# Union thread closed,why and by who



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

So, what has been said that warrants this action? Personally, at £6.50 for 250 gms I think that is very expensive. At Coffee Compass I typically pay £8.50 or so for 500 gms, and although I have never tried Union, I doubt they can be any more skilled than CC are.

Which brings us on to who locked the thread and why?


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Coffee Compass sell coffees up to £29.50 for 250g. It's what the market will bear for the product. Roasters charge what they charge, people pay what they are comfortable paying...and everyone lived happily ever after.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

If your happy with what you buy and where you buy it from and how much you pay , then your in a happy place .

What you consider expensive and skilled won't be the same as everyone else ( nor should it be )

Buy / don't buy...those are the choices open to all of us ...

If enough people choose not to buy then places won't carry on as a business

So perhaps we can live happily ever after ?


----------



## risky (May 11, 2015)

I recently paid £ 12 for 250g and have paid more in the past. So Union are not at all expensive as far as I'm concerned. As boots said, if you're happy paying whatever you pay then congratulations.

I've never driven a Porsche, does that mean it can't be any better than a Ford?

Debating prices is futile. Pay what you're prepared to pay and others will pay what they're prepared to pay. World would be a boring place if we all liked the same coffee.

As for the second part of your question; the moderators and Administrators of this forum don't answer to you.


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

If this is an open forum relying on discussion, then when mods close threads that

On face value seem innocent, I feel I have the right to ask why. Or is this really

A dictatorship


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Who is the dictator? The one who allows the free market economy to be represented unhindered, or he who demands that all coffee meet his personal perception of value, irrespective of raw material costs?

People in glass houses & all that...


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

There was a tweet on this subject by roaster James Gourmet recently


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/701870915131281408


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

fluffles said:


> There was a tweet on this subject by roaster James Gourmet recently
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/701870915131281408


on what subject ???

Not all cheese costs the same , or wine , or well anything....

As MWJB said people can charge what the market supports , not all coffee costs the same , not all businesses have the same costs , not all coffee is the same quality or bought the same way .......


----------



## NickdeBug (Jan 18, 2015)

Two separate issues here:

price of beans from Roaster is a pointless discussion. Buy whatever *you* think represents good value and leave it at that.

Should a thread be summarily closed with no final post? - hmmm, not so sure

I think a brief - "this is likely to go round and round and achieve nothing folks - so bringing it to an end now" would help.

Mods are doing a pretty good job on this to be honest. Rare that anyone gets upset which is pretty telling in itself.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Mrboots2u said:


> on what subject ???
> 
> Not all cheese costs the same , or wine , or well anything....
> 
> As MWJB said people can charge what the market supports , not all coffee costs the same , not all businesses have the same costs , not all coffee is the same quality or bought the same way .......


On the subject of what price roasters are charging. Apologies - just pointing out something that seemed relevant to the discussion. I don't have an axe to grind on this subject at all, I dip in and out of coffees at various price brackets.

I do agree with the original tweet linked above though, JG are generally excellent value.


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

dfk41 said:


> So, what has been said that warrants this action? Personally, at £6.50 for 250 gms I think that is very expensive.


I think that's about a fair price for a bag of reasonable coffee. Has Bean starts around £5-6, roasters up here you're looking at £7-8 for a 250g retail bag, as Risky said some rarer/microlot stuff might go up into the teens.


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

dfk41 said:


> So, what has been said that warrants this action? Personally, at £6.50 for 250 gms I think that is very expensive. At Coffee Compass I typically pay £8.50 or so for 500 gms, and although I have never tried Union, I doubt they can be any more skilled than CC are.
> 
> Which brings us on to who locked the thread and why?


It's not locked though is it...it's been deleted/moved, it's as if it never existed?


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Let us not move this discussion away. I a asking why a mod saw fit to close the thread without further ado. I guess I will have to go and ask Glenn which is not what I am after. I am merely asking why a discussion has been chopped off at the legs. In case people have forgotten, the reference to a dictatorship made by me was in point to the fact that we live in a society that values freedom of speech.......and if that is taken away then there ought to be a reason


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

dfk41 said:


> Let us not move this discussion away. I a asking why a mod saw fit to close the thread without further ado. I guess I will have to go and ask Glenn which is not what I am after. I am merely asking why a discussion has been chopped off at the legs. In case people have forgotten, the reference to a dictatorship made by me was in point to the fact that we live in a society that values freedom of speech.......and if that is taken away then there ought to be a reason


I'd go to the european court of coffee rights .....


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

It's Glenn's forum, he can run it how he wishes. Stuff gets removed temporarily by the the mods sometimes until Glenn has a chance to review.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

@dfk41 Our society values all sorts of personal freedoms, but generally not those that lead to harm to others & their reputations whilst they are doing nothing more than going about their daily & law abiding business.

Freedom of speech carries the burden of responsibility. It also allows those who simply make up nonsense to be spoken out against. There's a difference between censorship (to which you seem to be alluding) and allowing disparaging, half-baked, twaddle to remain in the public view.

