Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: gel Jun 1 2015, 11:25 AM

Cheapest Fares mist at Newbury station:


On C4 tonight @ 8pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3105625/First-Great-Western-trainer-told-staff-NOT-offer-cheapest-tickets.html

Posted by: GMR Jun 2 2015, 04:01 PM

I watched the programme last night, but to be honest there was nothing new there. Most companies - if not all - tell their customers one thing, and their staff another. Remember; their priority is to make money and the customer is only secondary.

As for seats and customer comfort; that will come no day soon.

People pay a fortune for season tickets and for that they are crammed in like sardines/ cattle, and on the whole they seem to take it with a smile. Like the poll tax we - the public - could do something about it, but we are too timid and mild and rather just bow and smile. We've only got ourselves to blame at the end of the day! Companies like British Rail know this and are happy to push the limits with hardly any comeback.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 2 2015, 07:30 PM

My biggest gripe is with whoever is responsible for the endless signal failures that cause train delays. I'd also like an easy to use phone app that allows you to keep track of trains and their expected arrival. I know there are plenty already, but they are all crap and are designed around buying tickets.

Being told every two minutes that the next train is going to be late because of signal failure can make you want to go and smash his microphone up!

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 3 2015, 07:29 AM

Have you tried realtimetrains.co.uk?

By the way, on there you can all see the public timetable and the working timetable.
The WTT bas existed almost since the start of the railways.
Nothing new, and done for operational reasons and NOT to deceive the travelling public.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 3 2015, 07:38 AM

There are moves to reduce crowding on the railway but, as a railway hating nation, these are usually thwarted.
I saw a good cartoon a short while ago that I can't find now, but it went along the lines of a couple getting off a crowded train and complaining saying "This is terrible. Something should be done about this."..............
They were carrying "NO TO HS2" banners!!

(British Rail GMR??)

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 3 2015, 08:29 AM

The merits of HS2 are debatable, but most people resent paying peak price to stand on a train with not enough carriages. Having a ~£50bn train service from the Midlands/North to London is not seen by everyone as the most prudent investment for the country as a whole.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 3 2015, 11:05 AM

Thanks for that. At first glance, that is what I have been wishing for. I don't mind the 2 or 3 quid for the phone app either!

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 3 2015, 11:36 AM

HS2 is just an example of how improvements can be made to ease congestion the rail system.
If we are going to accommodate the ever increasing number of people who want to travel by rail within our ever increasing population then money has to be spent and lines built.
You simply cannot cope with that sort of demand on the existing network which was pruned beyond recognition without a thought for the future in the 1960's.
Longer, faster, more frequent trains may help, but are not a long-term solution.

Posted by: GMR Jun 3 2015, 03:46 PM

"British Rail" is short hand for other rail providers

Posted by: On the edge Jun 3 2015, 05:34 PM

Why is anyone surprised. The supermarkets have been getting away with all sorts of similar techniques for years; yet few ever complain.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 3 2015, 07:51 PM

But it is a vast amount money for a limited section of the country. That is the point. I have also seen that the benefits of HS2 may not be as great as promoted.

And how is it that longer faster more frequent trains is not the answer?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 3 2015, 09:06 PM

'Longer trains' may be a point. Many of the steam trips have 12 or more coaches, modern trains far fewer. So why can't more carriages be added?

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 4 2015, 06:02 AM

Because there is a physical limit on a said piece of track that you can have such.
As I said, they will help but new track is the only long-term solution.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 4 2015, 06:34 AM

The steam excursions you refer to run with coaches that were built in the 50's / 60's to serve a time when trains were run with locomotives and separate coaches.
Now we have trains that are fixed formation or "units" to which the easy addition of coaches is not possible.
Fixed formation trains are more efficient to run but are not anything like as flexible as a locomotive and coaches.
In order for additional coaches to be added to fixed formation trains you have to build new ones of the same type, (as is currently being done with the West Coast Pendolinos).
Other TOC's run fixed formation trains that are much older for which the manufacture of extra coaches would not be practicable or cost effective. You have to wait for new trains to be built in order to increase capacity. This is being done with new electric, or bi-modal, trains for the Great Western route.
All this is controlled by the DFT. The TOC's do not own the trains they run.
This is one of the major problems the railways face, an over simplification and misunderstanding of the complexities of their operation by the general public fed by programmes such as the one highlighted by the OP and the media such as the accompanying article in this paper.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 4 2015, 06:37 AM

Try http://www.bringbackbritishrail.org/ site GMR!!

Posted by: On the edge Jun 4 2015, 06:47 AM

You aren't wrong Biker1!

Actually, it is a great shame the media don't do rather more to promote understanding and knowledge, not only about our railways, but also many of our other service provisions. Who knows, that might even inhibit the meddling politicians and their pseudo advisors who get us into these messes - because 'they know better'. Such programming does not need to be uninteresting, boring or soviet style hectoring. Looking back, the Post Office film unit fostered a great deal of respect for the Post Office and even the then private railways with classics like 'the Night Mail'. Again, the media just like our politicians treat us like unthinking morons! Bring on the dancing dogs!!

Posted by: GMR Jun 4 2015, 03:11 PM

I didn't say I wanted to bring back British Rail, I don't. But using the name was just a short cut - or a lazy way of not saying First Great Western. Luckily for me there are a few - contrary to popular belief - intelligent members on here that can work out what my short cut meant

Posted by: gel Jun 4 2015, 04:29 PM

Interesting BBC4 prog I came across last night on BR.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b053pxdr/timeshift-series-14-5-the-nations-railway-the-golden-age-of-british-rail

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 4 2015, 06:46 PM

If paying quite a lot of money to stand up for an hour or so while bumping into people around you is over-simplification, then yes that is true.

I'm glad I wasn't using the bloody things today.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/14720/Delays-and-fewer-trains-running-between.html

Just a slight adjustment to their text: "Passengers travelling between the two stations were originally being warned to expect even more delays, the usual revised services and even fewer trains than normal until 5pm today (Thurs)."

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 5 2015, 08:05 AM

You crack me up GMR!
BR does not exist any more and to use the term is incorrect and misleading.
Or is my lack of intelligence telling me something wrong there?

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 5 2015, 08:07 AM

There were NO major disruptions to train services between Newbury and London yesterday no trains were cancelled.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 5 2015, 08:14 AM

Thanks for sharing that Gel; a fascinating social history. Sadly, much the same could be written about the nations whole commercial endevour post war. Yes, we've always had the moaners and groaners, but that's just a British thing. At least then, we did have the organisations and firms fighting back and fighting forward. Not just seeing how much money they could extract for the minimum effort. Sure, the trades unions, or at least the usual gobs, did enormous damage, but then again where was British management? Aaah I remember, the dinner gong sounded and they were already near the trough. We ended the last war with an attitude of what can I do rather than what can I grab. Sadly, we worship the god of gold today, and until that changes, no hope. So then, who killed British Rail? We did.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 5 2015, 08:31 AM

Quite right OTE. What you are saying is that a good number of the people who travel on and complain about the privatised railway voted for the government that did the killing?

( I am enjoying this............makes a change from the endless council orientated threads )
(Although I get the feeling this forum is dying ....much like the Newbury Community Forum. Sign of the times I suppose Even Petra has given up!!.)

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 5 2015, 11:13 AM

What does major mean? The problem is, issuing those warnings means one is 'obliged' to make contingencies, so there would have been a distraction, even if there wasn't one.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 5 2015, 11:16 AM

Petra was a pre-election distraction.

Isn't it the case the railways were broken up because it was not affordable?

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 5 2015, 12:26 PM

( I am enjoying this............makes a change from the endless council orientated threads.
(Although I get the feeling this forum is dying ....much like the Newbury Community Forum. Sign of the times I suppose Even Petra has given up!!.)

Some have different tales to tell. SK,CF,B1,OTE and others are all posting on F/B...not sure about Petra though.

And I do as well

Posted by: On the edge Jun 5 2015, 12:41 PM

Or so we were told! If that was really the case, why did the sell off attract buyers? Does that mean the Tories could be sued for misselling?

It's a known that no effective or economic transport system works without public subsidy. As well demonstrated in Japan, Germany, France and indeed the States! In reality, road transport doesn't either, but the full costs there are well hidden.

