Nice try Andrew. The sympathy vote. However, as contrasted so eloquently above, the removal of the post about Whitehaven on the official site was not carried out at the behest of Suzanne, the original contributor. That, my friend, is censorship. You are guilty as charged so stop ducking and diving.
I'm not denying that Suzanne's post was removed without her request, but the removal of one post that was factually incorrect, and when the correct information was later posted on the site, is hardly evidence that the policy of the site is to suppress freedom of expression.
We reserve the right to remove any posts that break the rules, or contain lies, disinformation or incorrect information that may be damaging to Steve. We've never pretended otherwise, but that right is rarely exercised and hardly constitutes what most people would consider to be censorship.
It was not our intention to suppress Suzanne's freedom of expression, it was to remove incorrect information that was misleading and potentially damaging, and I do not think that Suzanne now feels that her human rights were violated.
But to your point, in your narrow and pedantic definition of censorship, yes that post was censored.
Well done, you have won your ludicrous argument, and I bow in deference to your superior debating skills. In your view, our website is a terrible place. Feel free to avoid it, or not as you wish.
Your accusations are ridiculous, as it seems was your promise to give money to charity if I responded to you.
Andy- just so I am 100% clear, my understanding is that Suzanne's post was removed because it stated that Steve will be supporting the Bay City Rollers- whereas Steve's management believe he will be headlining, supported by the Rollers. The local newspapers don't appear to be reporting it that way....or at least they certainly mention the acts in a different sequence.
You're asking the wrong person. I am not Steve's management.
Newspaper's are notorious for getting their facts wrong. The Mail on Sunday couldn't even get the ages of Steve's children right.
However today's newspapers are tomorrow's chip wrappings (at least they used to be) , whereas a website can be edited, and stays available indefinitely.
There is not a lot that can be done about a newspaper that has already been printed other than to use all available channels to correct the error.
However that link you posted does not actually say who is the headline act and who are the support acts. The order the acts are mentioned gives no clues either. To come to any conclusions from that article is to speculate or assume.
Suzanne's post was based upon an assumption that unfortunately was wrong.
Does seem like the offical site are still having a dig, Rachel hasnt had the humility to accept PDs Apology and now posts that Steve loves the covers that PD posted a negative response to, coincidence? Dont believe in them
