Yesterday both John Simkin and myself received the following communication form the schoolhistory forum



It appears we are being accused of spreading "unfounded accusations" about persons unspecified and of making "negative posts" again unspecified.

This is too bizarre and too paranoid for words.

John and I have been staunch supporters of the schoolhistory forum throughout and have made a siginificant contribution to its success.

I am afraid that given the weirdness of the behaviour of some of its moderators recently its success will be severely limited in the future.

I for one am so disgusted by this turn of events that I have demanded that my account be deleted from the schoolhistory forum and that any suggestion that my website is in anyway associated with it be deleted from its banner. So far the administrators haven't had the courtesy to carry out this simple task.

Administrators, moderators and members of the schooolhistory forum will remain as ever welcome to contribute to the Education Forum.

This is the message I have received from the History Forum:

As from 5pm 22nd July 2005 you are being put on Permanent Moderation on the History Teachers' Discussion Forum.

This is because we are distressed about a series of unfounded accusations that are creating confusion and breeding mistrust. We have no wish to be part of such actions.

We earnestly welcome your contributions which fit into our stated teaching and learning ethos, and wish them to continue. However we are not prepared to allow the negative and unhelpful postings that you have often engaged in and which detract from the aims of the forum.

We are very upset that this stage has been reached and regret this situation. Nevertheless, following the lead set by other online forums it has been necessary to take this action.

The Administration Team
History Teachers' Discussion Forum

For those who are not members of the History Forum the administrators are:

Andrew Field, Carole Faithorn, Dan Moorhouse, Dave Wallbanks, John D. Clare, Lesley Ann, Russel Tarr, Stephen Drew.

Permanent moderation means that the administrators read your messages before allowing them to be posted. The posting that they are at the moment from me is an offer of helping a member with a school teaching the American Civil War (I have suggested that I link him up with teacher friends in the United States).

It is true that some of the administrators have disliked some of my postings. For example, I had the thread that I started when David Kelly was found dead. John D. Clare objected to my suggestion that Kelly was the person who provided the two journalists from the BBC with information about the lack of WMD in Iraq. Of course, this suggestion was correct.

I also got into trouble for arguing that there was no WMD in Iraq and that Tony Blair had lied to the British people over the reasons why our troops were going into Iraq. However, on this occasion, several other Forum members shared my views and they were not deleted.

Andy and I also got intro trouble for questioning those teachers who taught in-depth studies on the Jack the Ripper murders. As we pointed out, by spending such a long time on this irrelevant case, students were missing the opportunity to study far more important topics. I was especially concerned by the failure to teach topics that would help them become well-informed citizens. As history teachers I believe we have a responsibility to do this.

John D. Clare has also objected to my postings revealing the lies and corruption of Tony Blair. John is a New Labour Party loyalist who knows Tony and thinks he is a great chap and should not be criticised. We have engaged in vigorous debate about these issues. Maybe, he is now of the opinion that he has reached the stage where defending Blair is no longer possible and that I have to be banned from exposing his lies.

The only other time I have had my postings censored concerns a comment I made at the end of the Michael Jackson trial. I said that the decision to find him not guilty was a victory for all paedophiles. The point I was making is that as a result of the trial, young people would become more reluctant to tell their stories to the police after they had been sexually abused. Dave Wallbanks was the one who objected to this as he considered that it was possible that Michael Jackson might sue the Forum. The sentence referred to was therefore deleted.

I would welcome those administrators of the History Forum (Andrew Field, Dan Moorhouse and Russel Tarr) that are members of the International Education Forum to explain their decision. For Andy and myself are still committed to freedom of speech. Maybe we can even convince you that is the best way to deal with political disagreements.

Despite regular instructions and requests to delete my account on the Schoolhistory forum and to remove the link to my history gcse site from its banner, Andrew Field has singularly failed to carry out these simple tasks.
The result of which is to give the appearance that I support his forum when I do not wish this association any longer.
I note also that not one single administrator of that forum has come forward here to defend their eccentric activities...... pathetic

The public are victims of a paltering mischief which has set standards in ethical conduct which fall short of what one expects from gentlemen.

The problem with this administration is that obfuscation and prevarication have become political philosophy and routine practice.

