get a life – get a blog

Whilst I welcome comment on this blog – both of the kind that showers me with praise and the kind that disagrees with me (of which the former is something of a rarity), I do sometimes wonder why people who hold such strong views and who comment prolifically on this blog don’t simply go out and put their views out there in a more coherent way than via snippety comments on Pink Tape. 

Comments are great, they make a blog interesting, BUT I’m beginning to think that I’ve reached a point where some commenters are devoting so much energy to setting forth their views about every blog entry that I can’t hear myself think. I didn’t intend this blog to become a forum for lawyer-bashing to the point where my voice is drowned out.

Making comments on other people’s blog is a safe way of setting out your views without having to worry too much (and maybe a little lazy) – blogging is putting yourself up there on a platform and saying ‘So what do you all think?’. I’ve done that and I want to hear what people have to say but frankly I don’t like being shouted at all the time! And the same posts from the same people about the same topics day in day out is dull reading for anyone, whatever your views.

And now I notice that this post has been referenced from Wikipedia as a source of discussion about Bruce Hyman the penny is starting to drop. I don’t particularly want my blog to be a reference point for views that I don’t hold or that Wikipedia won’t post. Go do it in your own back yard.

So guys – it is with some regret that I’ve decided from now on to moderate all comments. I won’t remove the existing comments and I won’t block any particular individuals, but enough is enough. I’m sorry to spoil your fun, but I think its time to reclaim ownership of my blog and my voice – you are free to exercise your right to free speech, but this is not your platform and I won’t let you distort what I want to say through this blog: start your own blog – you seem to have more than enough time and plenty of material. I will read them with interest.

5 thoughts on “get a life – get a blog

  1. Fair enough, it’s your blog after all. But you did provoke this sequence of postings by criticising F4J for only making our documents available to members; it was a reasonable point. Graeme then made the Blueprint available to you and I offered the Family Justice on Trial document, which I wrote.

    You said, on the 14th of August, ‘I’m open minded,’ and offered to read these documents, but you no not appear to have read the Blueprint yet and you have not requested the other doc. You said, ‘I’d genuinely like to read such documents’, and spoke of ‘debate’.

    I am willing to believe you remain open minded, but I am finding it more difficult to do so. You condemn us for ‘lawyer bashing’ but I’m beginning to wonder if your original posting wasn’t just a bit of Fathers 4 Justice bashing.

  2. Hi Nick,
    You’re right, I did provoke a sequence of postings – and I haven’t deleted them precisely because some of the points made are valid and I do want to generate debate. As you will see I’m not stopping comments, I’m just managing them.

    I do want to read the document you sent me but I’m afraid I haven’t had time to do so due to professional and personal committments. When I’ve read it I will post my thoughts.

    Just because I disagree with some of what you say and they way it is expressed doesn’t mean its F4J bashing. As you say, I made a valid point. But I have made no general point about the validity or purpose of F4J. For what its worth my view is that F4J have generated some important debate about equality in the family courts, but I’m afraid I disagree with much in terms of the way it seeks to achieve its objectives. But thats a polite disagreement not a bash.

  3. Sorry, Familoo, I wasn’t trying to rush you. Thanks to the family courts I now have a lot of spare time – and that isn’t meant to sound as bitter as it might.

    We do need a debate, both about what our objectives should be and about how to achieve them. No one can plausibly continue to claim that there is no problem.

    I think we need to start from scratch with a new Children Act; one which is fit for purpose and recognises the massive social changes there have been in the last generation. The 1989 Act is nearly 20 years old and much of the thinking behind it is much, much older. The paramountcy principle which is so over promoted dates back to the beginning of the 20th Century, PR is a throwback to when illegitimacy was a stigma – should we really be discriminating against illegitimate children when nearly half are now born out of wedlock?

    Blogs like yours seem as good a place as any to conduct some of this debate – campaigners for change will inevitably gravitate towards them; I could set up my own blog as you suggest, but I don’t imagine many lawyers would contribute to it!

  4. I see comment as a communication channel, how else would we know what the readers want? Its also a good way to build relationships.

  5. […] 21, 2009 by familoo I’ve been moderating comments on the Pink Tape for some time (see here also) to ensure that abusive or inappropriate posts are not published by those with little or no […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.