the things that have been posted by approved
posters.

> I'm
> sure that if Michael had tried harder he could have made his point
> without the tirade above.

I quite agree with you.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/01/2024 16:04, hermeneutika wrote:

> But surely the lawlessness that was reported about the violent conflagration between the eritreans and ethiopians , and the attacks on the police are disgraceful?

Of course it was, but attacks on the police are, unfortunately, common.
If it's not eritreans it is supporters of one football club or another,
or a bunch of drug sellers in south London, or ...

I trust you feel as robustly about football supporters as you do about
illegal immigrants who attack the police?

[Muhammad]

On 01/01/2024 20:23, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 01/01/2024 19:02, Muhammad wrote:
>
>> A number of days later, when I got back to the office, a complaint had
>> been received, a report against me, by that homeowner. Claiming that I
>> was rude, abusive...
>
> I trust the complaint was treated with the scorn it deserved.
>

Indeed.

When I worked with that organisation, the trust level was that I could,
if I wanted to, get people fired.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 01/01/2024 13:25, John wrote:
>
>> Could I ask why this post was approved?  It is highly inflammatory.
>
> But no more so than some of the things that have been posted by approved
> posters.

Indeed, and I confess to being a guilty party recently, although I think
the irony of the comment went over your head.

The words odious and idiot were both words you used to describe
identifiable living people previously, and in my post I deliberately
used these words to describe you. Personally speaking, I think I should
have been sanctioned for it, but it was a test to see your reaction.

For clarity I don't actually think you are an odious idiot.

A more recent infraction by another poster also went uncommented which
confirmed my suspicion that the ng is no longer moderated in respect of
charter breaches. Maybe that's a good thing I don't know.

I did think this one was worse but you are the arbiter, so I shall
respect your decision.

[Robert Marshall]

On Mon, Jan 01 2024, "Kendall K. Down" <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 01/01/2024 13:25, John wrote:
>
>> But Ukrainians are ok as they aren't Muslims, which was the general
>> thrust of Michael's attack.
>
> And, I believe, they are legal immigrants whereas it is the illegal
> ones that are the target for hemeneutika's ire.

Scans Michael's post looking for a mention of illegal immigrants and
fails to find one!

Your mind reading skills are obviously better than mine

[John]

Robert Marshall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 01 2024, "Kendall K. Down" <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/01/2024 13:25, John wrote:
>>
>>> But Ukrainians are ok as they aren't Muslims, which was the general
>>> thrust of Michael's attack.
>>
>> And, I believe, they are legal immigrants whereas it is the illegal
>> ones that are the target for hemeneutika's ire.
>
> Scans Michael's post looking for a mention of illegal immigrants and
> fails to find one!

Think I made the same mistake, but I do think it was directed at the
people arriving by boats over the English channel. However that is only
an assumption.

[Timreason]

On 01/01/2024 16:04, hermeneutika wrote:

>

> But surely the lawlessness that was reported about the violent conflagration between the eritreans and ethiopians , and the attacks on the police are disgraceful? This kind of lawless behavious ought not to be tolerated. If a bunch of right wingers commit violence they should be stopped too....but then so should lawlessness be stopped in immigrant communities too.....
>

As others have pointed out, you seem to have a bias about how breeches
of law and order should be handled, depending on who the perpetrators are.

IMHO the worst threat, not just in the UK but world-wide, comes from the
'Hard Right' extremists. Not from a few illegal immigrants. Yet you seem
reticent on the matter of hard-right violent offenders.

It also remains my opinion that the answer is not to be found in arming
more of our police. They already do a better job than many other police
forces in other parts of the world.

Tim.

[Robert Marshall]

I wasn't aware of the story until Michael's post but I've now not seen
anything in any of the stories about it (even in a ukip piece)
suggesting that they entered the country illegally.

Ethiopians are mainly christian, eritreans muslim not sure how much the
1998-2000 war has religion as a base.

