Dear Editor
I waited with interest to see if there would be any letters published in your 6th December edition commenting on the article by Simon Carr "Beware of potential pitfalls or risk being forced to 'blog off'" (29th November). Its a great pity you didn't see fit to let any of your readers reply to your extremely one sided picture of blogging.
I will comment mainly from the point of view of my own blog without getting too deeply into the debate on blogging in general.
The first impression I got on reading your article was that it was an attempt on your part to placate Cllr Calver after you had the temerity to report his behaviour in relation to pupils in Manorbier Primary School in your previous edition. Perhaps I'm being too cynical!
The article asserts that "...many people believe these new opportunities are fraught with danger". Who are these 'many people' and what is the danger? You seem to have only spoken to three people. Cllr Calver, a man who cannot stand legitimate criticism and questioning whether by blog or by newspaper, Owain Carter, who believes that the benefits of blogging greatly outweigh the potential problems and your legal adviser, David Scott, who quite rightly points out that the same laws that apply to newspapers apply equally to blogs.
You go on to say "...gives everyone ... a way of publishing their views without screening or censorship". Surely this is a good thing, this is one of the main strengths of blogs. I am amazed that a newspaper would give a millimetre of column space to the idea that any form of publishing should be subject to censorship!
Remember, with censorship there must be a censor (a post that Cllr Calver would apply for like a shot) and if blogs become subject to censorship how long before newspapers follow?
Your next point "Some people can abuse the facility, making up lies, spreading rumours or bullying ... while remaining anonymous" seems to imply that the subject of a blog is powerless to rebut what is said. Not so! A person who is the subject of a blog has a full right of reply, he or she can set up their own blog to counter any accusations made. Some blogs, my own included, also allow a right of reply by the posting of comments.
When Cllr Calver's supporters accused me of posting lies I responded with the article entitled "An Offer They Can't Refuse" (20 March 2006).
What I said in that article was:
"Well here is an offer to Martin Davies and Malcolm Calver and anyone else who thinks they know the truth. Tell me which parts of my blog are untrue and provide me with your 'documentary evidence' and I will post it in this blog and if your evidence in irrefutable I will even post a full apology"
Needless to say this offer was greeted with a deafening silence.
Now lets consider "There is no system in place to ensure that what is published ... is legally, morally or factually sound". Both criminal and civil law are available if blog writers step outside the law. As to moral soundness, who is to be the judge of the moral soundness of a blog? Perhaps the same person who is going to wield the censor's blue pencil? If transgressing the bounds of morality were a crime then a major percentage of the population would be in jail. As for being factually sound, I endeavour to publish the truth as I'm sure you do, but what publications are ever completely factually sound and can we ever find the whole truth indeed is there such a thing as absolute truth? I learnt many years ago not to believe unconditionally what I read, hear or see in the media and I would advise others to adopt the same attitude.
Oh dear! so"Cllr Calver experienced the unpleasant side of blogging" did he! What Cllr Calver finds unpleasant about the Manorbier blogs is that they mock and ridicule him, something that the self important find intolerable, and worse still the blogs ask uncomfortable and awkward questions about his conduct as our County Councillor. This ability to question is still a right that we all enjoy however inconvenient and uncomfortable politicians may find it and however much they would love to silence us.
Indeed Cllr Calver succeeded in closing down a campaign run by the opponents of night firing at Manorbier that they had running on one of the BBC community sites.
Cllr Calver's statement "It bothers me that people are able to say what they like about anyone" really does take first prize for hypocrisy, for years he has been running his own website on which he has been saying exactly what he likes about other members of the Community Council with scant regard for the truth. Now that he is on the receiving end he suddenly thinks freedom of speech might not be such a good idea after all! A case of the biter bit?
Providing what we say is not libellous then we still have a modicum of free speech in this country however uncomfortable the truth may be to the likes of Cllr Calver.
He goes on to say "I think it is disgraceful that the police say that they can do nothing about it". I am sure that if the writers of the Manorbier blogs were doing or saying anything illegal then the police would take action but until the day the "thought police" become a reality we will continue to ask those awkward and uncomfortable questions of our elected representatives - indeed that is still our right. The fact that we do it anonymously is completely irrelevant.
Finally, can I suggest that one of the reasons for the anonymity of the Manorbier blogs is Cllr Calver's propensity to threaten anyone who opposes or upsets him with legal action which, however unlikely to be carried through or succeed, does deterred some people. (Does this sound familiar to you Mr Editor?).
Yours in search of the truth
Manorbier Sam