Thankyou Gregory. I am not really sure how this helps me with my problem with the chief administrator of the Schoolhistory forum, but thanks for your input.

I guess I'll just phone his headteacher in the morning and outline my problem.

I am a little puzzled by this whole episode. Not being party to the facts does not help matters.

I've always enjoyed Andy's and John's postings because they were a) colourful(!) and b ) thought provoking.

I hope this manages to sort itself out next week - maybe it is just a symptom of end-of-termitis?

Nick

Thankyou for posting here. I expect you will receive considerable criticism for doing so.

Perhaps you could ask on the history forum why John and I have been placed in this suspended animation?

It makes no sense to either of us and none of the administrators are answering our e-mails.

I am particularly angered by the fact that it still appears when you log on to www.schoolhistory.co.uk/forum that I support an organisation I have now lost all respect for.

I have posted a thread in the 'Cafe' section. I will repost it here as non-members cannot view posts in that forum.

Thank you Dafydd. This is the URL so members can follow the debate that takes place.

http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/forum/index...?showtopic=5548

There is in a fact another reason why we might have had this action taken against it. Recently a representative of the HA, Alf Wilkinson, has suggested that Dan Moorhouse should replace him on the E-HELP project. Andy and I both objected to this decision. We did this for a variety of reasons and suggested that the HA come up with a more appropriate name. Surprisingly, the HA (or Alf Wilkinson) have refused to do this and insist that Dan should be its representative. Andy and I have refused to accept this. As Dan is one of the administrators it is possible that he is attempting to retaliate by getting us banned from the History Forum. It is of course because of this kind of behaviour that we originally argued against him becoming a member of E-HELP.

Anyway, Andrew Field, Dan Moorhouse and Alf Wilkinson are all members of this Forum and are completely free to post their own observations on this matter.

I have chosen to have my schoolhistory account deleted and wish nothing more to do with that forum. Finally I have received this morning confirmation that this has happened.

I found it incredible that without warning I could be placed in the suspended animation of "permanent moderation" on trumped up charges of "being negative" and "spreading accusations," and have no desire to be associated with the sort of mindset that could invent such garbage.

When's the show trial?

I share your annoyance concerning the cowardly behaviour of the History Forum administrators (I see they have so far been unwilling to defend their actions on this thread or on their own Forum). However, I disagree with your decision to ask them to delete your membership. They now do not have to answer the charges you have made against them. I will remain a member until I get a full explanation for their actions.

As Dafydd has pointed out, this is not the way for historians to behave. Unfortunately, it is not unusual for teachers in authority to behave like this. Authoritarianism is an occupational hazard in teaching. It is particularly unedifying when this happens when young teachers get a little bit of power.

Andy, I guess you have not met me.

I'm too handsome to be criticised for posting here.

Seriously, I think this situation has spiralled out of control somewhat. I'm sure (being an eternal optimist) that cooler heads will prevail sometime this week.

Since joining the forum last year, I've come to respect the comments you have both contributed (even when I did disagree frequently!) and I met with John recently at the SHP con.

I also have a huge respect for the Forum Mod team as they have been very helpful in sorting my 'situation' out this year. I also met some of them at the SHP con. From my point of view, it is like a child watching the parents go through a massive argument without understanding why it has happened. From that point of view, it is not pretty.

I do hope this gets sorted out quickly.

Andrew has now posted this on the History Forum:

As a result of veiled and unfounded allegations made against two of the members of our Administration Team on another Forum for which no explanation or apology was ever given, Andy Walker and John Simkin were put on Permanent Moderation here on July 22nd 2005. This means that all their posts were moderated before they appeared publicly. The posts that they made once put on moderation were allowed through.

However, Andy Walker requested that his account be deleted and we have complied with his request.

No details of these veiled and unfounded allegations have been posted on the Forum. Until this happens, we cannot defend ourselves. I invite Andrew and his co-administrators to post the information they have on this matter.

Andrew's posting has now been edited by John D. Clare to say the following:

As a result of unfounded allegations made against two of the members of our Administration Team on another Forum for which no explanation or apology was given, Andy Walker and John Simkin were put on moderation here on July 22nd 2005. This meant that all their posts would be moderated before they appeared publicly, but that any posts they made once moderated would be allowed through. No topics have been deleted at all.