Good example simply to demonstrate is tramways. Many European cities still have thus effective means of local public transport. In the UK, there are examples in the north and down here in Croydon. However, the UK killed them off stone dead. Why? We made the tram operator pay to keep and maintain the highway they used for their tracks. A bus just paid a road fund disc.

Posted by: GMR Jun 5 2015, 03:20 PM

I am glad I crack you up, it is a gift, after all.

Yes, I know BR doesn't exist, but only misleading to those that are not informed... so I apologise for misleading you; but those that are a bit more wiser will have got it.

As for a lack of intelligence on your part; anything is possible on here (but then again you did say it)

Posted by: On the edge Jun 5 2015, 09:01 PM

I suppose the way it was privatised didn't help, political dogma never does. At the end of the day BR just needed a more effective finance model and (along with the rest of British Industry at the time) better management so that the trades unions could be faced down.

In my view, the choice between Morrisonian nationalisation or PLC privatisation is wholly bogus. There are several other and probably better alternatives. The biggest culprits in my book are the Labour Party who simply deleted Clause 4 and became red in tooth and claw Thatcher Tories.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 5 2015, 10:22 PM

Er.. that is true of everything!

Government finances run a tight-rope and with that in mind Governments have little power. Thatcher beat the miners by stock-piling coal and the miners basically run out of money before the stock-pile run out. With trains there wasn't the luxury of such an item, until Thatcher gave the rail staff a mortgage to finance that is.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 6 2015, 06:05 AM

There should have been no need for those fights in the first place. At the time Britain was known as the sick man of Europe, our industrial relations record and industrial output appalling. Even the Labour party recognised that. Something drastic was needed and the Thatcher way was brutal. OK with that, but the cure killed the patient. Market forces are fine, IF there is a real market.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 6 2015, 07:05 AM

Exactly CE "social media" seems to have rendered the forum format obsolescent.
I think I'll give it a rest on here for a while now while still resisting publishing my personal life on F/B.
Many have "sussed" me anyway!!

Just a final thought,,,,,,,,,,,,
Will the "undercover reporter" in the programme be donating her 6 weeks salary she received from First Great Western to charity, and does she feel bad about the genuine person she denied a job?
On both counts, I doubt it!!

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 6 2015, 07:11 AM

You can say that again!

Accuracy is important. I have a friend who's wife asked if she should go and put some petrol in the car. Without a thought he just replied "yes please" so she did...................... It was a diesel!.

No, you did!
According to you I am both unintelligent and unwise.
Anyway you'll be pleased to know I'm off for a bit. (See above post.) Leave it to the bright ones eh?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 6 2015, 11:55 AM

I like to think it is those reports that put those swindlers in the spot light; you're defending the indefensible I think. And why throw the rattle out of the pram? Why not post when you feel like it, rather than to prescription?

Yes forums are becoming less popular, but they are a superiors debating environment. Facebook is facile and insidious.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 6 2015, 12:09 PM

The government was up against a formidable ideologically motivated task force. It was more than a simple matter of poor management.

Posted by: user23 Jun 6 2015, 12:44 PM

Yes, I've spotted a few regulars from here posting in at least one of the local Facebook groups.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 6 2015, 02:55 PM

That's assuming the union members were mostly sheep. It took time for that motivated task force to grow and generally they made no secret of the fact. I'd agree, there were other factors, but poor management was certainly high on the list. That's also evidenced by poor commercial performance as well. In fact, Stafford Cripps recognised this deficiency in the dire circumstances of WW2; his rationale for facilitating the set up of the British institute of management.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 6 2015, 09:16 PM

Me again despite post #33!
FGW swindlers??
Not exactly robbing OAP's of their life savings are they?
One example in the piece was of being sold a ticket return to London which came to an excess of £12 per week over 2 singles.
If you were going to London for that number of journeys then this would not be the case, you would be sold a weekly season saving yourself around £40! As is often the case, only selected stories are told to make it saleable to the television companies and the public.

No rattle AC, just feel that forum is dying with just a few regulars now debating the same old topics. Mainly NTC and WBC . Plus the odd few who still insist on doling out the insults (more akin to F/B). So I don't "feel like" posting.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 7 2015, 06:35 AM

You are quite right Biker1. Walk into any shop, are the staff going to make any great effort to sell you the 'bottom of the range' - hardly! Of course, if you ask, you'll get. So I'd wholly agree, just media mischief. One of my regular trips is to New Malden, cheaper the 'official' way. I generally ask for a via London ticket (which suits me better) and am invariably told it costs more, never any hassle.

I wouldn't disagree about this forum either same old same old is frankly unproductive. Dare I also say, the 'other place' has all but ceased. Anyway, serious question, what would you feel like debating?

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 7 2015, 01:53 PM

Something for Victoria Park, as it is cracked up..How about a Boules surface.

http://www.thelondonaise.co/#!event/c1uh0

Not much Inglissh to be heard, but I chatted to a nice lady from Wallingford

Posted by: Cognosco Jun 7 2015, 02:00 PM

Just to remind you - "For Evil Men to Accomplish Their Purpose, It Is only Necessary That Good Men Do Nothing."

Are you implying we just forget all the wrongs that have been committed by our rabble of Local Authorities? Surely they have been getting off very lightly over the years for their mishandling of precept payers monies and some of the dreadful decisions, or lack of, that should have been more considerately made by them.
Just try and imagine what would be happening if even our small efforts to hold them to account via this forum were no longer available?
I expect we would have not even got a whopping £1 for Parkway land and it would be costing us more than the £100000 costs ratcheted up with legal fees as alleged so far?
Therefore so long as our Local Authorities are not performing to a decent standard and actually operating in a transparent way with the best interest of precept payers then this should be debated to try and ensure they are held to account , even on this small forum, because it appears to be the fact that very few are prepared to suffer the Kirby treatment that the Councils are prepared subject you to.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 7 2015, 02:01 PM

I never said they were; however, mine was meant to be a general comment about investigative journalism.


Unless you were going once a week; or a few times a week, then they would be diddling you out of said amount then.


And thanks to people like you that will continue. And regardless of whether I agree, I like reading your posts, especially when related to rail matters.

Posted by: GMR Jun 7 2015, 03:55 PM

If you insist, but then again you can always read back



I wouldn't hardly call saying "British Rail," instead of the proper term, as devastating as putting petrol in a diesel car. I also don't think the thought or mind police will seriously take such comments as being worthy of being thrown into Guantanamo Bay detention camp for subversive comments.



Oh, then I must have been right!



"Pleased?" I wouldn't say that, it takes all sorts to make this forum go around with a smile. And seeing that the trusty few forced the likes of Petra out there is only us to entertain ourselves. So please hurry back and play your part in the Today circus.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 7 2015, 07:12 PM

Well, thanks for the wake up call Cognosco!

I suppose the response was born out of frustration, seemingly nothing changes or if it does, imperceptibly. Or perhaps it does; but the time lag makes it seem endless. This is at least a voice and one of the few we have. It's public and looked at, so is still in the shop window so to speak. Yes, I've been on Facebook; an interesting experience and one that is really rather more like a pub conversation.

So, you are still stuck with me and no I'm not stopping until the wrongs have been put right.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 7 2015, 08:20 PM

Petra was just a WUM and I don't think anyone forced them away.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 8 2015, 09:46 AM

I thought Petra was often correct.
I am impressed that SK and OTE are taking up cudgels.
I am just a travelling player.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2015, 02:33 PM

'Petra' had a belligerent delivery that often masked the message I found. Petra wasn't always right either.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 8 2015, 03:10 PM

On the Facebook front, it's quite ironic that a good few of the nay sayers don't actually live anywhere near Newbury, very odd that! I was thinking about sending such a message to my old home town Guildford; which in my view, now has much the same ambience as an unflushed public lavatory. Every time I go, coming back I'm even more grateful Newbury is as it is.

Posted by: GMR Jun 8 2015, 03:22 PM

Whatever she was or wasn't she created some good debates/ discussions. People should have challenged her, not shout out "troll" every time they didn't have an answer to her challenges. Getting ride of people who we didn't agree or conform only smacks of elitism on this forum. This forum never gets anybody new on here without the usual comments (and predictable ones at that).