[John]

On 02/01/2024 09:45, Robert Marshall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 01 2024, John <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert Marshall wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 01 2024, "Kendall K. Down" <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/01/2024 13:25, John wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But Ukrainians are ok as they aren't Muslims, which was the general
>>>>> thrust of Michael's attack.
>>>>
>>>> And, I believe, they are legal immigrants whereas it is the illegal
>>>> ones that are the target for hemeneutika's ire.
>>> Scans Michael's post looking for a mention of illegal immigrants and
>>> fails to find one!
>>
>>
>> Think I made the same mistake, but I do think it was directed at the
>> people arriving by boats over the English channel. However that is
>> only an assumption.
>>
>
> I wasn't aware of the story until Michael's post but I've now not seen
> anything in any of the stories about it (even in a ukip piece)
> suggesting that they entered the country illegally.

Nor I, but I think Michael believed they were, and I based my later
comment in Michael's post on that assumption, as ken has above.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/01/2024 08:38, Timreason wrote:

> IMHO the worst threat, not just in the UK but world-wide, comes from the
> 'Hard Right' extremists. Not from a few illegal immigrants. Yet you seem
> reticent on the matter of hard-right violent offenders.

I agree that the hard right are a threat and should be dealt with, but I
think it is a bit of an exaggeration to claim that they are "the worst
threat". How many bombs on the Underground can be attributed to the far
right?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/01/2024 21:07, John wrote:

> The words odious and idiot were both words you used to describe
> identifiable living people previously, and in my post I deliberately
> used these words to describe you.  Personally speaking, I think I should
> have been sanctioned for it, but it was a test to see your reaction.

Nah. I've got pretty broad shoulders.

> For clarity I don't actually think you are an odious idiot.

Most kind of you.

> A more recent infraction by another poster also went uncommented which
> confirmed my suspicion that the ng is no longer moderated in respect of
> charter breaches.  Maybe that's a good thing I don't know.

Perhaps my definition of a charter breach is broader than yours?

> I did think this one was worse but you are the arbiter, so I shall
> respect your decision.

Mark is the ultimate arbiter. I felt that hermeneutika's comments did
not relate to identifiable individuals, merely to a group.

[John]

On 02/01/2024 16:28, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 01/01/2024 21:07, John wrote:


>> A more recent infraction by another poster also went uncommented which
>> confirmed my suspicion that the ng is no longer moderated in respect
>> of charter breaches.  Maybe that's a good thing I don't know.
>
> Perhaps my definition of a charter breach is broader than yours?

Undoubtedly so, but the comment (which I hasten to add I did agree with)
would have definitely have been sanctioned previously. I shall bear in
mind that is no longer the case.

>> I did think this one was worse but you are the arbiter, so I shall
>> respect your decision.
>
> Mark is the ultimate arbiter. I felt that hermeneutika's comments did
> not relate to identifiable individuals, merely to a group.

Both inflammatory comments and attacks on groups have been sanctioned in
the past. Indeed, it was when Gareth was sanctioned for attacking a
group that he reigned as one of the mods, as a/ it came as a shock that
he was sanctioned and b/ he didn't agree with the decision.

But time moves on and things change, thank you for clarifying your
position. The group on the whole runs smoothly.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/01/2024 17:50, John wrote:

> Undoubtedly so, but the comment (which I hasten to add I did agree with)
> would have definitely have been sanctioned previously.  I shall bear in
> mind that is no longer the case.

Remember that Mark is the ultimate moderator and any decision I make or
policy I follow can be overruled by him.

> Both inflammatory comments and attacks on groups have been sanctioned in
> the past.  Indeed, it was when Gareth was sanctioned for attacking a
> group that he reigned as one of the mods, as a/ it came as a shock that
> he was sanctioned and b/ he didn't agree with the decision.

I still think it a shame that the other assistant mods had such thin skins.

> But time moves on and things change, thank you for clarifying your
> position. The group on the whole runs smoothly.

I should point out, however, that although I have broad shoulders and a
thick skin, some of the comments made about me would certainly be
sanctioned if they were made to or about another person.

[hermeneutika]

On Mon Jan 1 19:32:08 2024 Muhammad wrote:
> On 31/12/2023 19:26, hermeneutika wrote:
> > I hate to spoil the festive and new year merriment....BUT.....I really do think it is about time our police were fully armed....and if not fully armed then at least they should be equipped with rubber bullet firing guns,taisers and water canons......
>
> Why not fairy dust.