Ultimately, I have faith in Glenn & the moderators, if I didn't, I wouldn't post here.


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Perhaps I am missing something then, as I saw absolutely nothing in the short thread that was harmful to Union, other than the suggestion his beans are expensive. Please enlighten me


----------



## Glenn (Jun 14, 2008)

I would just like to make a clarification point

I have not yet reviewed the post as I am currently in a meeting (and have been since early today)

The post has been sidelined for review and may well be moved back once I have had a chance to review the contents.

The thread has not been deleted.

I value freedom of speech - but lets not also forget that if some threads are not moderated then the forum (eg me) could be sued - and who pays my legal bill?

Please give me a chance to come out of my meeting and review the thread before I can comment further

It may be 7 or 8pm before I get to this.


----------



## h1udd (Sep 1, 2015)

That's a very reasoned approach Glenn .... But with that sort of reasoned and professional approach to moderating, how on earth is one meant to have a Daily Mail-esq knee jerk panic reaction without looking like ..... Well .... a knee jerkish daily mail reader ?


----------



## Dylan (Dec 5, 2011)

Is there actually any legal precedent for a forum owner being sued because of views expressed by people who use his forum?

I understand there is when torrent links or whatever are posted, but because someone gives a defamatory opinion on a roaster?... Seems a bit of a stretch to me, but I can't speak with any authority.


----------



## h1udd (Sep 1, 2015)

Trying to find link now, but I am sure it has happened .... Certainly owners have been forced to removed liablous comments from web sites


----------



## YerbaMate170 (Jun 15, 2015)

What you have to remember is that prices change every day but not everybody changes their prices at the same time. So, if you've been paying a certain amount for X for 5 years and they've suddenly increased their prices, then it's probably (or at least possibly) because they hadn't done so for a while, and are only keeping up with the world around them. Not really sure how this can be criticised, unless you are going to keep log of every single roaster's prices and only buy from ones that keep their prices constant (until they go bust and you no longer can)


----------



## dwalsh1 (Mar 3, 2010)

Can't think why everyone is giving the OP a hard time. It's a serious question that deserves a sensible answer.


----------



## Dallah (Jan 31, 2015)

Dylan said:


> Is there actually any legal precedent for a forum owner being sued because of views expressed by people who use his forum?
> 
> I understand there is when torrent links or whatever are posted, but because someone gives a defamatory opinion on a roaster?... Seems a bit of a stretch to me, but I can't speak with any authority.


I will try to find the legal precedent but my understanding is that the forum by allowing a post (which is potentially libelous, hate speech, encitement to violence etc...) is lumbered with vicarious responsibility. I seem to recall that it was in the USA and involved Facebook. I'll hit LexisNexis or Westlaw and see what comes up.

Even if there is nothing in it, Glenn would still have to defend the claim and he may not have the funds to bankroll a long case. Its money upfront to lawyers. Maybe you recoup your costs but that is a long way down the road. Hence a conservative risk adverse position might be necessary.


----------



## h1udd (Sep 1, 2015)

The OP has been on the board long enough to know that Glenn temporarily locks threads deemed to get out of control until they can be reviewed ... It's a balanced moderation.


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

Yawn....


----------



## Dallah (Jan 31, 2015)

And before someone pipes up with "this isn't America" appeal courts here do give standing to ratio of other countries appeal courts. We aren't bound but they can provide useful reasoning and guidance.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

I blame the lizards ( And David Icke )


----------



## NickdeBug (Jan 18, 2015)

Mrboots2u said:


> I blame the lizards ( And David Icke )


Isn't that blasphemy? I thought he was the Messiah or something.

edit: I refer of course to the lizard. David Icke was a nutjob in a tracksuit


----------



## Dallah (Jan 31, 2015)

I believe that it was caused by Xenu implanting thetans


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

are we at happily ever after yet...


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

ridland said:


> I will try to find the legal precedent but my understanding is that the forum by allowing a post (which is potentially libelous, hate speech, encitement to violence etc...) is lumbered with vicarious responsibility. I seem to recall that it was in the USA and involved Facebook. I'll hit LexisNexis or Westlaw and see what comes up.
> 
> Even if there is nothing in it, Glenn would still have to defend the claim and he may not have the funds to bankroll a long case. Its money upfront to lawyers. Maybe you recoup your costs but that is a long way down the road. Hence a conservative risk adverse position might be necessary.


Forums often have rules about respectful behaviour, but maybe we could govern ourselves without intervention.


----------



## Dallah (Jan 31, 2015)

MWJB said:


> Forums often have rules about respectful behaviour, but maybe we could govern ourselves without intervention.


Are you new here? ROFLMAO


----------



## urbanbumpkin (Jan 30, 2013)

Maybe I'm buying beans from the wrong places but I think £6.50 is a fairly average price for a 250g bag.


----------



## jtldurnall (Mar 16, 2015)

urbanbumpkin said:


> Maybe I'm buying beans from the wrong places but I think £6.50 is a fairly average price for a 250g bag.