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 8 2015, 03:24 PM

The result may have sometimes been correct - but it was the "electorate should stay quiet and leave it to Councillors and Officers as they know best" approach that was wrong.

Posted by: GMR Jun 8 2015, 03:26 PM

If she wasn't right then challenge her or anybody you think is wrong. Not keep throwing the same old rhetoric of "troll" at them. Yes she had a belligerent delivery; which I thought fitted into this forum quite well. Getting rid of people like Petra just means the same old tired voices dictating the same old crap and going around in circles.

Posted by: JaneGibbs Jun 8 2015, 06:10 PM

One of the reasons why a lot of us don't come on here anymore (I presume) is because we are concerned that if we express ourselves controversially we might get called a troll or worse. There are many people on here I didn't agree with, such as Petra, but I always appreciated her standing up to the bullies on here. It is always the same members interacting with each other and nobody new allowed to get a look in. Maybe it is just me, but shouldn't we appreciate it when somebody comes along and says something different so that we can challenge and debate sensibly? After all, isn't that what forums for?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2015, 09:01 PM

No-one got rid of Petra. Petra stopped posting after a rather silly post and if you took the time to read through Petra's posts you will see they were as insulting as any one has been on here.

I tried to engage with Petra but all I usually got was abuse. Petra become very predictable very quickly.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2015, 09:05 PM

Yes, but in standing up to the 'bullies', Petra simply became another 'bully' and an abusive one at that.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2015, 09:09 PM

You know what a troll is and Petra's style was that of a troll: someone whose only apparent interest is to wind people up.

And I did challenge Petra, but sadly Petra was big on opinion, but not so great with substance.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 8 2015, 09:16 PM

She certainly knew how to wind people up, but I'm not convinced she was 'scared off'. Her skin wasn't that thin, so I'd hazard she simply became bored with us 'country boys' and what she'd consider to be our limited understanding.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 9 2015, 10:15 AM

No, not at all, but there seems to be little else discussed here.
Just me, I'm sure everyone else (who is left on here) is fine with it.
Same seems to be happening with NWN the letters page.

By the way, just to correct the title of this thread.
Training by FGW would be done at one of their training schools, NOT at Newbury Station.

There is a response from FGW to the allegations in the programme and, because I doubt if this paper will print it (it is not sensationalist enough!), here it is.......................


The training of First Great Western staff in relation to ticket sales
It is disappointing that the trainer initially got the answer wrong, but we are pleased he clarified the correct position later in the session. We would of course expect the correct advice to be given straight away and we will make sure that our trainers are clear about the correct position in the future.

Offering and selling ‘split tickets’
The conversations shown regarding split tickets accurately reflect the rules every train operator must follow in terms of offering and selling ‘split tickets’ as outlined in the Retail Standards Guide, which all train operators must follow.

We agree that these rules – and many other rules that have their roots in the British Rail era – need reviewing to make the ticket buying process simpler and clearer for customers. As part of the Rail Delivery Group, we are working with other train operators and Government on how to progress this further.

Improper changes to journey times on the public timetable to help improve performance figures and limit the compensation paid for delays
The suggestion that First Great Western improperly changes journey times to improve its performance figures and limit the compensation paid for delays is simply incorrect.

In the journey example given, all but three of the trains on the route have exactly the same public journey time as in the working timetable. The longest difference in journey times is two minutes, and none of them have got longer.

In regards to compensation, this is not based on achieving performance targets, but on trains delayed by 30 or 60 minutes. The additional one or two minute margins would therefore have a tiny impact on reducing compensation paid.

Extending journey times beyond what is operationally required is poor customer service, costs us revenue, and would contravene the franchise agreement which is set and monitored by the Department for Transport. There is simply no other incentive for us to do this than to make sure we get customers to where they need to go at the time we have said they will arrive.

The working timetable is publicly available, published on Network Rail’s website here.

Difficulties in obtaining information from Control during disruption
Providing accurate and timely information to staff and customers during periods of disruption is an issue the rail industry as a whole takes very seriously.

We have issued colleagues with smartphones and tablets, as well as providing additional dedicated resource to help colleagues get accurate information to passengers quicker. We have also developed our own social media team which is able to update customers on a regular basis.

Compensation claims and goodwill gestures
We regularly advertise ways for customers to claim contractual compensation should things go wrong via our website, Twitter feed (@FGW) and other channels. On Twitter, we can even deal with contractual compensation claims immediately via a Direct Message without the need for customers to write in or call an additional number.
When it is the right thing to do, we will also go beyond the contractually stipulated level of compensations, regardless of whether or not we receive a direct complaint from a customer at all. Any customer-focused business would do exactly the same and we are proud of it.

Capacity on trains
Despite the lack of availability of suitable additional trains in the UK, we have worked hard to secure the additional capacity we know our customers want to see. Working with the Department for Transport, we have created 7,500 additional standard class seats into and out of Paddington at peak times every day.

We know however, that this is only a medium-term solution and, as part of the new franchise agreed with the Department for Transport, we will be introducing newer, longer trains across our network from spring next year, which will increase capacity by around 25%.

This increased capacity is part of the £7.5bn Great Western Mainline modernisation programme, the initial phases of which we are currently working closely with the Department for Transport and Network Rail to deliver. This investment is the biggest on the route since Brunel and will transform a key part of the country’s transport infrastructure.

As part of this programme, new or refurbished trains will be seen on every part of the network, resulting in more frequent and faster journeys and an increase in the number of seats to keep people moving across the Great Western network.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2015, 12:18 PM

How would you know!

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 9 2015, 01:10 PM

Posted by: On the edge Jun 9 2015, 02:18 PM

That was a pretty good response, no flannel, just the detail. Shame the expensive PR outfit at our beloved local Council can't pick up a few tips.

Interesting comment about Accommodation though, I wonder just how many of the travelling public realise or even know that train capacity is really down to HMG and the real leeches of the operation, the leasing companies. One of the daftest aspects of the botched privatisation; designed simply to make rich bankers even richer. Well done Mr Major.

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 03:23 PM

You mean you got what you usually dish out yourself? Whatever people do or don't do I don't reach for the "Troll" rhetoric because I've got nothing else to say. If you don't agree with them then challenge them. To be honest I think you were more scared of somebody standing up to you.

The trouble is Petra did liven up this place and whether we agree with her or not (and I didn't) we needed another side of the coin to stimulate debate and interest. Without people like her all we've got is your-good-self running the show.

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 03:26 PM

I didn't see her as a troll, but a mouth piece for WBC. Whether winding up or not she deserved to be allowed her voice. And a voice that didn't follow the usual crap on here. Yes, you challenged her, she fought back and you went for the "Troll" rhetoric.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2015, 03:43 PM

We know what a troll is, and Petra's behavior was that of a troll. Throw in some incendiary language then sit back and watch the crowd react. and like I said, I did (try) to debate, I just called Petra out as a troll too; I did both.


How can I run the show. I'm perfectly happy for Petra to post and to debate with them, but the ostentatious arrogance displayed by Petra become tedious for me.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2015, 03:45 PM

And she got that in spades; I'm not a mod, I haven't banned Petra.

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 03:54 PM

Using the word "Troll" is annoying and gets in the way. I disagreed with her and debated my points. Maybe you didn't try hard enough.

Whether we agree with somebody or not what this forum needs is new blood. Her language was no different than anybody else's. She just stood her corner. Maybe you and others didn't like it because she was a woman who stood up for herself.



Just look at your word count.



I don't think the right word is "tedious" but that she got the better of you. That is why you got tired of her.

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 03:57 PM

One doesn't have to ban somebody on here, just keep saying the same old rhetoric (like Troll) etc. and force them out that way. And she isn't the only one that probably got fed up with the arrogance on here and left. This isn't a comfortable place if one is a woman on here.

Whether you liked her or not she did liven this place up and created a lot of debate and that is what this forum needs.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2015, 04:32 PM

Perhpas Petra didn't either.


Petra's language was much more belligerent and unnecessarily rude than most, if not all the posters on here. And as it happens, I agreed with at least half of what Petra had to say.

How do you know Petra is or was female?


What has that got to do with anything? Running the show would involve determining what gets discussed and moderating who posts. I have the power to do neither.


