Comment rejected but not obvious why?

This topic was created by Patrick Seurre .

  1. Patrick Seurre

    Comment rejected but not obvious why?

    I posted a comment recently about ex-ICO employee Stephen McCartney and his move to google (see this article: http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2012/07/04/google_third_member/). This was based on an FoIA request showing him to be involved in the google related workings at the ICO and his publically viewable LinkedIn profile that shows his subsequent move to Google. It would appear to be factually correct, so I would be curious to know why it was rejected?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Comment rejected but not obvious why?

      Patrick, thanks for your comment. I am not sure why your comment was rejected. But our moderators err on the side of caution when claims are made about people that we, for UK libel laws, need to check.

      On this occasion it was over-cautious, but I hope you understand the rationale.

      1. Patrick Seurre

        Re: Comment rejected but not obvious why?

        That sounds perfectly reasonable, but I have a couple of additional comments: firstly I went back to the article quickly as I wanted to see if my comment had been unhidden and if there were any further comments as a result. The thread has since been closed to new comments, presumably because of the age of the article, but as I recall there was more than one page of comments. There appears to be only one displayed at the moment and no links displayed to subsequent pages. Was the hiding of additional comments intended for some reason?

        In addition presumably the majority of comments get blocked for one of a number of fairly well defined reasons: abusive language, racist language, anything that could be considered libellous and so forth. Perhaps it would be possible to get the moderators to click on a reason out of a list when rejecting the comment so that we have some idea why it was rejected? Apart from anything else in this case I would have been able to provide the proof had I been given the chance to provide it.

  2. Patrick Seurre

    It might also be relevant that the ICO have since apparently confirmed that the Stephen McCartney working for Google did in fact used to work for them.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Another thing that may be of interest:

      http://users.livejournal.com/_paladine_/12240.html

      So it's entirely possible that the ICO was either doing Google's bidding at the behest of the DCMS (independent regulator? What independent regulator?) or was doing so as a result from being lobbied directly by Google, Either of those is entirely unacceptable.

  3. Patrick Seurre

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jul/05/google-uk-privacy-manager-ico

  4. Patrick Seurre

    Also if you need proof in regards to the face that the Stephen McCartney is the same person on both cases:

    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/google_streetview_and_angry_lett#incoming-293948

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022