Featured Glad It's Back

Amen!

There is no greater crime than taking the p*** out of an already humourless, sanctimonious ...........you get the picture.

More levity please.

 

Yeah,
The quote describes a reasonable escalation for those who would violate the culture. However, it is based on genuine concern for the individual and a good footing on the truth. Without those two items firmly in place, any discipline will look like oppression to the guilty and injustice to the community. Personal discussion can raise the truth, even among adversaries. The asking of witnesses allows both parties to air "their side" and get the opinion of the family group. The "church" refers to the larger overall community, guided by God. The point is, misconduct can be compared to what is right for all the community to see, while reconciliation for the guilty is paramount.

There is a lot baked into this, and I know you probably do not agree, but I thought I would provide these few words to maybe help.

 

Snowflake badge on.....SIR! SIR! he called me a neanderthal! and he thinks i come from Norfolk...that's got to be racist and prejudiced.

 

Actually, I do agree and at the deeper level. Restoration beats retribution every time. It breaks the cycle.

 

Not another attention seeker

 

No I leave that to others.

 

Sorry I have no time for religion any religion so if this is going to turn into a Sunday school lesson I'll avoid this thread

 

Me neither but each to their own.

 

I enjoyed Sunday school our teacher was called Geraldine
Her knockers set the standard for the next 46 years for me

 

I'm sure Wayne knows the difference between genuine complaints and running to teacher. I don't know who's complained unreasonably or how many there may have been. Anyone who is being reasonable in their disagreement shouldn't have anything to worry about. Serial complainers are unlikely to be taken seriously. As I've said before, attack the idea, not the person. Regardless of what end of the political or moral spectrum anyone is, those should be the rules of engagement in my opinion if we want to avoid the current situation with people being banned.

I don't know Jez and I'm not trying to judge him here as an individual. All I know is what I'm told (mostly positive) and what I read from him, which was by no means all negative. However, I keep hearing these descriptions of 'good humour', 'ribbing' and 'banter'. It didn't come across that way for a lot of people and to cast those who disgree as 'PC/woke lefties' etc ad nauseum is immature and insulting. Even if that's how someone feels, find a better way to express it. It was like being back in the school playground around here sometimes.

People can disagree with each other, vehemently argue their points, and take the mick. That's discourse, debate and banter. Within those bounds, if someone is offended, well, suck it up, I say. As adults we should be able to deal with those situations maturely without throwing toys out of prams or insults at each other.

 

Alleluia!

 

Wasn’t it threats that was the nail in the coffin?
No one knows what was said so maybe it was that (them?) that was/were a step too far instead and not the banter?

 

My point is, there was a better way to say what he wanted to say, that some may still have disagreed with, but no one should have felt was a reason to leave entirely.

 

Ah, i'm sorry.
I thought havit and rob said it was because of that and that was the reason for the shutdown and suspension/banishment.

 

That was just the reason Rob shut down the forum for a while, I believe.

You would assume that the threat came from someone on the forum and that person wouldn't be here at least since it came back. I see it as an issue between Rob and whomever that was.

 

From what I seen on the banner that Rob posted when he closed the forum was that he would not threatened. That seems to have been the catalyst for the closure.

 

But we only have one side of the argument, Jez has no defence.

 

I hope anyone leaving or staying away for a while would reconsider, agreeing that some members got themselves in to a situation they could have avoided and putting the whole episode behind us.

Straight talking bikers are my kind of people. Isn't that basically why we're all here?

 

Is that on the assumption that Jez is the culprit? I'm not aware it was him and I wouldn't want to point the finger based on circumstantial evidence from the forum. Like you say, he isn't here to speak for himself.