Where was that? All Petra did is come on here and say how thick everyone was, not to mention how out of scale my mouth was with my ball sack. When ever Petra was challenged on data or detail, Petra just turned up the abuse valve.

Anyway, in my view Petra was just a pre-election stooge; a set-up. A shame really, but in truth debates with Petra weren't really debates as Petra rarely backed-up anything posed.


It is an anonymous forum and not only that, it is relatively benign too. Petra was only too ready to express feelings about people and showed no signs of being timid. Petra created a lot of reaction, but most of it was just re-cycled and rarely expanded on anything posted.

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 05:56 PM

Agree at least half is at least something different that we usually get.



How do we know what anybody is on here? Mostly we take what people are in good faith.



Running the show also about how we treat one another.



She had a point and a sense of humour it seems.



I wouldn't call it abusive, just robust and to the point. She never annoyed me, other than I thought she was wrong in what she said (and that is why I kept challenging her). But she did create interest and debate.

Whatever she was or wasn't, as I said, at least she livened up this forum.



Yes she did create a lot of action and that is what we needed on here. Without differences we've only got the same old doing the same old. More blood is need to liven up and in the process create even more members. Like her or hate her we need more the same. Disagree with her, criticise her but let us drop the "Troll" crap, which doesn't serve anything other than being annoying.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2015, 06:02 PM

As are trolls.

Calling people stupid, unintelligent, big mouthed, small of balls, etc, is abusive, and Petra posted that materiel in abundance. We all have are moments, but like I said, Petra was tops for verbals and if you are going to throw verbals, one can expect it back.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 9 2015, 06:03 PM

She disappeared when the elections were over, tells you something.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2015, 06:05 PM

Yes, I agree.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 9 2015, 06:08 PM

I have been reading this with great interest. I didn’t like the woman’s style and she did seem arrogant, as Andy Capp has said. But as GMR has also pointed out she created debate and she was challenged when people disagreed. We also must remember that at least somebody came on here to speak up for West Berks Council, whether that was in an official capacity or not and that must be welcomed.

Speaking as a woman I find that the male Testosterone dominates this forum to a point that many women are afraid to voice their opinions in the fear that they will get abused, mocked or called a troll. It seems that anybody who has a different opinion on here gets attacked, humiliated and forced off.

I think what this forum needs is mods to patrol it so that we have a level playing field, rather than what we’ve got now a free for all with the same old people controlling the discussions.

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 06:10 PM

You love that word "trolls"; do you know any other words other than that?

I agree; if she throws it then throw it back, but the problem I have here is just using the word "trolls" for a weak reply. As least she was creative (using your sacks as an example) and all you could muster was "trolls". Be a bit more creative, at least she was.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 9 2015, 06:13 PM

This is what I mean, we should not be using any such language. We should be debating intelligently and cleverly. Which doesn't seem to happen on here that much. That is why only the abusers thrive on here and the good ones just leave.

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 06:14 PM

I hope you are pointing that comments where it belongs?

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 9 2015, 06:15 PM

If the Capp fits (no pun intended).

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2015, 06:16 PM

I don't think anyone will get abused if they behave, but if someone starts to insult other people then it stands to reason that there will be conflict. Petra, for example, came on here an immediately started telling people how intellectually inferior they were. It was bound to get a little fruity, but the arguments here are never savage. This is a relatively friendly place.

Being a troll is a behaviour, and Petra's behaviour was evidently troll like. Trolls like to provoke people into doing or saying something bad and that is what Petra was doing.

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 06:17 PM

At least you've got a sense of humour; be careful you are not called a troll

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 9 2015, 06:18 PM

Being a woman abuse is part of what we expect.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2015, 06:20 PM

I don't love the word 'troll', I just try to use the appropriate word for a given situation.

My preference is that we can discuss, debate, argue, about items, I'd rather we never had to resort to childish squabbles.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 9 2015, 06:22 PM

And who decides what is good behaviour or not? You? As I said, I didn't like her arrogance, but I certainly wouldn't call her a troll. She seemed to be somebody who looked down at the low life from their lofty perch. I agree with you that one should fight fire with fire, but shouting Troll all the time demeans the shouter and basically says he or she has nothing else to give. I agree with GMR, be a bit more creative.

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 06:25 PM

Didn't she say - if a remember rightly - that she read this forum before joining? If that is the case she learnt and picked up the bad habits of those that infested this forum. That was her big mistake.

It is not just her, but anybody that comes on here and says something controversial is called a troll. I think the real trolls are the ones that actually infest this forum.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 9 2015, 06:27 PM

Seeing as you are one of the top contributors on here,, along with Andy Capp and a few others, then I presume you are one of those that infest? Any good exterminators on here?

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 06:28 PM

Very witty

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 9 2015, 06:30 PM

On a seriously note, let us respect each other and debate the issues or ignore them, but cheap throwaway comments does not help anybody and only brings this forum and ones self into disrepute. Maybe if that happened more will come and join in.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2015, 06:32 PM

I don't believe that is true, but even if it was, it is hardly the most shocking term to throw at someone. If I have wrote it I am happy to stand-up and explain why if any one wants to ask or show me where. And if any one is offended, PM me and I will will deal with it accordingly.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2015, 06:36 PM

Hear, hear.

Accusations like the ones above (the 'T' word) are referenced when I have feared a conversation is being deliberately side tracked or a thread is being deliberately 'spoiled'. It is not anything malicious, but is only to serve as a warning to people that they might be being suckered.

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 06:38 PM

For you and I such terminology isn't a problem, we give as good as we get. But for others it just gets in the way and they leave. As I said; we should be debating the points raised and fight back where necessary, but throwing the word trolls at people isn't very helpful; just annoying. She annoyed me, but I didn't throw the word "troll" at her, I just persisted.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 9 2015, 06:43 PM

But as I previously said. Who gave you the mods job to give out warning? And who decides what is a warning? You are just one person, but talk as if you are a mod. This is not a single persons forum, but the proprietors of this forum.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2015, 06:48 PM

If that's all I did, perhaps, but it wasn't.

Remember this post GMR?

http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=2942&view=findpost&p=102168

And this one?

http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?act=findpost&hl=&pid=2541

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2015, 06:50 PM

You seemed to have missed my point. Warning people that there is 'T-word' about is to try to stop a flame war or similar. People are free to ignore me and I don't care if they do.

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 08:10 PM

Apart from posts I see nothing special.

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 08:13 PM

I am with you Andy; tell her who is in charge and if she causes problems troll her out of the forum.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2015, 08:52 PM

Well back then you seem to be agreeing with me, but now you have changed your tune so that you might have a go at me; there's a word for people behaving like that!

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 09:01 PM

Genius?

Posted by: GMR Jun 9 2015, 09:08 PM

Yes, but which parts was I agreeing with, that is the question.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2015, 08:18 AM

I'd imagine it will only be the parts that are least damaging to your previous point of view.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2015, 08:29 AM

You make it sound like that accusing someone as trolling was the only thing I did. In any case that is not true as I tried to engage too. In deed, I'd say I was one of the more engaging of the members here, like trying to show examples of why I thought Petra's case was flawed and things like that. The other thing is, I don't necessarily believe in fighting fire with fire, it is just that some people can be forgiven for reacting to people who show a large amount of disrespect. We all have a our moments, but with Petra it was relentless.

Posted by: Cognosco Jun 10 2015, 02:49 PM

Indeed I think Petra was trying to be Newburys Katie Hopkins but with shall we say, a lot less finesse, and no matter what evidence or facts was brought forward would always try and put an opposite spin on any reply. I think perhaps it could be judged that both sides of the Forum were embarrassed to be associated with any of Petra's input!

I don't think anyone has to have any guilty feelings about Petra's leaving the forum, Petra just ran out of steam. Petra was just unable to keep up the pretense any longer I believe, no one could be like that in real life, I sincerely hope anyway?