The moderators have discussed this issue extensively, and it was a joint, unanimous and carefully-taken decision.

However, Andy Walker requested that his account be deleted and we have complied with his request.

The moderators regret that Andy - who has been a long-time member of the forum - chose to respond by resigning from the forum.

This is a very strange turn of events, but I hope all parties concerned are eventually able to put this episode to one side, thus enabling normal 'hostilities' to resume on the History Teachers' Discussion Forum.

I have also posted the following on that forum:


http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/forum/index...indpost&p=43218

Thank you for this Chris. As you know we also disagree about the merits of Tony Blair and New Labour. However, you are intellectually confident enough to be willing to discuss these issues in a free and open manner. Glad to see that you have not succumbed to the tyranny of authoritarianism.

One of the consequences of my self imposed liberation from the schoolhistory forum is that I cannot even see the thread in which these discussions are taking place.

To the outside world (of which I am now happily a member) the schoolhistory forum is all about worksheets, Mr Men and the Attainment Target. I had no idea they were really quite that frightened by debate.

John D. Clare has just posted this:

This request was not, I'm afraid, totally ingenuous. Andy and John were both initially contacted about the matter at issue and then informed a second time when they were placed on moderation. The issue has also been quite openly made explicit for all forum members (see above: 'As a result of unfounded allegations made against two of the members of our Administration Team on another Forum for which no explanation or apology was given, Andy Walker and John Simkin were put on moderation here on July 22nd 2005.'). There is no need to say more, and the moderators would rather not comment on the issue itself, because - as people have correctly pointed out - the matter is outwith this forum. And 'Charges'??? 'Defend'??? It's not a court of law. Perspective please.

John D. Clare is misleading members with this statement. The only emails I have received is from Dan Moorhouse (last week) and an email yesterday from Andrew Field that I have been put on permanent moderation as a result of unspecified complaints about things I have made on another forum.

The emails of complaint Andy and I received have been from Dan Moorhouse. This concerned things that Andy and I said when objecting to his involvement in the E-HELP project. This discussion took place in a forum restricted to E-HELP members. However, it appears a member of the E-HELP team leaked this information to Dan. What is more, he appears to have leaked something we did not say.

That is why the History Forum moderators cannot specify the charges against us. However, if they post it on this forum or their own History Forum, we will be able to defend what we actually said. In fact, if Dan so wishes, I am willing to release the whole thread where we discussed his proposed membership of the E-HELP project (if this is agreed by other E-HELP members).

As Andy and other non-members of the History Forum cannot read this thread I thought it would a good idea to post some of the highlights of this discussion.

This one is from Ed Waller (red) dealing with a posting by John D. Clare(blue):

The History Teachers' Discussion Forum exists to allow History teachers to discuss matters to do with History teaching, and THAT is what the moderators wish it to concentrate on. I am replying to this issue out of politeness, but I would prefer to return to History matters. Neither will anyone who posts sensibly about History matters be edited. (John D. Clare)

You are quite right to suggest that the forum has been an excellent place to exchange ideas, resources, thoughts etc in the interests of improved history teaching and student engagement with history. As such it has been an enormous hit with just about everyone who reads it (although a sixth former recently felt it was quite sad for there to be a discussion forum for history teachers - her funeral is next week).

And then there's the Cafe and Public House, which are also great places for History teachers (et al) to discuss issues not directly to do with teaching, yet provide interesting debate on what might often be called in broader terms 'History'. These two provide amusement and political/historical (intellectual) stimulation. What got me into history while at Uni was precisely the kind of debate that is to be found there. John S and Andy W have made excellent contributions to these places.

And who is to define "sensibly" when it comes to posting? Is one person's "sense" another's "sensibility"?

Having read the thread 'elsewhere' on this topic, it does not seem that they are clear on exactly which posts on exactly which other forum(s) are causing the offence. Restating the 'charge' Ed Waller

As a result of unfounded allegations made against two of the members of our Administration Team on another Forum for which no explanation or apology was given: (John D. Clare)

Isn't as clear as one might hope. Equally they may have a good idea... I couldn't comment... but there's nothing like being explicit.

