Gateshead Angel wrote:
This site is, I believe, intended to remain objective. All my comment was intended to point out was that if the same words were contained within the body of a thread the author would have been offering an opinion on the issue. How it actually appears, to me, is that the admin of this site endorse the anti T&G sentiment of the author. It would be obvious therefore to any fair minded person to assume that this site was anti T&G.
B. Lucky

Well I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that the site was intended to remain objective, as I said above as with any other publication there's an editorial 'line' and as you might expect the people involved with the site tend to think along the same lines, and this is again common with any type of publication.
As I've said umpteen times the site welcomes contributions, but we haven't had anything from the T&G yet
We published Cabforce's article when they asked us, no hesitation. Does this mean we are pro-CABforce? No, of course not, but the site's aim is to encourage free speech and the like.
There were no objections when the CABforce piece was put up, so when there are complaints about other views then I tend to get the impression that it's the message that's being objected to, and these other objections are effectively an objection to views that the objector doesn't agree with.
As for the site being anti-T&G, personally I'm not particularly anti-union per se, but I am anti-quotas as you know, so if you want to spin that as being anti-T&G then that's your choice, but I don't think it's wholly accurate, either for me personally or the site generally. I would say the site's line is anti-quota, but then anyone can work that out for themselves without me having to point it out.
Sorry to anyone who read much of this this further up the thread, but people seem to think that this site shouldn't have an opinion, while in the real world everything else has one and we all just accept it and get on with it.
Dusty