Posted by: GMR Jun 10 2015, 03:15 PM

What is, what is, whatever point it is coming from.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2015, 04:28 PM

That is the irony: people complain that Petra was 'shut-up' or 'put-off', but that is exactly what Petra seemed to be trying to do.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 10 2015, 04:41 PM

I also think you must look at it another way, what do you think it looks like to those that view in? It looks like certain regulars are controlling the boards and anybody that does not behave in a certain way will chased off or abused. Wouldn’t it be better to ignore those that you are frustrated by? Calling somebody a troll sends out the wrong message and isn’t really dignified. More so when the one who is under attack is a woman, and abused by a man. Whether the woman is in the wrong or not, in your eyes, it doesn’t look good. If you read the news you will see a lot of women being attacked on twitter or whatever by bully boys. And that is how this forum will be viewed, not very satisfactory or welcoming viewing. And how do you think you will be seen yourself? Even though you believe you are justified in attacking somebody of the opposite sex.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 10 2015, 04:42 PM

So are you saying two wrongs make a right then?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2015, 07:25 PM

Attack is exactly what Petra did as soon as Petra started posting. Insulting people about their apparent lack of intelligence, sexual status, and other unsavory ways. I never once threatened Petra, but suggested that Petra's motives were insincere, as I have with others when I have felt it to be the case.

I repeat we CANNOT control the boards, we are not mods and we are broadly anonymous. The idea that Petra is female has little value in this. I am fairly certain that if this site was highly moderated, Petra would have been censored some time before people had sussed out the motives that lie behind the facade.

To be honest, I wasn't sure Petra was a female anyway.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2015, 07:28 PM

No that is not what I am saying. The point I make is people complain of regulars appearing to be pushing someone off the board (which I don't agree was happeing), yet ignore the point that Petra was doing the same thing too.

Petra, if anything, was a victim of 'her' own behaviour and language.

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 10 2015, 07:48 PM

Why do you see it as worse if the person under attack is a woman? I would have thought with women's equality it should just as bad either way.

Posted by: Strafin Jun 10 2015, 08:09 PM

1 the idea that a woman shouldn't be a used on here by a man is ridiculous, nobody should be abused or bullied by anyone, gender doesn't come into it.

2 these boards are free and open for everybody, you can't police it by asking the people you don't like or agree with to shut up, because you have to then do the same for others and we would all have to be quiet.

3 this is the NWN forum, it has a few main posters because it's just not that widely used.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 11 2015, 04:03 PM

If you read back you will see that I criticised her, but that doesn’t mean others can or should lower themselves to her level.

Petra isn’t the only person to have been called a troll on here and then not come back on. Using the word troll is a cheap line.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 11 2015, 04:07 PM

According to the statistics women have received more abuses than men on the internet. I presume those that target women believe they are easier to target than men. There has been a lot of high profile cases of late, but not one of them was a man.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 11 2015, 04:13 PM

That may be true Strafin, but women are considered a more vulnerable group and do get more abuses on the internet than men.

I am not suggesting that, but that doesn’t mean the regulars can’t play their part in criticising somebody who is seen as abusing others.

But why isn’t it mainly used? There are over a thousand people registered on here and it has been well advertised. Maybe that is because the few lord themselves in a way that others feel that if they did voice their opinions they will just be abused and shouted troll at them. And as I have said, it is not just Petra that has been called a troll.

Posted by: JaneGibbs Jun 11 2015, 04:16 PM

That is why I always feel hesitant when I come on this forum. I’ve been abused myself on other internet channels and it isn’t very pleasant. Just because somebody is bad doesn’t mean others have to jump in and show they are just as bad. I am with you HeatherW on this. Can’t see why people can’t just be nice or ignore those people that they are not happy with.

Posted by: JaneGibbs Jun 11 2015, 04:18 PM

Women don't have total equality and where abuse and rape is concerned men suffer only a small fraction of that.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 11 2015, 04:22 PM

That is true Jane. Message boards, Tweets, Facebook etc see more female abuses. Why? Because women are seen as easy targets.

It would be nice if the few that come on here, the regulars, set an example and maybe more women would show their face on here. When I tell my girlfriends that I go on message boards the first thing they say is 'you are brave'. It is a message board for Christ sake, not an army training camp.

Posted by: JaneGibbs Jun 11 2015, 04:26 PM

I think the men on here are more interested in strutting their stuff and trying to show that they are the kingpin and it is mainly their territory. Anybody who dares to compete as an equal, well, god help them.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 11 2015, 04:58 PM

Well I am Christopher and don't cause much trouble. My mobile is.......

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 11 2015, 05:08 PM

The whole thing about trolling comments and trolling is playground bullying.
On an international scale.ce

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 11 2015, 05:46 PM

And you think that playground bullying is ok? Whatever scale it is on it is unnecessary. We all should behave like adults. Just because people accuse one member or a few members of behaving badly it doesn't mean others should join in to compete with them.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 11 2015, 05:49 PM

Christopher, glad to hear it. But you are not alone on here. There are many good members who just want to debate, discuss and enjoy themselves.

Maybe the accusers are the real trolls and just don't like sharing this space with like minded trolls. Boys with toys in a sand pit.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 11 2015, 06:01 PM

If man or woman comes on here they should be treated equally. There is a lot of Trolling on here, but not only by new members but those that have been on here sometime. Petra had a go at me and if I had a bit more time I would have responded likewise. But what I will say though that there are too few people on here posting and those that do just go over the same old thing.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 11 2015, 06:04 PM

Then we women should also strut our stuff. The day of the passive woman is dying out. It is time that us women turned the table and showed men that we can just be as ballsy as them. If they, that is men, get too clever then cut them off.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 11 2015, 06:06 PM

I presume you mean metaphorically? Or do you plan to find out where they live to get a trophy or two?

Posted by: Ruth Jun 11 2015, 06:08 PM

You are funny! And who says they've got both? Most of the men I know are sour pussies and I would imagine that they are still growing them so I doubt there will be any cutting for a number of years.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 11 2015, 06:09 PM

You must know some strange men, or are you still at school?

Posted by: Ruth Jun 11 2015, 06:10 PM

No, not at school, but strange, yes. All talk and no trousers.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 11 2015, 06:13 PM

If that is the sort of men you know then you will probably be very welcome on here. And as for no trousers, so that is how you know? Or is there a nudist colony in Newbury?

Posted by: Ruth Jun 11 2015, 06:15 PM

Rock on sister! If there is a nudist colony in Newbury it must be well hidden, but saying that I have heard about men marching to the sound of their own voices, but whether that is with their helmets on parade or not I can't truthfully say.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 11 2015, 06:19 PM

I think you better watch yourself with that humour of yours, otherwise another woman will hit the dust to the sound of 'Troll,Troll, you witchedy witch Troll". Sorry, is that too many words for the vocabulary of men on here?

Posted by: Ruth Jun 11 2015, 06:26 PM

Sorry, I have to love you and leave you, I've had my few minutes of excitement for the day. Maybe next time, so until then Au revoir!

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 11 2015, 06:50 PM

I play Boules with a group of U3a ladies in London.... They always win.
The chaps are too distracted!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 11 2015, 10:08 PM

I noticed since the women on here have been given a bit of space to breathe, the level of debate on here has gone through the roof.

Mind you, with a day like today I'm surprised they had enough time to to post, what with all the washing that needed doing!

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 12 2015, 07:45 AM

Didn't Petra's discussion turn to the sac area also?..............................................Andy?

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 12 2015, 08:00 AM

Yup! Unfortunately her grasp of anatomy was as weak as her grasp on reality. Poor dear.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 12 2015, 11:21 AM

Serves them right: it's raining today.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 12 2015, 11:31 AM

Oh dear, I think I have the iron on....must dash.
CE

Posted by: GMR Jun 12 2015, 02:59 PM

Calling women "trolls" and saying that they also should be in the kitchen should make you a very popular person amongst 50% of the population. That should make them coming rushing on to this male dominated forum.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 12 2015, 03:46 PM

I have to do my ironing. And there are trolls under my ancient 1830 floorboards.
I am just about coping.Phew.
Nice to get the ladies more involved.
ce

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 12 2015, 05:35 PM

That is a spin on the facts: I called someone a troll that might be female. That doesn't mean I think women are trolls.

I am not biased; I'll call anyone a troll if I believe it to be true whether male or female, but no, I don't believe 'they' should be in the kitchen. My comment was pure trolling and said in jest (as I expect were their comments) and I'm sure they will have the intelligence and maturity to understand that.