I doubt many students would accept as fair a detention in which the teacher said "your behaviour wasn't acceptable" without the addition "when you threw the Stanley knife at Kevin"

I don't need to know the details myself (although naturally intrigued, I guess), and in all likelihood they should never appear here.

PS as the film goes... "I'm Spartacus" (Ed Waller)

What is wrong with political discourse? As long as members post in the correct forums (Broader Issues and Political Discourse or The Cafe), I don't see a problem. I very rarely agree with John and Andy on political matters, but I enjoy having a debate with them (time permitting!). As for your last comment - "attacking members' views" - I have seen many examples of reasoned argument and disagreement if that is what you mean.

Surely it is possible for this forum to be a depository of brilliant ideas on teaching and a place where teachers can engage in stimulating political debate. If John and Andy cease posting, as seems possible, the forum will be much poorer as a result. (Chris McKie)

Neil hasn't been backward in coming forward with his views recently on the London bombs, and that was a really enjoyable set of posts, no matter whether or not one agrees with points of view expressed. I wish all my classes engaged in debate in a similar manner!!! I'm not trying to criticise Neil in saying that (and I know him from working in a previous school with him). He is fun, dedicated and lively. His (or "your" if you're looking in, Neil) views are welcome, as all views should be.

Can political discourse be avoided in discussing NC topics like "Bloody" Mary, the Gunpowder Plot, the execution (hooray - to add discourse of my own!!??) of Charles I, and GCSE's conflict in N Ireland? As historians we have a view on these subjects, and have both a right and a duty to acknowledge them as interpretations, i.e. AN answer etc rather than THE answer. (Ed Waller)

Speaking personally, CD (not as 'a moderator') I actually tend to agree with you! Anyone who knows even a little about me will realise that I'm well up for a political argument - I do it professionally here at home, for goodness sake!

Nevertheless, as I have gone on with the forum over the last couple of years, it has increasingly struck me that a significant number of members not only don't take part in the debates about politics, but are actually turned away by them. Apart from all-too-frequent moments of personal weakness, therefore, I have tried to be strong enough with myself to not take part in those threads which are about politics for the sake of politics. It strikes me that - if one wants to discuss politics - there are plenty places to go and discuss politics, and that's where one ought to do so. (I am aware that my personal record on this resolution is abysmal, but please forgive my moments of personal weakness.)

HOWEVER, unlike those members who would ban politics altogether, I do think that there are whole areas which are absolutely correct for discussion on the History Teachers' Discussion Forum which you can't properly discuss WITHOUT involving politics. Issues like re-structuring, work-force reform, funding, specialist schools, government initiatives cannot be discussed without making 'political' statements, and discussion would be all the poorer if we didn't do so. This is what I see the 'Broader issues and political discourse' section to be for, not to discuss matters such as nationalisation or the government's policy on social housing (PS I chose those topics because I don't think anyone has ever mentioned them, and so I wouldn't insult anyone; if you have brought up either of these as a topic, please accept my apologies).

NEVERTHELESS, I do believe that the core content of the forum ought properly to be the matter of teaching History, and apolitical.

(As I say, these are my personal views, and not in any way a formal 'admin team' view. I don't know what such a 'view', if one existed would comprise.)
QUOTE
As for ... "attacking members' views" - I have seen many examples of reasoned argument and disagreement if that is what you mean.

That is true also, CD, but there is a 'line' where excited debate slides into personal abuse - as you can see if you browse the web for other forums. Now I am aware that where that line is is a matter of opinion. However, all I would suggest is that that is why we have a team of moderators (of which, accepted, I am a member). It is the job of the moderators to decide where that line is. It would be a miracle if everyone agreed with their decisions. Nevertheless, unpopular as it may be from time to time, surely it is the moderators' unpleasant job as they feel necessary to make the move and impose their definition of what 'attacking members' views' is. As long as this is accepted, I have no problem with what you say. My only problem is that - whenever the moderators do make a decision - they are accused of ALL KINDS of things!!! (John D. Clare)

No, political discourse cannot be avoided in these cases, and if we look at the key element of historical significance, it is encouraged as it makes a link between the past and the present/future. Moreover, politics is everywhere (like the advert says) and I would be more than happy to debate it on another thread (without beer as I don't drink)!

