It is normally taken as “someone who writes a provocative comment to elicit a response”, and maybe you should perhaps look in the mirror on this occasion.

I am more than happy to deal with the arguments, time after time after time, and you will notice how you haven’t ever been deleted from my blog.

I wouldn’t dream of deleting someone because of a political disagreement, or or because they are offensive, that is not my style.

I do have a comments policy and I think every blog is entitled to have one, but deleting comments is not something that advocates of freedom of speech often do.

In fact, I do try to see a little bit of Rev. Sizer’s side of the case, and particularly the issue of the ex-Royal Marine.

I wonder how that will be explained away?

The State Of Play and Rev. Sizer.

I thought I would dangle that, and see what happened. It’s always nice to get a troll to reveal himself.

Again, you can’t see the contradiction here between you being a supposed advocate of freedom of speech, deleting comments and threatening libel.

Hmm.

You really should sit down and pray about these matters

“We cannot (and should not) demand a platform for freedom of speech for ourselves and then attempt to silence our critics.”

I won’t remind Roger of his recent conduct and deleting comparatively innocuous comments on his own blog

His hypocrisy about freedom of speech is rather obvious once you get past the veneer.

I would recommend reading Francis Sedgemore’s post, he deals with it in greater depth

“I hope that more blogs will pick up this story. Don’t let Stephen Sizer get away with this and create a precedent whereby bloggers who expose the truth can be intimidated through the apparatus of the law. … If you are a blogger then blog about this. Here is a list of blogs that have already run the story and let me know if you blog about this, so I can add you to the list.”

I suppose I can see the logic. But I would read the post to indicate that *your* object was not about organising an anti-Sizer lynch mob, but about a pro-free speech campaign, undertaken in good faith on the basis of what you knew, and for the highly laudable goal of keeping the police off all of our backs. You may have been misinformed about the facts — none of us know them for sure — but such an intention would always be good. (What sparked the hostility was probably the anti-Sizer political comments you quoted in the middle of it, which WAS unwise).

Just being clear: do you deny these accusations? (I presume you do! but I thought I wouldn’t put words in your mouth).

It is interesting, then, that a pro-Sizer lobby does exist and is emailing around. I hadn’t seen a trace of it until now, which I thought odd. Any idea roughly how many people?

It is regrettable that Stephen Sizer has not stepped forward to defend himself, tho.

“We cannot (and should not) demand a platform for freedom of speech for ourselves and then attempt to silence our critics.”

This is well said. There is too much of this going around in this debate.

What conduct of yours was described as “organising a lynch mob”?

Email comments received in response to my blogging activity as follows:-

http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2010/01/23/anglican-minister-reverend-stephen-sizer-uses-police-to-intimidate-seismic-shock-blogger/

http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2010/01/24/show-solidarity-seismic-shock-victim-intimidation-shining-spotlight-antizionist-theology-reverend-stephen-sizer/

Interesting. I think I would like to know more about this. What conduct of yours was described as “organising a lynch mob”? I can see how Seismic could be accused of this, but not you. What am I missing?