Posted by: GMR Jun 12 2015, 06:28 PM

Of course they will, they are women. I am surprised you needed to say that, I just took it for granted that they were and will.

As for "Trolls"; they (as in both sexes) are all trolls, unless one happens to agree with them

Posted by: On the edge Jun 12 2015, 08:01 PM

I've never quite understood what an e.troll is, the only ones I knew about where those who sat under bridges, tempting goats, in Burl Ives songs. No wonder us oldies have problems.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 12 2015, 08:48 PM

A troll in Internet terms is someone who posts inflammatory content with the sole purpose of trying to upsetting the decorum within a forum or a discussion.

Wiki says: In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Petra may not have been deliberately provoking people; Petra might have simply been naturally rude, or upset by some members which provoked the replies Petra made. My view was that Petra was more interested in upsetting this community then any genuine attempt to enlighten it's contributors. In my view that is trolling, although I would be happy to concede if that is genuinely not the case. The idea that Petra is a woman is coincidental and makes not difference to me or the argument.

In my view, the upset this seems to have caused some members is wholly out of proportion to what actually happened. The suggestion that we bully is also with little merit in my view. The only time I think I see bullying is when people try to 'out' others on here, I don't like that even it is concerning someone whose onions I am against.

I do not accept that if I call out people for posting insincere content that it constitutes being a bully. I also reject the idea that I am a male chauvinist pig and nor do I accept that other male members of this forum deserve some of the soft misandry posted recently; however, I suspect it was only meant in jest.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 13 2015, 12:17 AM

Trollette!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 13 2015, 12:40 AM

Or Trollied!

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/trollied

Posted by: On the edge Jun 13 2015, 06:24 AM

Thanks for the explanation AndyC, can wholly see your point. To me, she (the name is feminine after all) was or is simply a frustrated under achiever who couldn't hold an argument; hence the personal attacks. If her writing did really reflect her personality, I'd be very surprised if anyone in their right mind would have appointed her to any reasonable position. Not worth your consideration, let alone your time. She hears but does not listen, rest assured she will one day!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 13 2015, 02:15 PM

I think the main reasons people don't post (other than not knowing about the existence of the forum):

1 Not interested in the topics.
2 Concerned about saying something that makes them look foolish.
3 Intolerant (dislike) of some of the posters.
4 Timid.

Bullying is mild at worst on this forum, especially when compared to other places. I believe the bullying accusation is mainly used by people who are timid, not sincere, or lack conviction in their points of view.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 13 2015, 03:22 PM

Goodness me .
I usually put on a cd with Jake Bug at the moment.
Sometimes posting is hard work.

Posted by: James_Trinder Jun 13 2015, 03:40 PM

For me the main reasons why I post infrequently are a mixture of the following:

1. Not interested in the topics.
2. Feel like I have nothing further to contribute to the discussion when the topics are of interest.

Posted by: The Hatter Jun 14 2015, 07:15 AM

I'd go along with that and also no one is allowed to have their own ideas.

Posted by: Strafin Jun 14 2015, 09:34 AM

I don't post nearly as much as I used to because everyone seems to want to make an argument out of everything. I agree with The Hatter, sometimes I just want to voice my opinion, not argue the toss.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 14 2015, 09:52 AM

So opinions are fine but tossers are not.

I am too stupid to have opinions so what is left for me?
ce

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 14 2015, 10:41 AM

Yes they are!

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 14 2015, 02:50 PM

Oh no they're not.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 14 2015, 02:53 PM

"You're all individuals!"

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 14 2015, 02:54 PM

"The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!"
- https://www.list.co.uk/article/33462-interview-prof-brian-cox-and-robin-ince/

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 14 2015, 02:56 PM

Got right up your nose then.

I saw it as a great diversion from the day to day humdrum and unlike road rage, unlikely to earn one a punch on the nose.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 14 2015, 03:10 PM

"We have no right to express an opinion until we know all the answers"

Kurt Cobain. (Nirvana)

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 14 2015, 03:30 PM

Yes, we are all individuals!

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 14 2015, 05:24 PM

Look out, he's behind you.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 14 2015, 06:29 PM

Actually, yes she did. Much of what she said I simply found obnoxious, as for day to day diversions; each to his own. For me, whilst I might have a septic tank but I don't keep it on the lawn as a different garden ornament.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 14 2015, 06:30 PM

Phew! That's me in the clear then...

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 14 2015, 07:06 PM

Nice analogy, like that.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 15 2015, 04:50 PM

Whatever somebody is or isn't it is more about how we are perceived. If somebody attacks and the attacked person responds likewise then they end up being as bad as each other. Whatever hostilities people had against Petra they were eradicated
when some else used likeness to respond. Calling somebody a Troll only brings the abuser down to the trollers level. It is even worse when the woman is under attack because it is perceived as male dominance over female inferiority. Whether actuality or not. It also stops others, mainly women, not coming on here.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 15 2015, 05:15 PM

I only post a bit these days.And am usually ignored... which is fine.
Christopher..

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 15 2015, 05:41 PM

If people are going to engage on a forum, then it stands to reason that from time to time the conversation is going to get 'heated', but this is only a forum. It is only words. We are broadly anonymous so the notion that there is bullying is groundless in my view.

People's posts should stand as gender neutral and they should live or die on their merits and I think in most cases they do.

Posted by: Strafin Jun 15 2015, 06:00 PM

And Petra was a special case. Also she started it!

Posted by: Ruth Jun 15 2015, 06:30 PM

There is nothing wrong with a heated debate, and such debates should be welcomed. But abuse is another one. Too many people throw around the word troll nowadays that it is used as an insult, certainly nothing constructive.

As for "groundless," yes, that is your view, but never presume your views are accepted by all. You might not be offended by the words you throw around, but others are not you.

As for "only words"; words to some, daggers in the heart to others. My parents used to say that "sticks and stones may break your bones, but words are harmless". Harmless to some, while others such words can be devastating.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 15 2015, 06:32 PM

I can't say who started it, but is it being clever to go down to a certain level to prove that the abuser and the abused are just one and the same. The best way to deal with trouble makers is to send them to Coventry.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 15 2015, 06:33 PM

I think you would rather be ignored than attacked or called a troll.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 15 2015, 06:34 PM

And if we knew all the answers, answers to who?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 15 2015, 08:25 PM

It is if I can remind people that they are not dealing with a genuine poster. A troll is what it is, and in my view I was right.


It is unimportant to me whether people agree, but in Petra's case it is provable.


Do you actually know Petra was hurt by the insult? I have accused barely a handful of trolling, do you know anyone that was hurt by that? In my view if Petra was hurt then they might think about what they are doing too. Being accused of trolling is a soft accusation, it is hardly being accused of theft, or worse. And like I said, I tried hard to engage with Petra in debate, but it become clear that Petra was only interested in disrupting the forum and would not seriously engage in a a sensible debate.

That is the work of a someone trolling. If not then the next option is in fact worse.


What I cannot understand is after the abuse Petra threw about that you should 'pick' on me and my use of the accusation? I had to put up with quite rude and unjustifiable abuse from Petra.

Petra mentioned that people PMed them and explained how they were please to see people sticking it to 'us'. I presume you might have been one those people?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 15 2015, 08:30 PM

I disagree with KK. We have every right to an opinion, it is just we should accept that we could be wrong and no matter how powerful the evidence, some people will not agree. That's because for deep thinking creatures, we are easily deceived too: by our own imagination.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 15 2015, 09:51 PM

Don't ask me, it's a quote in reply to Simon's quote. You could ask Kurt but he didn't know all the answers.

Just because somebody, usually someone famous, says something profound, that doesn't mean that he or she is correct.

A bit like on this board where we all seem to have an opinion.

I seem to remember a book on spacecraft landings in some obscure place and the words, "It is a well known fact...." were used. Of course if you had no idea what that well known fact was, how could you judge the opinion.

I'm not sure what my opinion is as I don't tend to travel by train. You can quote me on that.

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 15 2015, 10:15 PM

So you think an unsupported string of posts should go unchallenged?

Why do you have this perceivance perception of female inferiority? I certainly don't.

I presume you meant to say you think it stops women coming on here, rather than stops them from not coming on here.