Better start breaking out my Derrida and Foucault... (Nick Dennis)

Thanks for that

Ed Waller sounds as though he would be better placed on a more mature discussion forum.

On a more serious note it should be abundantly clear to all that what has happened to John and I has occurred as an act of revenge by Dan Moorhouse.

We expressed serious doubts as to his suitability as a member of the E-Help project in a private and restricted section of our own forum.

Somehow he has received a half baked and innacurate version of these doubts and then tail spinned into his favourite game of getting others to fight each other.
All that has occurred since in terms of the carnage that now replaces previously positive working relationships has gone to confirm the accuracy of our doubts.

Andy, may I request that you reconsider your withdrawal from the forum? I do not always agree with what you or John write, but as others have said, discussions would be poorer without the both of you (and the Mr Men comment, although unjustified in my opinion, made me laugh out loud)!

Thanks for this - cheered me up alot.

But I am afraid like all good catholic boys I will not be reconsidering my withdrawal.

I have had a gutful of them ( those who know me will know that this is a lot).

I will also be leaving as well (for the same reasons as Andy). However, I will remain a member for a few days yet so that I can read what they are saying about me. This is currently being discussed in an area that is not open to general public. It is one of the reasons why our International Educational Forum is different from the History Forum.

I see that the History Forum moderators are still refusing to outline their charges against Andy and myself. Why are they so reluctant to engage in free debate?

Neither have they responded to your offer to release the private and restricted area of the Education Forum where they believe on hearsay that they have been wronged.

What a curious muddle they have go themselves into.

Perhaps I should just copy the thread in question and mass mail it to all our members?

I have asked Dafydd Humphreys to post this on the History Forum.

I note that the History Forum administrators are still refusing to provide details of the charges against us. Maybe they are testing out some new ideas being proposed by Tony Blair. I believe New Labour are rather keen to bring in measures where people can be imprisoned without being told what they are charged with.

To sum up, it seems the administrators put Andy and myself into permanent moderation because:

(1) Andy and I rejected the proposal that Dan Moorhouse should be the Historical Association representative of the E-HELP project. (I bet Richard Jones-Nerzic must be pleased he gave those jobs to Carole Faithorn and Russel Tarr otherwise he might have been put on permanent moderation).

(2) The moderators have not liked our political postings on the forum. It seems you are now an extremist if you criticise Tony Blair. As several members have pointed out, you cannot disentangle politics from history. Nor can you stop history teachers from wanting to express comments about events like the invasion of Iraq. After all, it is only our understanding of history that made us realize that this was a disastrous decision.

When it was convenient for the administrators they accepted this argument. For example John D. Clare used my debate with him over Appeasement as a teaching resource. However, it obviously got uncomfortable for the administrators when they could not find the arguments to defend New Labour.

Andy has found the conditions of permanent moderation intolerable and has resigned. I also find these conditions unacceptable and will no longer post on this forum. However, I will not resign, as to do so means I will not be able to read threads like this (as Andy has discovered).

Being on permanent moderation means other members of the History Forum cannot communicate with me via the Forum. If you want to communicate with me you can email me at johnsimkin1945@hotmail.com. If you want help with anything post your query on the International Education Forum:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=idx

I will now go off to those forums that still have freedom of expression. Of course, Andy and I have lost this battle. The administrators have got what they wanted. This sends out a terrible message to others who sometimes feel they want to make a political posting. I hope that these events will not result in them employing “self-censorship”. As George Orwell once said, this is the most dangerous form of censorship of all. Especially keep posting about Tony Blair’s scandalous educational policies.

Good bye. It was good while it lasted.

That's excellent John.
I wonder how long it will last up there?? My guess is 5 minutes maximum.

Erm... I'm taking that as a compliment, right?

Ed

Roy Huggins has posted the following:

Sounds like a storm in a tea cup which could easily be solved by someone apologising first.

Andrew Fields website is the best. He personally finances the website out of his pocket. I have unending respect for Andy and Dan who are great guys with real vision for the future of history teaching.

