[IMC-bristol] Re: COMPLAINT

[crash]

Hello all,

it appears that james venables has taken serious personal offence at my 
suggestion to reduce the workload of BIMC through taking personal 
discussions offline. He has also taken serious offence at sending an 
email to both his and Jografer's email addresses. However, I did this in 
the knowledge that both users have publicly posted their email addresses 
on the site:

James Venables: http://bristol.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=3225
Jografer: http://bristol.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=10005


As he has banned me from putting my case to him, I would like to ask 
others in the collective to help resolve this.

Thanks & regards,

Crash



James Venables wrote:

> Hello Bristol IMC,
>
> I'm now underlining my complaint. (Re: squabbling online)
>
> My email was forwarded to Jografer without my permission by 
> crash at subsection.org.uk. It may well be the case that Jografer is 
> anyway on this list, & already in possession of it, but I do not use 
> my email on Bristol IMC as I do not wish it to be public to those on 
> Bristol IMC.
>
> This isn't a minor complaint. I do not want my email to be forwarded 
> to others who use Bristol Indymedia when I have not myself provided 
> it. This is a very serious abuse. I want this addressed, & I demand an 
> immediate apology from crash at subsection.org.uk, or the suspension of 
> his/her IMC access codes while this abuse is addressed.
>
> Please see my reply (re: squabbling online) for my views on the nature 
> of the initial email sent by crash at subsection.org.uk.  As you all know 
> I have made complaints before on issues of baiting & threats of 
> violence. I do not believe that this thread was that serious an 
> example of the former (as an on-topic debate was still being had 
> within the thread), & in no way an example of the latter.
>
> I do however accept that IMC volunteers have a right to interject, but 
> I will not tolerate a clumsy infringement of my right to privacy, & I 
> will not tolerate attempts to enforce dubious breeds of political 
> correctness via a disingenuous portrayal of censorship as guidelines. 
> I politically reject PC & will therefore in absolutely no way, shape 
> or form agree at any level to be bound by it's prudish, censorious & 
> patronising ethos.
>
> James