In that case, references to "champagne socialism" should be confined to the politics thread because how can those comments not be considered political?

Take that up with the mods, it's nothing to do with me - as I said, I'm just relaying what the mods have posted in the past.

Personally, I think the odd line here or there is OK, but it gets ridiculous, becoming unreadable for those of us interested only in 'chit-chat', when there is a purpose-made thread dedicated to politically minded users, where they can bore each other to their heart's content.

Edit - please don't try to get sly digs in towards Mike, via my comments.

My post wasn't directed at any individual, I was making a general point which could apply to several posters. I was just saying that rules should be applied equally and constant references to "champagne socialism" are making a political point.

My mentioning of Brian's outrageous and laughable champagne socialism are directed st a presenter. The Political thread is there to actually discuss politics and not just the presenters (IMHO). Why do you want my views censored?

As it is an expression that Mike often uses, as we both know, I don't see who else you could possibly mean.

Anyway, a 'political point', summed up in two words, is a world away from paragraph after long paragraph, which is what was happening before the other thread was set up.

Personally, I don't want any comments censored, but if rules are applied they should be applied equitably. This discussion only started because someone directed another poster to the politics thread for commenting on an exchange between Cristo and a caller. If such comments should confined to the politics thread then constant comments about a presenter's perceived political opinions are just as political and should also belong on the politics thread.

I continuesd that discussion because one poster insists on calling others 'non-mods', purely for pointing out forum rules that have been posted here many times by the 'definite-mods'.

Very wise too, in my view Radiomaniac. The 'definite-mods' state in the rules that they are only here to monitor posts on an arbitrary basis, not to censor every single post, and every single thread continuously. Thus the 'non-mods' pointing out the occaisional iota of guidance on here I think merely helps aid things along a little.

There's a difference between a one-off or occasional two word "political point" and the incessant parroting of the same "champagne socialist" mantra. The forum's inundation with this slogan would qualify as political campaigning never mind comment in my opinion, but would seem to be acceptable to others who also dislike the presenter/s at whom it is aimed.
As you point out, there is a large divide between two words and long paragraphs. Out of interest, what would be your opinion on short paragraphs or indeed number of words that should be allowed in a "political" comment? Bit of a proverbial minefield to involve oneself in really, dont you think?
For my part, whilst any comments of a political nature continue to be allowed on this forum, I reserve the right to indulge in the same in a manner I consider reasonable.

Well go ahead then, no-one is preventing you except the mods. Why not take issue with them if they disapprove, rather than individual posters who just pass on their message.

Because, in my opinion, there appears to be a double standard in respect of politics on this forum and it's about time we had a level playing field.
Passing on the mods' message does not mean advising anyone that certain political messages are acceptable while others are not dependent on the messenger's personal opinion.
Feel free to report this post if you feel it necessary

Taking on board what you've said, why are you disinterested in the LBC Politics thread for freeing up your opinions?

Honestly, Cayce, because I believe in fairness, so much so that I feel it only fair that you should be asking this question of others as well.
Using the LBC politics forum would be all well and good if it could be guaranteed that no mention of anything political would ever again appear on this forum, but I feel we know that is an impossibility given that LBC is a politics station. Moreover, as the politics forum is little used, it seems obvious to me that posters in general will continue to use this one to air their views on all manner of subjects that might be considered off topic. As things stand, perhaps separate JOB and Allen forums would be equally appropriate, or inappropriate depending on one's personal opinion.
I agree that reams of political argument on here would be unwelcome, but I am not convinced that the attempted banning of everything political is workable. With all due respect to the member who set up the LBC politics forum, it seems to have been a bit of a non-starter, and I feel its presence is causing more problems between posters on this forum than would reasonably concise posts of a political nature on here.

I can see the difficulty. Let me run up the flag and see who salutes it!

Something that occurs on LBC is commented on here. If it is of a political nature then further discussion should take place on the Politic thread. So if you were to say J O'B said that the 'Bedroom Tax' should be restricted to people on benefits over x amount. End of. Further discussion of if this is a good idea or not should go onto the Politics thread.

Hello DS. Please refer to thewilson's post above, which I agree with.

Given the fact that LBC has transformed into a highly partial political mouthpiece I think DS has a problem. It is no longer possible to split LBC chat into 'chitchat' and politics, and any attempts to do so result in conflict and forum members being unjustly banned.

The LBC politics thread is a failure. Let's recognise this fact and put an end to the conflict that results from some forum members telling others that their posts are 'too political' for this thread.

Until LBC reverts to being an entertainment station once more, in order to reflect what the station is now there should be just one LBC thread, which will inevitably be political. That will take the pressure off the mods and if some FMs don't like it they can block any other FM using the ignore facility.

Let's face it, the only chitchat we have nowadays is an endless diatribe of daily hate against three presenters in particular. The chitchat thread has died already.

I agree that it's unreasonable to erase all mention of it, as little else is discussed on LBC these days. The politics thread was set up because it reached a point where a handful of posters would take a point mentioned by a presenter and use it to express their own views. Their posts ran to hundreds of words without having any relevance or reference to LBC. It led to long-winded arguments among themselves and boredom for the rest of us. Ironically the main culprits now no longer post.

I honestly can't see that we currently have a problem, not, at least, compared to the way it was early last year.

Morning all.

I am sorry to have to ask this question again, but you seem to be missing it each time I ask; why do you call him "Brian," when his name is James?

The trouble is, that some posters use this so-called rule to trip others up. They will mention a something innocuous, perhaps mildly political and a debate ensues, giving the instigator the excuse to report the poster to the mods.

It is obviously a silly nickname for James O'Brien.

Yes, I agree. There does seem to be a tendency for this.

How can the Scots possibly contemplate going it alone with Alex Salmond at the helm?
He isn't capable of conducting a sensible debate. He has been continually drowning out his oponent on tonight's debate.
Doesn't he want the people to hear both sides of the argument? Apparently not.

See my post on Chit-Chat. I am really getting confused now, because a lot of posts here seem to refer to being on Chit-Chat

Is the debate being broadcast live on LBC? I'm listening to BBC Radio Kent.

I was watching it on BBC 2 tonight VQ. It was completely different to the first debate. The No voters seemed extremely very vociferous right from the start, almost like they had been primed. Salmond was a lot more aggressive too and seemed to be on the deliberate trick of butting in as much as possible. He didn't impress.

I'm confused too but I think what's happened is that DS have implemented some sort of automatic filter - anything deemed political is automatically moved to the politics thread, so that when you come back to DS the politics thread is marked as updated and you click on that (rather than the chit chat thread) without realising it.