If folks feel unable to apologise and agree to the rules of the club then they should setup their own website and be sued if they make inflamatory comments that could open them up to being sued.

I hate to take sides, but aren't we in danger of losing thje plot. Its the end of term, everyone is tired, just take a chill pill and come back after a break and you will see things ina completely different light.

Its easy to get uptight and tense and a lot harder to bite the bullet and apologise!

Have a good summer. Make love not war!

The problem with this view is that it is impossible to apologise unless you know what I have actually done. As it stands I am unwilling to apologise for not agreeing that Dan Moorhouse should become the Historical Association representative. I thought he was not good enough. I also thought he was capable of irrational behaviour. This has been confirmed by his decision to get Andy and myself put on permanent moderation as a result of the way we voted on this matter.

I also refuse to apologise for making postings on the History Forum about politics.

If any of the History Forum can tell me what I should apologise for, I will consider it. Until that happens, I cannot apologise for anything.

Andrew Field appears to be distancing himself from the decision to ban John and myself from the schoolhistory forum as the following message I have received confirms:



It seems very clear now that the whole episode can be put down to a childish revenge tantrum by Daniel Moorhouse. (Remember John and I had raised questions about Daniel's suitability as a member of a European project earlier this week).
I am very surprised and disappointed that an intelligent man like Andrew Field has allowed himself to be manipulated like this. I am also amazed that he hasn't seen fit to explain his actions on the schoolhistory forum or here.

This is the posting that I made on schoolhistory tonight:

Thank you for your support but I suspect that the History Forum administrators will not be willing to go back on their decision. The truth is that they have been waiting for the opportunity to take this action for sometime. They have picked the wrong reason and made themselves look very foolish. Andrew Field, Dan Moorhouse and Russel Tarr are all members of this forum and have visited this thread several times over the last few days but they are unwilling to defend their actions. But they don't need to. Their objective has been achieved. Maybe when we meet Russel at the next E-HELP meeting he will be willing to explain why he joined with the rest of the administrators in putting us on permanent moderation.

Roy Huggins posted this on the History Forum website:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but schoolhistory was set up as a site to help stressed out teachers by providing downloadable resources, support and advice? There are lots of other websites and forums where people can rant and rave as much as they like. It is just not on to have ago at any of the administrators or the policies set down by Andy.

Everyones comtribution is invaluable, but no one individual or small group of egos or personalities are more important than the collective good that schoolhistory can promote. I would challenge anyone who thinks differently to ask yourself this one simple question: What would happen to the thousands of history teachers and students who use this site if it was closed down because Andy was sued over comments that someone else made? Are you that important?

As for those who go on about free speach. The fact that this thread is up and running speaks for itself. British soldiers, Iraqis, Americans, Egyptians and Londoners are paying the ultimate price in the name of free speach and democracy so that armchair revolutionaries can pontificate!

Enjoy the summer break, rest, recharge your batteries, make some new resources, share them on schoolhistory and spend some time with the people who matter in your life, rather than wasting your time arguing over something silly like this. In a few weeks time you will look back on this incident and be embarrassed by some of your remarks. Its easy to get up tight and tense rather than to see reason at this time of year. Act your age, not your shoe size! This is a site for professionals not yahoo chat room surfers.

Schoolhistory needs your support for the collective good of everyone else. Make love, not war or at the very least a teaching resource that can be shared with someone else. Finall, smile its the summer holidays!

I think that means that Andrew Field is in charge and we all have to accept his decisions.

However, I do not understand the following: "What would happen to the thousands of history teachers and students who use this site if it was closed down because Andy was sued over comments that someone else made? Are you that important?"

John & Andy,

Look I know that in the past we have had a fair share of differences however, the following is not an action designed to stir up more trouble, rather to see if there can be a way out of this.

1) It appears from what has been posted both here on the education forum and on the schoolhistory forum, that you and Andy have been allegedly making statements about forum member(s) that are misleading or untrue.

