(0726) Morning all. Cold.

dddddd

1. With my admin hat on

It matters not, legally, whether a commenter crosses a line … it’s the admin who wears the ball and chain … why did he allow it?

Then there is a second level … he signposted it and that has an equal but opposite ramification … does that mean he endorses it? By and large, yes … but still subject to some qualification.

What if he not only signposts but runs, posts say, a youtube, under his own name but including the originator’s name? Legally the same but in terms of internal, within citadel terms, it gets trickier for the admin, as he must be equally fair.

Then we get to hyper-danger, e.g. breaking injunctions. Thus, I feel I can signpost most NOWP items here but not all. Anything Bannon connected I can’t, due to upcoming developments (it’s hotting up, is night follows day).

DAD includes video now and then at NOWP and that shifts the goalposts a bit. Do I fail to delete or delete if it’s ultrasensitive. Were it sex or violence, I’d delete. If it broke injunctions, I’d also have to. Were it concerning a court judgement … lineball.

All right … Thurs 16 till close? Well the injunction one is best left in situ, as long as readers can access the YT. I looked at the Tommo one and thought the same … it’s accessible by readers from comments, probably better not to NOWP it.

What of Steve in Thur 6-10? Hmmmm … an excellent piece, think I might archive at UHC-WP but am thinking just leave it in situ for now. The JHB no need to run again it’s very Reform more than Restore. The two X links I’ll look at now.

Right, the McTernan clown I’m not running in the first. In the second, he writes: “Englishness is nothing to do with DNA or colour. Yet those are the core obsession of those who wish to will an English ethnicity into existence.”

Prat. There very much IS an Englishness but I’ll defend it within my own posts.