Paul Derrett

[Peter Clark]

Paul Derrett (Cynic) has contacted me asking that I pass on a message to forum members.

 

Paul has said that he has been suspended from the forum and is thus unable to post a message; he wishes to express his gratitude to the members of this discussion board and that he is fully aware of the reasons for his suspension but also wishes to register his disappointment at not being contacted directly about this suspension.

 

Paul feels that he is now unable to consider resuming his membership of thisd forum but that he intends to continue visiting the forum as a guest.

 

Peter

[emsgdh]

This news gives me quite a pain.

 

I'm deeply chagrined at this news. When I think of what so many of us endured at the hands of that infantile crack-pot from the states, Steve Bournais, and for months on end, Paul is hardly in that class. I, for one, will miss his contributions greatly. In the matter of Nicholson's, it sounded to me that, whatever Paul's intentions, he was mis-informed. This has happened to all of us at one time or another.

 

Adieu, Paul.

[Simon Walker]

It's too bad really. Paul had some of the most interesting things to say on this forum, not to mention dedication to helping others and freely sharing his knowledge. Paul won't be allowed back until March 2012 apparently, that's if he chooses to bother. What a shame.

[pwhodges]

As the moderator of another message board, I know how difficult such decisions can be. However, I am sad that the moderators here do not hold to the principle of avoiding censorship. Paul's message responding to Nicholson's rebuttal of his earlier statements not only asked for further clarification (not unreasonable, I guess, though forcefully expressed), but also clearly apologised first for any actual misinformation he had passed on. To leave the accusation visible but remove the apology (even if partial) is bad practice in my book.

 

Paul

[MusingMuso]

As the moderator of another message board, I know how difficult such decisions can be. However, I am sad that the moderators here do not hold to the principle of avoiding censorship. Paul's message responding to Nicholson's rebuttal of his earlier statements not only asked for further clarification (not unreasonable, I guess, though forcefully expressed), but also clearly apologised first for any actual misinformation he had passed on. To leave the accusation visible but remove the apology (even if partial) is bad practice in my book.

 

Paul

 

 

=======================

 

 

Normally, a discussion forum or a news "letters" page can be protected by the use of a simple expedient.

 

It usually reads something like:-

 

"All views expressed are those of the writers and contributors and are not necessarily those of the editor or the journal (forum etc)"

 

If something is published which is clearly inaccurate or defamatory, then the usual thing is to allow a right of reply or, in the case of an inaccurate editorial article, to print a full apology.

 

Our kind hosts permitted a right of reply to the offended party, which should have been the end of the matter.

 

Instead, the whole thing blows up again in a very public way.

 

Our hosts are in a very difficult position, for they cannot remain impartial, unlike a newspaper or journal. They are part of a trade body which seeks to represent the best interests of the members, and as such, the aggrieved party (in this case Nicholson's) could bring pressure to bear at many different levels, and if legal action were to ensue, a judge could rightly associate bad comments with trade reputation and possible pecuniary advantage; especially if the comments remain on the discussion forum. Unfortunately, to permit the sort of exchange we all saw, without removing the comments or removing the source of those comments, would have been to effectively condone them.

 

So it's not really a question of censorship, but a matter of self-protection, and I fully support what must have been a difficult decision, given the high reputation of Paul as a musician.

 

As I stated to Paul in a private message, I have always been a bit fiery in certain business situations.....a bit of a mover and shaker when required. (As Paul put it, "not very well house trained.") I wouldn't ever have done that by involving a third party. It's a question of discipline and responsibility, which is the other side of the coin when it comes to free speech and censorship.

 

So I hope that the matter rests here, and people appreciate the difficult position into which our kind hosts have been placed. I also hope that Paul will consider the implications, and return to us eventually. In the meantime, his comments will be sorely missed, of course.

 

MM

[Pierre Lauwers]

Paul's knowledge about the british organ will be sadly missed from abroad.

 

Pierre

[Barry Oakley]

I don’t know what the filtering process is (if there is such a process is in place) to prevent the appearance of what could reasonably be deemed an inflammatory posting. I suggest this is something that Rachel might care to look into. Filtering would have prevented the unfortunate suspension of Paul.

 

As some of the forum’s contributors have already stated, not so long ago we were subjected to almost a constant barrage of irrational postings from a certain gentleman domiciled across the pond. Not simply because he is a friend, but I submit that by far the greatest part of Paul’s multitude of postings are highly interesting and, for my part, often very educative.

 

As I have already expressed in an e-mail to John (Mander) via Rachel, I would have hoped that leniency could be extended to Paul in the belief that a personal communication, whilst being firm in content, would still have allowed Paul to continue contributing. And I just wonder if somehow Paul and Andrew (Moyes) could still be afforded an opportunity to put aside their variances without any rancour and the rift healed?

[Guest Patrick Coleman]

As I have already expressed in an e-mail to John (Mander) via Rachel, I would have hoped that leniency could be extended to Paul in the belief that a personal communication, whilst being firm in content, would still have allowed Paul to continue contributing. And I just wonder if somehow Paul and Andrew (Moyes) could still be afforded an opportunity to put aside their variances without any rancour and the rift healed?

Barry is not the only person to have done this, and to hold out the same hope.

[mjgrieveson]

It is a great pity that we can no longer enjoy the contributions of a regular member and a considerable musician, whereas the very first (and probably last) post from another person, stoutly defending their own position, is allowed to stand.

[Guest Geoff McMahon]

There isn't an answer to this that will please everyone. Paul was suspended for a year and then readmitted at his own request in mid October 2010 and without any conditions being set.

 

However, he said, of his own volition, in an e-mail dated 15 October 2010 "I solemnly promise in future not to make personal criticisms of any of Mr. Mander's friends or UK organ builder colleagues".

 

That promise has been broken. From the above, I hope that most people will see why Paul has again been suspended for a further year. Mander Organs has adopted a "light touch" approach to moderation but that does not mean "anything goes".

 

Rachel Mawhood

Moderator, Mander Organs

[Guest Geoff McMahon]

whereas the very first (and probably last) post from another person, stoutly defending their own position, is allowed to stand.

 

Right of reply.

 

Moderator, Mander Organs

[Guest Geoff McMahon]

And I just wonder if somehow Paul and Andrew (Moyes) could still be afforded an opportunity to put aside their variances without any rancour and the rift healed?

 

There is nothing stopping Paul Derrett taking this to e-mail with Andrew Moyes.

 

Moderator, Mander Organs

[Guest Geoff McMahon]

Paul's knowledge about the british organ will be sadly missed from abroad.

 

There is nothing stopping Paul from starting his own blog or on-line forum.

 

Moderator, Mander Organs

[Guest Geoff McMahon]

This evening, Paul Derrett has attempted to take this "dispute" up to another level and, as a consequence, is permanently banned.

 

This topic is now pinned, and any new topics started on the subject of Paul Derrett will be deleted.

 

Rachel Mawhood

Moderator, Mander Organs