2) These comments are damaging to the the forum and the collective good it fosters. Whatever your issues are with forum members (including Admin), I'd rather hope that one of two actions are possible:

That you accept the moderation as a means of still being involved in the forum or that you and the Admin Team through more private means see how this situation can change. I rather feel this open method of communication does not lend itself well to a policy of progressing this issue further. If anything all that is happening is that it has become a an exercise in over analysis as with each comment or thread you pick apart every sentence looking for offence or reason to pursue this thread further.

At the end of the day, you have the opportunity to still be a member of the forum, surely through personal email you can work this out. I would hope this thread will end and that my posting will not pulled apart looking for further evidence of conspiracy and plotting.

Have a nice summer.

This is Roy Huggins...

I would like to point out that I am not having ago at any individuals. I believe in the collective values that underpin schoolhistory.co.uk and would hope that everyone who is reading this thread would agree with this statement.

The time has come to bury the hachet and smoke the peace pipe and stop attacking individuals in public.

History Uber Alas

Kind Regards

Roy

I agree completely with Neil. I've also had my differences with John over the years, but I recognize the very important contribution he and Andy make to the schoolhistory forum. The forum would be the poorer without them. On the other hand, I also appreciate the efforts the Administrators make both to maintain the forum, and in the excellent contributions they themselves make. I really hope this can be resolved in some way, and I don't think public namecalling by either side on public forums will do so. I join Neil in urging the principals to get in contact directly and privately to iron out their differences, or at least to arrive at some sort of arrangement with which everyone can live...

This is the problem. We have not been making statements about forum members that are untrue. So far the History Forum admin team have not specified what things we have said. Nor have they said where they have appeared. Until we have this information, we cannot answer the charges being made against us. That is why Andy and I have asked what these charges are. We are still to have a reply.



You can see from the above exchange that Andrew Field is refusing to get involved in this matter. The person he is referring to is I imagine is Dan Moorhouse. I suspect this refers to the private thread where we discussed the proposal that Dan should be the HA representative to E-HELP project. It seems someone has told him something that was not said. Maybe he should post on this forum what these charges are. Then we can discuss them. I am all in favour of open debate. However, it appears others do not share this view.

But John I am not in favour of open debate, rather that this issue does not protract any longer and that you and Andy simply sort this out with the admin team without having everything said being placed on a forum. There are no charges, merely disagreements.

You have obviously not read the beginning of the thread. Andy and myself both got the same message:

As from 5pm 22nd July 2005 you are being put on Permanent Moderation on the History Teachers' Discussion Forum.

This is because we are distressed about a series of unfounded accusations that are creating confusion and breeding mistrust. We have no wish to be part of such actions.

We earnestly welcome your contributions which fit into our stated teaching and learning ethos, and wish them to continue. However we are not prepared to allow the negative and unhelpful postings that you have often engaged in and which detract from the aims of the forum.

We are very upset that this stage has been reached and regret this situation. Nevertheless, following the lead set by other online forums it has been necessary to take this action.

The Administration Team
History Teachers' Discussion Forum

The first charge suggests that we have been making "a series of unfounded accusations". All we have done is to ask what we have supposed to have said. I would have thought that was a reasonable question given the circumstances. Without the evidence being produced, the History Forum administration team are guilty of making "unfounded accusations" against us.

The charges in the second paragraph is a matter of opinion. It is again difficult to answer with specific examples being given.

I of course accept the right of the administration team to remove us as members. If that is what they wanted, as I suppose this is what this is all about, then they should have been more honest about it. The problem then would have been convincing members that this was a good idea. As we have seen, they have been reluctant to do that. John D. Clare has made one attempt with his New Labour authoritarianism. As I said before, authoritarianism is an occupational hazard in teaching. It is still sad to see an old radical resorting to this tactic. I wonder when he was a young man he ever thought he would end up arguing for people on the left being censored? Of course New Labour already have a significant history of doing this.

The main person behind this accusation, although a member of this forum, has not been willing to argue his case. That is his right. He has won. Andy and I will no longer post on the History Forum. As far as I am concerned, unless one of the History Forum administrators is willing to post details of their charges against us, the debate is over.

Two more contributions from the History Forum (for Andy Walker and non-members):

John D. Clare

Let’s keep things in perspective.

