Not quite, according to a friend of mine. You tube site is a banned site for council workers. A brief history - council makes Down down video with public funds. Invites residents and council workers to put up comments. Youtube is open to view for council workers in the self back slapping frenzy that followed. People put up comments, 9 days later council removes video because comments reflect public dismay at the attacks on services and vulnerable members of society. 2 videos get posted on youtube by residents http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hob63DyORMg and http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7jwKInDlPfQ I hear that they both got attached to the unison blogsite. Sometime shortly after these videos (which paint a slightly different view to the councils of the cuts) are posted, the council removes access to youtube for it's staff. The council at the moment has videos on youtube but you can only put comments on these publically paid for videos if you do not critisize the council. Try it! Try putting on the post office video. "Isn't it double standards for the council to critisize post office closures when the council is engaged in closing/withdrawing services all over the borough" or "Why are the council suggesting the elderly are affected by these closures when at the same time they are proposing charges for home care and increased the price of meals on wheels do these not affect the elderly too?." They will not get posted. What is the censorship guidelines for the council publicity dept? If it is a public service it should, as long as the comments are clean, be a forum for the residents to ask open questions of the people it pays to run their service.The purpose of the down down video was to "engage" with the residents. It should not be using public money for what could be interperated -there is only representation of one version of events- campaigning for the Tory party. This council does not like people asking questions, the incident with Cllr Awful and the Fulham and Hammersmith Chronicle over HF Homes rating is an example of this. The council should allow all comments and trust it's residents to decide whether something is a reasonable argument from someone with a different view point or whether something is self serving irrelevant tripe (rather like this blog spot leads us to believe Wikipedia did with Bristows attempted entry) and then form their own opinion.
4 comments:
Not quite, according to a friend of mine. You tube site is a banned site for council workers.
A brief history -
council makes Down down video with public funds.
Invites residents and council workers to put up comments. Youtube is open to view for council workers in the self back slapping frenzy that followed.
People put up comments, 9 days later council removes video because comments reflect public dismay at the attacks on services and vulnerable members of society.
2 videos get posted on youtube by residents
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hob63DyORMg
and
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7jwKInDlPfQ
I hear that they both got attached to the unison blogsite.
Sometime shortly after these videos (which paint a slightly different view to the councils of the cuts) are posted, the council removes access to youtube for it's staff.
The council at the moment has videos on youtube but you can only put comments on these publically paid for videos if you do not critisize the council.
Try it!
Try putting on the post office video.
"Isn't it double standards for the council to critisize post office closures when the council is engaged in closing/withdrawing services all over the borough"
or
"Why are the council suggesting the elderly are affected by these closures when at the same time they are proposing charges for home care and increased the price of meals on wheels do these not affect the elderly too?."
They will not get posted.
What is the censorship guidelines for the council publicity dept? If it is a public service it should, as long as the comments are clean, be a forum for the residents to ask open questions of the people it pays to run their service.The purpose of the down down video was to "engage" with the residents. It should not be using public money for what could be interperated -there is only representation of one version of events- campaigning for the Tory party.
This council does not like people asking questions, the incident with Cllr Awful and the Fulham and Hammersmith Chronicle over HF Homes rating is an example of this.
The council should allow all comments and trust it's residents to decide whether something is a reasonable argument from someone with a different view point or whether something is self serving irrelevant tripe (rather like this blog spot leads us to believe Wikipedia did with Bristows attempted entry) and then form their own opinion.
Has the council really stopped staff accessing YouTube?
Let us know...
and indeed who else has the current administration been trying to restrict internet services from?
Are you referring to users of the libraries too?
Post a Comment