Posts Tagged ‘Seismic Shock’
I do hope one day that Reverend Sizer can bring himself to admit how neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and the creme de la creme of Jew haters internationally were invited to Tehran and lionised, not because of some theological issues, but rather because they hated Jews.
Oh and Rev. Sizer if you are reading this, using the expression “Zionist” instead of “Jews” doesn’t fool anyone, the Extreme Right have been using that particular ploy for the years.
“It concerns the issue of liberty: the liberty to publish well-argued opinions without fearing that the local police will drop by for a “friendly chat” aimed at nudging you towards removing posts from your own blog which may have offended someone else’s cherished self-image. For one thing, finding the police at you door on a Sunday morning is not exactly an image of friendliness conjured up by law-abiding conscientious citizens. For another, the preservation of another person’s cherished self-image should not really be the business of our law-enforcement personnel.
I think this is a very simple principle to grasp and to agree with.”
Understandably so, otherwise he might have to answer why did he use an ex-Royal Marine to try to track down Seismic Shock?
I would recommend that readers take the time to study the comments from Rev. Sizer’s associate, Mordechai ‘Motkhe’ Cohen.
The comments are rather nasty, and whilst my memory is faulty it was one of the exchanges that I remember clearly from Seismic Shock’s site, given the ferocity and venom of the remarks.
Richard Bartholomew has put up a spirited defence of Rev. Sizer. A pity, I expected a bit more.
Contrary to Richard’s assertion, we can see the previous blog or parts of it from the google cache, as I highlighted in this post.
Readers might want to re-read Seismic Shock’s old blog and decide for themselves.
[Use these key words in Google, site:seismicshock.blogspot.com Sizer, about 49 entries are return with a fair few of them cached and readable about 18.]
The Leeds University’s student newspaper covers matters too.
Concluding, so what in fact you had was:
1) an Anglican vicar annoyed at criticism of his strongly held views
2) an effort was made to warn off that critic
3) when it failed a ex-Royal Marine’s assistance was sought
4) when that failed the Police were used to intimidate the blogger
5) said Anglican vicar gloated about his apparent success at seeing off a critic, and then threatened another blogger.
Less of a rose tinted view of events than we are often told, and I am sure more will come out, eventually.
I am not unduly worried that I was not credited. I won’t cry or moan, but what struck me was more what they chose to leave out of the Wiki entry.
I appreciate that Wiki is trying to achieve some neutral point of view. They are up front about it and I can see why that might be a good idea.
The evidence is there for everyone to see, his own comment:
“Stephen Sizer says:
January 16, 2010 at 5:45 PM
You must take a little more care who you brand as anti-semitic otherwise you too will be receiving a caution from the police as the young former student of Leeds did recently. One more reference to me and you will be reported.
[Even if it is subsequently denied, which I would doubt, then the Internet record can be pulled up to verify that Rev. Sizer did, in fact, leave that threat.]
Still, I suppose if Wiki had included that information then it would take the polish off of Rev. Sizer’s halo.
I think there’s a tendency for some of the biographical sections to come out like hagiographies.
Certainly, those of a religious persuasion (or not) would probably see why such an approach is not a good idea, and a bit unlikely under these circumstances, as few of us really have halos and most assuredly they do not need any on-line polishing!
I thought this was an intriguing post, I hadn’t considered it in that light, but it makes a lot of sense:
“In a case of ‘harassment via Facebook’ two years ago, Michael Hurst was brought to trial for allegedly contacting his ex-girlfriend Sophie Sladden online, but he was cleared by Magistrates in Birmingham after the prosecution failed to prove the charge.
The definition of harassment above is deliberately wide-ranging, as it was introduced with the main aim of facilitating action in cases of domestic harassment. Is this law being used appropriately?
For the media and for bloggers, a harassment complaint in circumstances where there has been no documented physical threat or alleged ’stalking’ incident is worrying.”