EDIT: Corrected grammer (it was a late night)

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 15 2015, 11:50 PM

Ruth objects to my calling a person a troll. Calling someone out as trolling in my view is not a gross abuse or an attack. Unless unsubstantiated, it is no more than a statement of fact.

I also agree with your women point. I don't believe there's been any sex war on here. Perhaps the men on here have been more inclined to argue, but as this is a forum and anonymous, I'm not sure what the problem is.

I don't remember anyone getting abused out of hand, especially a woman, not that I think that makes any difference. At the end of the day we are all equals on here, save for our wit.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 16 2015, 06:21 PM

It maybe not a gross abuse or even an attack, but I do think it is unnecessary. All I am saying is that we should use our intelligence more, rather than meaningless one liners.

You also miss the point about women. We may not have been abused by such words, but the said language doesn't encourage anybody to participate in the debating exchange. That was all I am saying. I will say one thing about Petra, and remember she had a go at me, was that she revitalised this forum when coming on. If you don't agree just look at this thread.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 16 2015, 06:23 PM

Everything should be challenged, even me. But it is how one goes about it that is important. One liners, like Troll, doesn't add anything. Intelligent rebuke says a lot more.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 16 2015, 06:25 PM

But it is a lack of imagination that caused people to use such one liners as troll. Word play and intelligence response can do more damage.

Posted by: Petra Jun 16 2015, 06:40 PM

Dear all,

I am neither a troll or a man, as some of you wish or hope for.

The reason I haven’t been on here lately is because I have a high pressurized job, which means my time is limited and therefore I can only come on here when I am in a relaxed and free mode.

As for my tone to certain members on here. Remember that tone was only to the few who wanted to be provocative and not to the many. I usually treat people as they wish to portray themselves to the outside world (superior and obnoxious).

As some of the ladies have rightly said, the wording of “Troll” doesn’t really add anything, but does show the observing public that the user, of such word, has a limited and not very intelligent vocabulary.

I hope that answers the few or even the many who have great concern that I haven’t been on here since the great election that saw the Lib-Dems and Labour humiliated in the polls.

Yours,

Petra

PS To Andy Capp and a few others, who seems to miss me immensely and constantly refers to me every opportunity he/ they can. Please do not fear, I am always observing and will join in the discussion when you or one of your colleagues decides to say something intelligent or interesting or a thread that needs correcting.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 16 2015, 06:42 PM

Speak of the devil. Back to consummate your union with Andy Capp? This will be interesting!

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 16 2015, 06:42 PM

I'm with you Ruth, I really don't like the troll word. To me, it's a cop out when the user of the word can't think of a reply or wants to shut someone up. It usually has the reverse effect and what then happens there are yards and yards of tit for tat posting.
It sometimes happens that the odd person, odd being the operative word, becomes really abusive. My take on this is do not reply, having an argument with yourself soon gets boring and they go away.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 16 2015, 06:53 PM

Thank you for that Exhausted and I am glad somebody sees my point. And you are totally right. The best way to shut somebody up is ignore them. Shouting Troll every time does get boring and only shows other the lack of words one has to combat the target of ones desires.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 16 2015, 07:31 PM

That's fine except I never shouted 'troll every time'. I more than contribute to the more rational parts of the debate, and people like Petra with their endless put-downs doesn't change that, and being human we all have our off days.

I think Petra's apparent reinvigorating effect is little more than stirring the nest; it's hardly raised the bar in the standard of debate.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 16 2015, 08:15 PM

Some might try that but I don't. I just call it as a I see it. It is no-more harmful that suggesting someone is a WUM. History shows that I am capable and willing to hold my own, so your POV is false regards myself.

If someone comes out and hurls "unintelligent, simple minded big mouth no balls, no friends saddo on an Internet forum" at me, I think "troll" is a mild reply by comparison, but I guess that some on here that don't like me cannot see through their own prejudice.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 16 2015, 08:17 PM

I do both; they all have their place. Variety is the spice of life.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 16 2015, 08:26 PM

And you're here to save the timid presumably. I don't think myself as superior, far from it, but I do challenge what people say on here. Being obnoxious is not something I commonly do, but I am sure some people will dislike what say and will treat my words as if I am being rude.


It can do, but having a limited vocabulary is not proof of limited intellect.

Even if it was. So what?


The future will determine that. But at least the timid can enjoy seeing you sticking it to the idiots. That'll be fun.


Petra != correct.

I can assure you had it not been for Biker1 we would rarely, if ever, mention you, unfortunately for me, you have a fan club which enjoys watching you being obnoxious to some of us.

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 16 2015, 10:12 PM

The trouble is some try and distract/deflect criticism of our local authorities by making misleading statements which they are unable to back up with facts. They then continue to chant the same mantra to try and make it look as they are correct when people don't contradict or challenge them any more.

That to my mind is trolling. Whereas posters like Spartacus who often backed his arguments with facts or reason was just counted as someone with a different viewpoint.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 17 2015, 08:50 AM

Eh? What have I done??!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 17 2015, 11:27 AM

It was 'your' fault we've had this 7 page-off topic discussion!

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 17 2015, 06:00 PM

Was that comment supposed to stir up trouble or just you trying to be clever? I have read nowhere that said that they supported Petra or how she conducts herself. What people had concerns with is the use of the word "Troll".

Maybe you could point out where somebody said that they enjoyed watching Petra being "obnoxious". This is the sort of dishonesty that causes trouble and stops people coming on here, or you you just doing what you accused Petra of, trolling?

Posted by: JaneGibbs Jun 17 2015, 06:11 PM

I just saw yours and Andy's reply and thought I would say something. You do wonder who is trying to be obnoxious on here, Andy or Petra. Andy's comments was simply to elicit trouble amongst those that commented on the over use of the word Troll. It seems the kingpin on here wants to be associated with the one he accuses the trolling. Andy seems to want to associate himself with the Trolls and try to be just as obnoxious himself by making stupid and misleading comments.

Posted by: HeatherW Jun 17 2015, 06:15 PM

Hi Jane, cannot agree with you more. I do wonder if some of the regulars on here have a hidden agenda. Like making this forum only acceptable to those that are trolls, themselves. Maybe that is what Andy is hoping for, to distract us away from his own foibles so that another is the talking point? Interesting.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 17 2015, 06:32 PM

God! that is sneaky and not very fair. I looked on earlier while I was at work and didn't notice that. I wonder who is the real obnoxious one on here and doing the real trolling. Defiantly worded to cause trouble and it seems aimed at us women.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 17 2015, 06:35 PM

Then challenge them, not resort to shouting out troll every time you don't have anything adequate to come back with. A troll is somebody that hasn't anything sensible to say or contribute to the thread, a bit like Andy Capp's twisting the facts around to say something that wasn't said or hinted at in the first place.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 17 2015, 06:37 PM

Making things up or twisting them around doesn't contribute to anything rational. I think that is called trolling. If the cap fits then wear it.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 17 2015, 06:40 PM

I think the only things you've achieved on here is to bring out the true colours of some of the regular members. Maybe you are a regular member in disguise or even worse, an official from that place that daren't speak its name.

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 17 2015, 08:00 PM

You seem to have missed my point. I am willing to challenge and ask for back up or reasoning behind a comment or viewpoint. If after a third attempt or more on the same subject a poster still posts their previous mantra with no further evidence or reasoning I will assume they are trolling.

Petra tended to do so by saying those at WBC should be left do get on with the job unchalleged as "they know best".

User 23 can occasionally troll when trying to protect WBC by coming out with unsupported claims or "Sir Humphrey" style misleading posts which, whilst not necessarily lying, twist the facts or give a slant to those who can't see through the deception. It appears to be deliberate on his part as he shows a good ability to reason on other topics.

I think a lot who complain less upset with the changes that are not aligned with their own wishes bur are more concerned with the methods used by our local authorities in an attempt to pretend to engage, whilst using selective or limited techniques to try and show support for their plans.

Posted by: user23 Jun 17 2015, 08:09 PM

Have you any examples of these "unsupported claims" or are you just crying "troll" again because someone said something you didn't like?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 17 2015, 08:28 PM

It looks like the WI meeting finished early tonight.

