ECF Code of Conduct

[Jonathan Bryant]

I think you shoud delete Mr Burke's account, Carl.

I'd have binned it some time ago.

[Alan Burke]

Ernie, yes, I agree that the matter should have remained private, but after I had sent Carl Hibbard a personal e-mail, it was himself not me who brought the matter into the forum. I only responded as the facts given by Carl Hibbard were not true - and please note that, despite his recent posts where he tries to change the subject in an attempt to deflect the issue away from himself, he has not disagreed with any of the comments I made in my most recent post.

ie I did not send "repeated e-mails" before being reinstated on 14 Janaury
I was not reinstated just because I sent such repeated e-mails as I had only sent one (15 Dec)
Carl Hibbard agreed he was wrong to deactivate my account in December
Carl Hibbard deactivated it a second time without giving any reason

Carl Hibbard now says "I have activated your account so you can comment on posts made referring to yourself", so that it what I did with regard to Carl Hibbard's comment about my "repeated e-mails" and I trust he will now make a reply on that particular subject.

Ernie, I will not be making any comment on the other subject as it was intended to be a private communication and not for public discussion.

[Ernie Lazenby]

I am very sorry if I have it wrong but my understanding is that Carl allowed you back so you could reply to those posts that concern your actions in submitting a complaint to the ECF. Apparently you have no wish to do that, okay that's fair enough if that's how you feel.

[Alan Burke]

Ernie, sorry for not replying to your above post any earlier but I thought I would give Carl Hibbard the chance to reply to my previous post before making any further comment - however, despite having had a week pass by it would seem that he is unwilling to do so. I would have thought that a full denial and proof that my comments were unfounded would have given more credence for those baying for my removal from this forum, whereas silence would seem to suggest that their target should actually be Carl Hibbard for not providing such proof to back up his comment of "repeated e-mails" from me concerning the subject of this thread and for not admitting he was at fault in posting such a false statement (14 January); in the same way he has recently had to admit he was wrong in originally deactivating my account (16 December) as well as, earlier in this thread, saying it was wrong for him to insult Steve Giddins (18 December) - and when he actually said he would try and behave in the future. It's possibly fortunate that the forum does not operate a rule of "3 strikes within a month and you're out."

Again, I will not make any comment regarding events away from this forum, but, in reply to some earlier posts in this thread concerning private/official posts, I would hope that many will appreciate how the two can easily be confused when apparently private comments include the following phrases ...
" ...as a Director of the ECF I can confirm to you ..."
" ...we will make amendments to the website ... It does not mean that we think there is anything wrong with the information that is there already." (The word WE does seem to suggest the comments are not a personal intention.)
" ...I was appointed by the board."

Of course, I am only stating the above to indicate how easy it is for such comments to be taken as official statements instead of apparently being private. I wonder if a policeman could get away with saying "I am an officer of the law and am stopping you for driving too fast; but as an individual I think you are a prat; but again as a policeman I am now arresting you." ?

[Ernie Lazenby]

Thank you for replying however.
1. Carl own this forum, pays for it out of his pocket and for me that says it all.

2. Some of your post and in particular the last sentence adds credibility to those who would have you removed.

Perhaps you ought to have simply replied saying, you have nothing further to say about your complaint made about an ECF director. I said in my previous post if you felt unable to comment about that matter then fine its your choice and understandable.

I think its apparent to all that Carl and Sean will not comment any further about your posts so perhaps you ought to let it rest.

[Alan Burke]

Ernie, I do not question Carl Hibbard's dedication to this forum and cannot dispute your claim that he pays for it out of his own pocket. However, surely that does not also give him carte-blanch to post an incorrect statement about someone without being questioned about it. I am sure anyone, including yourself, would defend themselves against a perceived injustice and not just "let it rest" without getting a satisfactory answer.

As stated in answer to one of your earlier posts, I was not the one who brought this matter into the forum, but having done so I would have thought the person responsible would have then either given proof of their statement or simply apologised for any inaccuracy. A failure to do either would seem to show more about their character than mine.