I dont beleive in fairy dust

>
> Cus' guns don't kill people right.

Dont know where you went to school but a weapon operated by a human being can kill

>
> > After all, the animals
>
> What animals. Do clarify.

People who have no respect for the rule of law.

>
> Sometimes, I think, your posts get approved, because you spout out the
> racist nonsense Ken won't.

I talked about two groups of people who attacked the police. Where is the "racism" in that?

>
> > which have made it to our gentle
>
> Exactly how gentle are they.
>
> > shores are lawless savages who only understand one thing....extreme pain and violence.
>
> Ever been on a night-out, ever been to a football match. If 'British'
> folk are so peaceful and law-abiding, what need is there for all the
> additional police presence (over or covert).

Again you avoid the point. The issue is not British football fans but two ethnic groups who attacked the police

>
>
> > I think the days of "arnt our policemen wonderful" are fully over and the rule of law needs to be just that....the rule of law backed up by the full power of the State with lethal violence if need be
> >
> > Ro 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
> >
>
> White supremacist, far right extreme groups presented the highest growth
> of threat levels to the UK in recent years. The media has highlighted
> this issue. Yet, I haven't seen you ask for brute force against them,
> why not?
>
>

Because i do not beleive your proposition.Islam is the biggest cause of violence. A difference of opinion over the facts.

> And, the evil that you spout, what of that. Perhaps you don't know the
> difference between good and evil. I wonder, in this wonderful world of
> yours would Jesus be allowed in the UK.
>
>

Again irrelevant. You blame everyone else except yourself.

> > I had the privilege of being acquainted with a Englishman(remember them?)
>
> A man with a woman's genitalia?

Interesting comment.

>
> Be clear - or it is it, someone with good old-fashioned racist values.

What is a racist?? according to one dictionary
characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
>

According to this definition i can find no evidence of racism. But the central theme of my post was about the lawlessness against British police.....

>
> > who had been a member of the French Foreign Legion. He had served all over the world including some time spent with European police.
>
>
> Oh, that sort.
>
> People who think they should be able to travel, but others should be
> restricted.

Irrelvant.

>
> > He told us that the European police forces dealt with the muslims better than the British police. The Euro muslims respected their police forces as they knew that the euro police were not to forgiving!
> >
>
> What if the police, with the use of the weapons you recommend, aim at
> the 'good guys' like the ones 'protecting' the Cenotaph. What then,
> who's going to police the police.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Do you accept the concept of the rule of law?

[John]

On 03/01/2024 09:56, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 02/01/2024 17:50, John wrote:


>> Both inflammatory comments and attacks on groups have been sanctioned
>> in the past.  Indeed, it was when Gareth was sanctioned for attacking
>> a group that he reigned as one of the mods, as a/ it came as a shock
>> that he was sanctioned and b/ he didn't agree with the decision.
>
> I still think it a shame that the other assistant mods had such thin skins.

That's unfair Ken, Gareth resigned on principle because he felt strongly
that a sanction for personal abuse to a group was something new, and had
previously gone unchecked. You said yourself that personal abuse of a
group wasn't sanctionable.

>> But time moves on and things change, thank you for clarifying your
>> position. The group on the whole runs smoothly.
>
> I should point out, however, that although I have broad shoulders and a
> thick skin, some of the comments made about me would certainly be
> sanctioned if they were made to or about another person.

That's strange, as you let a recent one go. I can only recall two
occasions where I have used personal abuse towards you that should have
received a sanction, and i can't recall anyone else doing so, as I would
definitely have picked that up.

However imo, I do think you should sanction someone anyway if you would
do it if it was aimed at someone else.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/01/2024 21:48, John wrote:

> That's unfair Ken, Gareth resigned on principle because he felt strongly
> that a sanction for personal abuse to a group was something new, and had
> previously gone unchecked.  You said yourself that personal abuse of a
> group wasn't sanctionable.

At this remove in time I can't remember what he was sanctioned for. I
just recall thinking that he was being a bit over-sensitive.

> However imo, I do think you should sanction someone anyway if you would
> do it if it was aimed at someone else.

I would feel uncomfortable using my powers as assistant moderator to
defend myself.