Today’s Call Clegg saw Nick questioned on Iraq, knife crime, poverty, web snooping, longer school days and, inevitably, Mike Hancock. He was very clear on Hancock – he should have apologised sooner and he should now resign from the party.
Here’s my Storify of mine and others’ tweets from the programme:
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Developing our LGBT+ policy for the future (Christine Jardine MP)
Conservative hypocrisy over the Chagos Islands (Jack Wilkin)
Could the Lib Dems really deflate the Reform bubble? (Jack Nicholls)
Forging a path to end Modern Slavery: A clarion call for stronger UK legislation (Asry Kaloko)
UKâs International Development needs funds and a long-term vision to meet its stated objectives (Nicholas Chan)
Jack Nicholls 
Nonconformistradical Nonconformistradical 
Mick Taylor 
Joe Bourke 
Scandic
The Joy of Six 1276
West End Ward Thursday Surgeries #dundeewestend
India - the centre of the known world (once upon a time)...
32 Comments
You might be onto something with your ore tax….if it appears in the manifesto we can credit it to you. đ
After the results of the Ashcroft poll Nick should resign as well. Caron have you seen it?
I wish I had a regular slot on LBC.
A great opportunity to ask Nick to resign.
Given that every comment thread on any subject now has the usual suspects calling for Clegg to resign rather than responding to the article or debating other commenters, perhaps LDV needs to implement a “bore tax”.
NC to MH – Resign. MH to NC – After you.
Dear moderators
Could we have an open thread called something like “Should NC resign”, and all comments discussing that issue get put there? I agree with Dave, there really is no point keep talking about it, but if some people want to, then a nice quiet corner for those that do would be good.
Dave and Jenny,
I hear what you are saying and I feel your pain. Dave, I just love your suggestion. Thing is, there have been a gazillion posts about the leadership and people could post on them – but they don’t. I suspect that we editors may have to get brutal and delete all off topic comments. You have been warned. Not you, Dave and Jenny.
Dear fellow readers – I believe I have just been brutalised by Caron LOL!
LDV – “Our Place to talk” or is it now “Our place to be censored?”
Stephen,
You clearly have survived the process:-). I would like to point out that no readers were actually harmed…
David Evans,
We have a comments policy. If people choose not to stick to it, then their comments will be deleted. You have rules for how people behave in your house, I presume? And if people came in and trashed your sitting room, you’d throw them out soon enough? You are not being censored – you have the whole rest of the internet to post what you like. In our house, you need to stick to our rules.
@David Evans
LDV has a very clear Comments Policy here:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/comment-policy
This includes the words:
“Your comments should be relevant to the subject under discussion. ”
If commenters want to discuss the leadership, there are many posts on here under which they can do that.
Surely in response to an article about Nick Clegg calling upon somebody to apologise and resign, suggesting he might consider the same course of action is entirely on topic.
No, Peter, it is not. There are more than enough places on here where you can discuss the leadership.
@ Paul Walter – So in a thread entitled “Call Clegg: Iraq, poverty, knife crime and âHancock should resignâ”. There was one post with a joke about an already admitted typo (not censored); then two on the theme of resignation (clearly on topic); A complaint presumably about the three earlier posts (not on topic, but not deleted); a corny piece of fictional repartee about resignation (not censored); and a suggestion for a thread about Nick Clegg’s resignation (clearly not on topic but not deleted). After this there was a threat that the editors may have to get brutal; a good point raised by Simon stating that resignation was clearly on topic and this was deleted.
Could you explain exactly how it is that allowing posts complaining about other posts that are clearly on topic to remain, while deleting posts point out that they are on topic, adhering to your comments policy?
By your logic, if someone talked about nicking a biscuit then that would be an excuse to talk about Nick Clegg and whether he should resign, David.
I’ve allowed Dave and Jenny’s comments to stay because they tell the story about how people were getting fed up of every thread being dominated and why we as a team feel we have to take action .
This isn’t a negotiation.
No Caron, it isn’t a case of trashing the LDV living room but one of inviting a debate and then when coming under too much pressure in that debate LDV mods close down those outspoken enough to earn their ire.
Here is a challenge for you – tell us exactly which of the rules David has transgressed. You won’t of course, any more than you will allow this post through despite it similarly not crossing any of your reds lines.
Do you mean David, david or David-1?