I post as I see fit. If you are offended then it is because I touched a nerve, not because I'm trolling. The emotional response from some of you highlights why you find harmless banter offensive.

Call me a troll if you like, I couldn't care less. I am completely comfortable with my views on things on here.

Some People lack a sense of humour.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 17 2015, 08:36 PM

QED

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 17 2015, 08:44 PM

There are many examples, but I am not going to waste my time tonight digging them out. As I have said when you are not trying to protect WBC you usually give good reasoning even though I frequently disagree with you.

Posted by: user23 Jun 17 2015, 08:48 PM

It seems it is you that is making "unsupported claims".

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 17 2015, 09:08 PM

I am sure many on here are familiar with your techniques, which frequently mirror those of your employer.

Posted by: user23 Jun 17 2015, 09:13 PM

I'm just asking for some evidence of these "unsupported claims" you've said I've made.

After reading the rest of this thread, I think it's the sort of unsubstantiated accusation and name calling you're engaging in that puts people posting off forums like this.

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 17 2015, 09:57 PM

Unfortunately the easy search to find some examples doesn't seem to be available here. Apart from saying that someone was a troll, a term that you have also used in the past, can you give examples of my name calling?

Posted by: user23 Jun 17 2015, 10:20 PM

So you can't find any examples using the search, and you can't remember details of any unsupported claims you say I've made, but you say there are "many examples".

Let's leave this here shall we. I think people have enough evidence to make up their mind about your motives, given the discussion about trolls.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 18 2015, 06:28 AM

Yes, let's......please!

Could we put a rug over this all and leave it right here. Just go for the facts and the argument folks, remember, the minute you go for the person, since asides included, you've lost!

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 18 2015, 07:59 AM

OK but YOU protracted it!!



Just my own thoughts on this and then, yes OTE, I'll wind it in!
The more who post on here the better. No matter what of the 4 genders they are (Simon?). It makes the discussion more varied and interesting. If /when there are personal attacks (and there are quire a few) just ignore, or express your disgust and then ignore.
Personally I have not noticed any prejudice against women on here and it is sad that some feel there has been.
It would be shame if the forum died as I find it an intelligent alternative to the drivel in FB / Twit.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 18 2015, 08:27 AM

It is only a forum but some people take it far too personally. Whether it lives or dies is up to everyone. At least we might have Petra the Great to stand up for the rights of public authorities and the abused!

Posted by: Cognosco Jun 18 2015, 02:50 PM

Just a thought but.......... whilst there have been a couple of days worth on the discussion of AndyCap stating he thought someone was a Troll (Shock, horror, disgusting, hang him high) I hope someone has been keeping an eye on what, if any, gaffs our local authorities are committing in the meantime?
Just seems to me that to pick on and waste valuable forum time discussing our Local Authorities gaffs, which I believe is the main reason for this forum, on the the absurd subject of someone being called a Troll with all the shenanigans that our beloved Local Authorities get up to, then it just may be a distraction by some of our Council employees to keep us otherwise occupied?
So back on guard, concentrate and keep focused please!

Posted by: Ruth Jun 18 2015, 03:46 PM

Do you presume that all women are in the 'WI'? Is this your take on us? I noticed, when reading this forum, that there is an overabundance of men on it, on occasions. Do I draw the conclusions that the local brothels have closed at nights and there is nothing else to do or consummate so the only option is this forum?

I do see that you post as you see it, without no thought or understanding at times. But to be fair this forum is for all, even those that troll in unison.

I am sure that everybody on here is comfortable with their views on here, otherwise they probably wouldn't say it. Even the most educated or uneducated have their moments of delusion. To err is human, after all.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 18 2015, 05:07 PM

Any idea of the opening times of those still operating. It has been a very difficult time since the St John's one closed.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 18 2015, 05:10 PM

You do have a sense of humour!


I do post with thought and perceived understanding; I didn't say I post mindlessly, but you are not the only one to read too much into what people write, or indeed, re-phrase for comfort.

When I write: "I post as I see it" it is meant to mean I post in good faith and is meant in good faith. While I will post occasional flippant comment, my main desire is to post meaningful opinion.

I have no desire to start flame wars or for ANYONE to be abused or made to feel bad.


I'm comfortable in that my posts are sincere. I have no agenda, BUT, I feel others in the past have, or might.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 18 2015, 05:12 PM

Pro Bike you mean!

Posted by: Ruth Jun 18 2015, 06:34 PM

You first sentence will answer your second.

Posted by: Ruth Jun 18 2015, 06:36 PM

Are you talking about special rates here? PM what you want and I'll see what I can do for you. Special rates for forum members, but no trolling, as that will put me off.

Posted by: Petra Jun 18 2015, 06:38 PM

Dear User 23,

It is the few that mouth off, but when caught out either shout “troll” or make wild accusations that can’t be backed up. The good, bad and particularly the ugly that inhabit this forum are here because they have no voice in the outside world so inhabit these dark corridors where only bats and the bored stalk in harmony.

I read this interesting quote in the Times a few months ago. “Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”

I imagine those that shout troll are just bored sixteen-year-olds not yet having learnt the finer arts of masturbation so resort to trolling, themselves, and shouting troll in the sad believe that it shows their sophistication in higher matters of nothingness.

Yours,

Petra

Posted by: Petra Jun 18 2015, 06:46 PM

Dear Ruth,

Let me give you some counsel. Appealing to the lowest denominator on here won’t help your cause, but will set a bad example of female equality and superiority. We are better than that, you are better than that. The only prostitutes that inhabit this world are males who hide behind women’s skirts.

Stand up and be proud, you have the intellect, even though, yet, the balls. The men on here have the balls, but with no substances attached to them, therefore, are only capable of small bursts of sensible two-liners.

God created women in Her intelligent image, as an afterthought She decided to create men to piss off the true rulers of this world, i.e. women.

Yours,

Petra

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 18 2015, 08:17 PM

Referring to the emboldened type: is this your admission?



Don't stop troll, I haven't finished yet!!!

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 19 2015, 05:02 PM

Dear Petra

I'm not sure what gives you the divine right to lecture people in your most charming way. You seem to be obsessed with the male genitalia and have a real insight into what sixteen year olds get up to in their free time. I'm beginning to wonder if you are female or are perhaps a transgender with a desire to dispense with those most hated parts that men continually scratch.

I'm sure User, from past history, doesn't give a monkey's about what insults you wish to hurl at him. He has a very thick skin.

As far as the advice you have given Ruth, then what a load of gobbledygook. I would expect that she would be as confused as I am about what point you are making and probably wouldn't relish the suggestion that you are of higher intellect than her.

You do take the time off from your high powered job and we note you read the top people's newspaper so well done for that.

Exhausted

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 19 2015, 05:53 PM

I think I have already answered that, but the answer is a little unpalatable for some.

Posted by: Petra Jun 19 2015, 06:36 PM

Dear Exhausted,

I’ve just read your long and rambling reply and all I can say is that if you are exhausted then maybe you shouldn’t have written such rambling nonsense. Maybe you are trying to form an alliance with that other exhausted mate of yours, Mr Andy Capp.

It is interesting to note that you are exhausted and Andy Capp is taken from a working class cartoon character that never actually works. Lives in Hartlepool near a harbour. ‘Capp’ signifies Andy always covering his eyes. That about sums the pair of you up.

As for hurling insults at User, try reading what I said again. I was actually supporting him. Exhausted by name, exhausted by mind, it seems as well.

As for the other compliments, you are welcome Mr Exhausted, but try not to overdo it, as even I can be exhausted by such ramblings.

Yes, I do have a high pressured job, but even I need a few seconds of relaxation and tinkering with you jolly fellows is part of that relaxation. Please don’t let me stop you from trolling this forum for amusement as I and others daily read the comic strips on here to put a smile on our faces before getting down to serious and intelligent work in the real world.

To the unemployed Mr Capp, no it isn’t an admission, but of an observation of you and your fellow wafflers, or should I say kid wafflers?

Yours,

Petra

Posted by: Petra Jun 19 2015, 06:39 PM

Mr Capp,

Reading your replies you never seem to finish or stop, but that is your right and our entrainment.

Yours,

Petra

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 19 2015, 06:40 PM

I don't need to work, after all, only fools and horses do that!