Beware the danger of over-interpreting. The issue is as it appears on the surface, and people will miss the point if they try to take it any deeper. An issue arose between John Simkin and Andy Walker on one side, and member(s) of the forum administration team on the other. Whatever has been inferred about that matter, its details are crystal clear to those involved, and – quite frankly – no business at all of those who are not involved. In an intensely uncomfortable situation, the Admin team – after a great deal of discussion – decided that they wished to preview (= moderate) any posts by Andy and John. Again, despite posts suggesting differently, the moderators are in complete agreement on this; there is no chance that they will change their mind.

Andy’s response to the moderators’ decision was to resign; John’s was to send a message via another member that he was not going to post again. They are adults, they are not bound to this forum in any way, and they have the right to choose as they wish. I respect their choice. And for the moment, at least, that seems to be the resolution of the matter. Literally, 'it's now all over bar the shouting'.

In the meantime, John and Andy have the Education Forum – which they run – as a vehicle of self-expression. I am sure that eschewing the History Teachers’ Discussion Forum is not the greatest loss they have ever experienced. Many members of this forum are also active members of the Education Forum and I am sure communication on both forums will continue as normal. There is no issue of ‘loyalty’ here. BOTH forums are a service, which people will dip in – and out – of as they choose.

The current situation is not about the role of politics on the forum – even if I have clarified my own standpoint on that issue in this thread. The action of the moderators most certainly was not to stifle political comment – as if!!!

Neither is the issue about freedom of speech on the Forum, nor an attempt to create homogeneity (what a boring forum that would be). The moderators have tried to stay out of the ensuing discussions, because we genuinely to do not want to stop people having their say. The decision was NOT a veiled attempt to impose greater discipline on (any) HTDF members, or to stifle freedom of expression.

The moderators’ decision was a specific response to a specific situation, and there is no need to read anything more into it than that.

All that the moderators would insist is that members guard their posts, refrain from personal comments, and treat each other always with respect (PARTICULARLY when the other person doesn’t deserve it!!!!)

Gavin Holden

I'm coming to this a little late but there are a couple of points I would like to make.

First of all, if I remember correctly the political section of the forum was set up because it was proving impossible to separate politics from many of the other discussions taking place on the forum. On any forum members can potentially libel someone - as far as i am aware it hasn't happened on this forum. So I dont see this issue (as Roy suggests) as one about protecting the existance of this site. Members may have been put off from joining political discussions (as John argues) but that is not the point - they have a choice to post or not. Surely John isnt sugesting we water down political discussion to make it more accessible.

The reaction amongst one or two members of the forum in this thread has been disappointing, however, I think that the general feeling - and is especially my own feeling is one of confusion. I suppose some of us want to know more about the issue because if some forum members can be censored over what appears to be a political issue, then anyone can.

(for the record I also dont think the George W Bush approach of 'you are either with us or against us' is any help either.)

An issue arose between John Simkin and Andy Walker on one side, and member(s) of the forum administration team on the other. Whatever has been inferred about that matter, its details are crystal clear to those involved, and – quite frankly – no business at all of those who are not involved. (John D. Clare)

It is not "crystal clear" to me what this involved. That is why I have constantly asked what we have supposed to have said. How can we possible defend ourselves against us until the charges are posted? Have you actually seen these comments that we were supposed to have made? Where were they?

In an intensely uncomfortable situation, the Admin team – after a great deal of discussion – decided that they wished to preview (= moderate) any posts by Andy and John. Again, despite posts suggesting differently, the moderators are in complete agreement on this; there is no chance that they will change their mind. (John D. Clare)

Do you mean therefore that we were put on permanent moderation because of what you feared we might say about the issue that you cannot talk about? If that was your fear, why did you not delete comments after we made them. If we did libel anyone (that has been implied by the original message) then we could have been taken to court. The point is that we have never libelled anyone. By saying this you are guilty of what you accused us of: making “unfounded accusations”.

I posted this on the History Teachers' Discussion Forum:



I agree that both punishments and rewards should be accompanied by a reason. However, I do think things have gone a little over the top...

Doug

But the problem at the moment is that Mr Walker and Mr Simkin have been punished for a reason which is unknown to them.

Even when we get punished at school the staff gives us a reason for the punishment!