If you mean David Evans, I cannot see any comments which we have rejected from him recently (I have checked back to 21st May). I was answering his point, not telling him he had contravened the policy.
@David Evans 7.50pm
You’ve completely lost me. Suffice it to say we’re volunteers and we try to do our best. We’re not machines and we’re not paid to do this. I’m not going to look back at such specifics. Like it or lump it.
We’re not censoring anything. Anyone is free to take their comments and write them anywhere else on the internet.
Caron, in a topic that reports where Nick has said that someone should resign, there is a clear link between that and comments that relate to Nick refusing to resign. However, I do struggle to understand your comment that âif someone talked about nicking a biscuit then that would be an excuse to talk about Nickâ unless it is a really corny joke, or you know something about Mr Cleggâs penchant for Ginger Nuts. đ
You are right, it is not a negotiation, it is a mature debate trying to understand moderatorsâ actions and how they fit in with the policy.
David, it’s not that difficult. If the post isn’t about Nick Clegg’s leadership, don’t post comments saying he should resign.
How can it be a debate when one view is being suppressed. It is all very well saying ‘our house, what we say goes’ but it is censorship when a section cannot say what they want – even when the subject was introduced by others – because of the threat of pulling their post.
Not allowing people their say makes it look like LDV just wants posts by ‘yes’ men. It is fine for other parties to do this, but liberals are supposed to be different.
@ Carron
You have already emailed me asking me not to post including a Call for Nick Clegg to resign on the thread Bout Tim Farron . You are asking Dave Evans not to comment on an article about Nick Clegg’s views on his radio show. Do you want us to speak in a cryptic code or just self censor?
IMO all these posts are on topic and if Jenny Barnes doesn’t want to hear the clamour for Clegg to go or speak up for him and engage with the debate then why call for censorship?
Jonathan, the problem is people are sick fed up of having these comments on every single thread. There are plenty where it is on topic. BTW, Carron is a steel works, My name is Caron.
The trouble is if you try to get on there to challenge Clegg’s leadership of the Party they won’t allow you on air, even after the disastrous Council and EU election results under Clegg, no one was allowed to put it to him that his leadership has failed, his Orange Bookers are turning the Party into a rump and as I’ve texted them so many times before it’s time for Tim. Bring back Anthony Davis, Ferrari has a Clegg love-in if I were to see him in Blackheath then I’d ensure we got some social liberals on.
No Caron, people are not sick fed up of having these comments – Clegg supporters are fed up of them, The thing is is that those comments are just what are being said by members and, especially, ex members across the country.
@David Evans
“you know something about Mr Cleggâs penchant for Ginger Nuts.”
I thought that the world and his wife knew by now that Nick feels the Beaker is half full . . . . đ
@Caron Lindsay
“If the post isnât about Nick Cleggâs leadership, donât post comments saying he should resign.”
Whereas, if a post/topic here ostensibly about anything else under the sun miraculously includes Pyongyangish references to “the Great Leader”, whose reign should continue for a thousand years, this should not be answered but should be contemplated in mystical silence? đ
Social Liberal: If you look across the many thousands of comments we’ve had on LDV over the past few weeks, you can hardly accuse us of not reflecting all strands of opinion. If we only took posts from yes “people” then our comments threads would be a great deal shorter.
What is so difficult for you to understand about not taking up every single comments thread with the “bin Clegg” stuff. And I can assure you that Jenny Barnes is not what you would call the biggest Clegg fan on the planet.
We are enforcing our long established comments policy that requires people to be on topic.
“If the post isnât about Nick Cleggâs leadership, donât post comments saying he should resign.”
How is the post above not about Nick Clegg’s leadership? I read an article in the Evening Standard today about how angry Nick Clegg was that he hadn’t received the letter that was written to him about the Hancock affair. He was then asked about the phone call, and he said he would have to go away and look into it. Uncannily similar to the Rennard affair. And the conduct of Clegg’s own office is apparently something he feels entitled to be angry about, rather than responsible for!
In cases like these Wikipedia provides the answer:
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. (p. 56, ch. 5)
@Chris
If you are posting about “Hancock” shouldn’t you declare an interest?
It may be just a smear to you mate…..
I agree with Caron. Once upon a time I moderated another group, and occasionally people would accuse me of unreasonable moderation. And many comments were passed in a sea-lawyerish way about my moderation policy. If it’s a space I’m moderating, it’s a benign (IMAO) dictatorship. The moderators here are way more tolerant than I was.