THANK you for the comments posted to my blog in recent weeks, and I thought it would be a good idea to get to grips with a few of those today…..

John C wrote how he believes the statements and views of local politicians are not challenged in the Adver. “No attempt (is) made to question the truth of their statements or to provide any other point of view,” wrote John. Naturally, I don’t agree.

While the Adver is not a hard-hitting, between-your-eyes, let’s bring on the Spanish inquisition type of newspaper in the Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrey mode (why? because sometimes the questioning and point-scoring becomes so tedious that you quickly switch off), an essential quality of what we do is to ensure that stories are accurate and balanced. We reflect the issues affecting Swindon, we reflect the diversity of views.

Of course, if someone is spouting off an opinion, then we will balance it.

John C’s posting was supported by Builder who asked why we don’t investigate the background behind politicians’ statements. In truth we do. Builder says he no longer subscribes to the paper, well perhaps he should read what we report and how we put context on both quotes and stories.

Builder takes issue with the Adver’s coverage of the post office closures, but if you look closely at that coverage it has been enormously balanced. In fact we have been at pains to ensure so, putting across a wide range of views.

I know MP Michael Wills had certain views about the way Swindon Borough Council conducted themselves over the post office closures. We represented those views, and balanced them with the views of the council and other groups. We wrote a series of features on the erosion of rural life, which dealt with the post office closures. Look at our coverage in totality, don’t judge it on one story.

As for the canal story, like Builder it is something I am in favour of personally and believe should be investigated further. I have stated this publicly too.

Whether there is a concerted attack on the idea by the Labour party is irrelevant, they can have their say on the canal plan for Swindon, as everyone else can. We have published EVERY letter we have received on the canal issue. Again, judge the Adver on the totality of how we have covered the story, and I believe we have been thorough, we have been fair and we have been balanced.

Who’s right, who’s wrong? Often in politics, the truth is disguised in a shroud of mirrors, and while our reports will spell out the facts of the story, while we will ask the right questions of those who do get on their soapbox, we let the readers make up their minds. The Adver is certainly not a mouthpiece for those who can shout the loudest.

The BNP issue and freedom of speech is an interesting one. John C asserted: “I feel that no matter how wrong we may think their policies may be they must still be treated in the same way as any other legal political party in this country. To do otherwise is an insult to freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech is a cherished value, but how far do you allow freedom of speech if what is said is unpalatable, offensive, libellous or slanderous – or is something which is likely to cause irreparable harm to the community?

The National Union of Journalists has recently republished its “Race Reporting Guidelines” after newspapers carried adverts for the BNP. The reporting guidelines cover a wide variety of topics including immigrants, slang terms, racist organisations and travellers.

The NUJ have described the stance of the newspapers to accept the BNP adverts as “an incredible decision”. General secretary, Jeremy Dear said: “The decision to accept money from them is reprehensible enough, to try to argue it is to do with free speech is sickening.”

Finally, to Donkey’s posting which followed the warning submitted by the Adver’s web team reminding posters to be careful about what they posted in the comments section.

The warning followed one comment in particular which caused immense problems too us. It was a pathetic, mealy-mouthed comment which was cowardly and to the person who posted it, they could have been sued for libel.

I have stated before and will state again that you have responsibility for your postings. Yes, this website is meant to be fun and entertaining, but some of the comments, some of the insinuations are not funny, they’re not entertaining and they’re not clever. I wonder what those who make the postings get out of it in their sad, little worlds.

There are limits and we will take action against those who do post comments which step over the line.

As a reminder, this is what the Web Team wrote:

We would like to remind everyone that they are legally responsible for what they post on this site. You can be taken to court if you libel someone. A number of comments have been removed because they were deemed potentially libellous. If you aren’t sure what libel means, put simply, it means anything which is damaging to the character of an individual or a company or organisation.

Even if you can prove your claims, you could well end up in court doing so – at huge expense and with a strong possibility of losing and facing an unlimited fine. Basically, stick to verified fact and never make unfounded allegations. Do not accuse people of crimes or other wrongdoing.

Anyone who continually libels others will be banned from our website.

Sorry to be so officious, but it’s important people leaving comments understand the rules. Thank you.