Continuing censorship by the Macclesfield Express

It seems that they  don't like being challenged over their apparent support of the bullies on their site and so are not publishing my posts.

This is what I have tried to post today on this thread.

"We don't need a trial to know that fire will burn your nad (whatever that is), that would be a bit silly. However in this case the LA seems to be acting quite sensibly by conducting a trial to find out what the real impact will be in the real world."

I suppose if I had stooped to the tactics of Junior and co then I might have a chance.....

Update: persistance pays off! After submitting the post at least 10 times, it has now been published. So maybe just wearing them down is a strategy.

Update:  False optimism I'm afarid. The Express still seems to be allowing some of the vilest comments from the most thuggish of contributors and yet stopping others from commenting, even in reply to something someone else has said.

So far I have tried at least 8 times to post this, in the thread indicated above:

"You miss the point. There is plenty of evidence already that sticking bits of your body into flames is going to hurt, so we can agree that testing that would certainly be silly. However, in this case we don't know what the outcome would be so testing in the real world, rather than speculating on the basis of lack of knowledge, seems to be a sensible idea.
And, if the end result is that us Council Tax payers can save a bit or our hard earned money, then that would be great. But we won't know unless the Council tries to find out."



Now, compared to some of the knuckle dragging  and nasty comments they allow, this is really rather measured and mild. Just what is wrong with the Express that they find such things as this so threatening?

given the continuing, double-figures, decline in sales and readership, you'd have thought that they might want to encourage local people to be involved. Sadly they (or at least their web people) seem to see many of us as threats, rather than as  customers. What a silly approach.


Update:  Well, eventually, it has been published. Persistance pays, but why should it be necessary? Lee Swettenham and his team really seem to be getting it wrong here. Don't they realise how much they are damaging the paper by their actions?