SecretLeeds - History, culture and architecture in Leeds

Post by **cnosni** » Fri 12 Oct, 2012 10:14 pm

stepuluk wrote: Hi allI work there and I can confirm we are moving to Leeds 1 just up the canal. We are all very much looking forward to the new building. Hi stepulukAny idea who is moving in?

stepuluk · Post by **stepuluk** » Mon 15 Oct, 2012 10:31 am

cnosni wrote: stepuluk wrote: Hi allI work there and I can confirm we are moving to Leeds 1 just up the canal. We are all very much looking forward to the new building. Hi stepulukAny idea who is moving in? I have to be careful of information in case I'm not allowed to say. All departments currently at the Yorkshire post will be all moving over, we have the top 2 floors and a quarter of the 1st floor. It might not look it but Leeds 1 building is a lot bigger inside than it looks on the outside. I'll be glad to get out of this building, it's so stuffy.

somme1916 · Post by **somme1916** » Sat 03 Nov, 2012 2:20 pm

I have a problem with unneccesary censorship of allowed content on the readers comment on the online version.A typical example being the one below...http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 0641Forget the subject matter.This isn't the thrust of my point.There have been several stories published lately which have all openly invited reader comment and then mysteriously,a few hours later,have been closed for comment and any comment already received becoming invisible on the story page.Why ask the readership to comment in the first place if you are then going to "pull" the comments section ????Smacks of either a big brother attitude or over sensitivity towards percieved public reaction to it's own publishings....or a control failure in any moderating procedures already in place.Anybody else got their take on this ????

Johnny39 · Post by **Johnny39** » Sat 03 Nov, 2012 2:35 pm

somme1916 wrote: I have a problem with unneccesary censorship of allowed content on the readers comment on the online version.A typical example being the one below...http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 0641Forget the subject matter.This isn't the thrust of my point.There have been several stories published lately which have all openly invited reader comment and then mysteriously,a few hours later,have been closed for comment and any comment already received becoming invisible on the story page.Why ask the readership to comment in the first place if you are then going to "pull" the comments section ????Smacks of either a big brother attitude or over sensitivity towards percieved public reaction to it's own publishings....or a control failure in any moderating procedures already in place.Anybody else got their take on this ???? Hi Somme. For what it's worth I think if there is likely to be a court case I don't think comment can be made. If that is the case comment should not be invited in the first place. This is only a guess on my part.

somme1916 · Post by **somme1916** » Sat 03 Nov, 2012 2:45 pm

Johnny39 wrote: somme1916 wrote: I have a problem with unneccesary censorship of allowed content on the readers comment on the online version.A typical example being the one below...http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 0641Forget the subject matter.This isn't the thrust of my point.There have been several stories published lately which have all openly invited reader comment and then mysteriously,a few hours later,have been closed for comment and any comment already received becoming invisible on the story page.Why ask the readership to comment in the first place if you are then going to "pull" the comments section ????Smacks of either a big brother attitude or over sensitivity towards percieved public reaction to it's own publishings....or a control failure in any moderating procedures already in place.Anybody else got their take on this ???? Hi Somme. For what it's worth I think if there is likely to be a court case I don't think comment can be made. If that is the case comment should not be invited in the first place. This is only a guess on my part. I appreciate in this particular instance,there may be a sub-judice case for not running the comments section Johnny,but as I said,there's been many other instances of comments being pulled where the story's subject matter is not the subject of litigation(or even possible)......just percieved to be a "controversial" subject maybe ? In any event,it shows poor judgement/editorial control.And censorship of sorts.

Johnny39 · Post by **Johnny39** » Sat 03 Nov, 2012 2:53 pm

somme1916 wrote: Johnny39 wrote: somme1916 wrote: I have a problem with unneccesary censorship of allowed content on the readers comment on the online version.A typical example being the one below...http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 0641Forget the subject matter.This isn't the thrust of my point.There have been several stories published lately which have all openly invited reader comment and then mysteriously,a few hours later,have been closed for comment and any comment already received becoming invisible on the story page.Why ask the readership to comment in the first place if you are then going to "pull" the comments section ????Smacks of either a big brother attitude or over sensitivity towards percieved public reaction to it's own publishings....or a control failure in any moderating procedures already in place.Anybody else got their take on this ???? Hi Somme. For what it's worth I think if there is likely to be a court case I don't think comment can be made. If that is the case comment should not be invited in the first place. This is only a guess on my part. I appreciate in this particular instance,their may be a sub-judice case for not running the comments section Johnny,but as I said,there's been many other instances of comments being pulled where the story's subject matter is not the subject of litigation(or even possible)......just percieved to be a "controversial" subject maybe ? In any event,it shows poor judgement/editorial control.And censorship of sorts. It do.

Jogon · Post by **Jogon** » Sat 03 Nov, 2012 2:58 pm

We had a door2door sales chappy tother evening asking if we read/bought YP / YEP. Nice bloke and so explained we bought a daily, daily but not those.Asked if we'd be interested in subscription at £1 per week?That sounded fair enough then I sussed we'd to pay them.Guardian sposed to be considering stopping a 'printed' edition / web only.

somme1916 · Post by **somme1916** » Sat 03 Nov, 2012 3:11 pm

Jogon wrote: We had a door2door sales chappy tother evening asking if we read/bought YP / YEP. Nice bloke and so explained we bought a daily, daily but not those.Asked if we'd be interested in subscription at £1 per week?That sounded fair enough then I sussed we'd to pay them.Guardian sposed to be considering stopping a 'printed' edition / web only. tee hee.....HE should have offered you more jogon !Seems feasible this will be the way in future(printing costs,paper,staff,wages,costs in general etc etc)....suppose we'll then be asked to subscribe to an online version like some others already do (heaven forbid)....don't see a particularly rosy future for local Johnston press publications based on the quality seen of late and the repetitive nature of their story publishing.Seems all they are doing is re-jigging a story or publishing again a week later in a vain attempt to convince us it's a new article

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sat 03 Nov, 2012 6:11 pm

To be honest, it's a fortnight since I bought a copy of the Yorkshire Morning Post, and I'm not really missing it.Whilst handy for the odd genuine local news item and the everyday comedyfest that is the letters page, most of it is adverts and barely disguised press releases masquerading as news. Plus, as has already been said, an increasing frequency of the same stories regurgitated several times - on occasion even in the same edition!There seems to be precious little actual journalism going on - no questioning of those in power at the Civic Hall, no campaigning on behalf of the community (would the YEP of old have let the proposed fire station closures, for example, pass with barely a comment?).And at 60p a day, I'm £3.60 a week better off!

dogduke · Post by **dogduke** » Sat 03 Nov, 2012 6:35 pm

Stupidity continues to reign at the YEP !!The horoscopes for ALL the star signs today are IDENTICAL.Does this truly mean that we are all in it together as Mr Camerson said ?.ANDSunday football games are all 7.45 pm kick offunless stated - 7.45pm on a SUNDAY !