It's the standard IMM subscription price, which whilst I subscribed I considered a good deal.


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

jtldurnall said:


> It's the standard IMM subscription price, which whilst I subscribed I considered a good deal.


plus or minus postage?


----------



## NickdeBug (Jan 18, 2015)

I can't see it being minus postage.

They don't work out how much it costs to send and then knock it off the cost of the beans.

IMM includes postage though.


----------



## Glenn (Jun 14, 2008)

I have reviewed the post - nothing in it but it was right to have sidelined it

I have also added a link to the original post that was there all along...

Sometimes decisions need to be made that not all will agree with.

@dfk41 I have asked before, and will ask again - contact me with concerns rather than raising on the forum - and please at least give me a chance to respond before kicking off and referring to me as a dictator


----------



## Dylan (Dec 5, 2011)

Also, didn't this thread kinda miss the whole point of the first thread, which was the recent change in quantity for the price (200g) not the actual price itself


----------



## urbanbumpkin (Jan 30, 2013)

I would say that there are roasters that don't offer bag sizes bigger than 250g or don't offer discount got buying a kilo of the same beans, which I find a bit annoying.

But I suppose it could just the business model that they're working to and bigger bags doesn't make enough margin.


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Glenn said:


> I have reviewed the post - nothing in it but it was right to have sidelined it
> 
> I have also added a link to the original post that was there all along...
> 
> ...


I did not refer to you as a dictator. I used the word at the person who felt the need to pull the thread in the first place without further ado. You say that it was the correct use of power. I do not agree. Interesting to see you found nothing wrong with the original thread. And for the file, I did not kick off about anything. I asked who had pulled a thread and why and I contacted you simply because one of your mods, Risky was basically rude in his answer to me


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Dylan said:


> Also, didn't this thread kinda miss the whole point of the first thread, which was the recent change in quantity for the price (200g) not the actual price itself


No it did not miss the point at all


----------



## Glenn (Jun 14, 2008)

Starting a thread to question it is what I was referring to - just contact me and await an answer next time

Usually I'm pretty quick to reply


----------



## NickdeBug (Jan 18, 2015)

Dylan said:


> Also, didn't this thread kinda miss the whole point of the first thread, which was the recent change in quantity for the price (200g) not the actual price itself


Pretty sure that this was dealt with in the original Union thread.

Union responded and let us know that they had to increase their prices having held them for a long time. They then took the decision to reduce the pack size and keep the price the same, rather than increase the price for the same pack size. The logic being a rise in price may make the purchase unaffordable for some.

They apologised for any confusion and offered a forum discount code. Which I then used to buy some very tasty Cup of Excellence beans.

No mystery, no conspiracy and nobody's business but theirs.


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

Dylan said:


> Is there actually any legal precedent for a forum owner being sued because of views expressed by people who use his forum?
> 
> I understand there is when torrent links or whatever are posted, but because someone gives a defamatory opinion on a roaster?... Seems a bit of a stretch to me, but I can't speak with any authority.


I did a dissertation on libel on online forums as part of my degree. It was almost ten years ago now but the position at the time was that for moderated forums, the forum owner takes responsibility for statements made on it.


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

ridland said:


> I will try to find the legal precedent but my understanding is that the forum by allowing a post (which is potentially libelous, hate speech, encitement to violence etc...) is lumbered with vicarious responsibility. I seem to recall that it was in the USA and involved Facebook. I'll hit LexisNexis or Westlaw and see what comes up.
> 
> Even if there is nothing in it, Glenn would still have to defend the claim and he may not have the funds to bankroll a long case. Its money upfront to lawyers. Maybe you recoup your costs but that is a long way down the road. Hence a conservative risk adverse position might be necessary.


Correct.


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

good debate, but all hot air as no defamatory comments have been made


----------



## Glenn (Jun 14, 2008)

Let it rest please

I support the action to sideline the post even if you don't.

In light that the original post in November needed some moderation and the potential to head that way was present I was glad to have the chance to review.


----------



## YerbaMate170 (Jun 15, 2015)

On a side note, I have no law qualifications or knowledge whatsoever, but I would be astounded if a forum owner/moderator could actually get in legal trouble for somebody else posting something on it... I mean, for goodness sake all you need is a keyboard and fingers to make an account. The moderator can check each and every post every 30 seconds and still not be able to stop a crazy person making problematic comments.


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

YerbaMate170 said:


> On a side note, I have no law qualifications or knowledge whatsoever, but I would be astounded if a forum owner/moderator could actually get in legal trouble for somebody else posting something on it... I mean, for goodness sake all you need is a keyboard and fingers to make an account. The moderator can check each and every post every 30 seconds and still not be able to stop a crazy person making problematic comments.


A forum owner is the one who hosts and disseminates the information even though someone else has posted it. The owner is slightly more protected if the forum is unmoderated (as they would not necessarily be aware of what was being posted), but for moderated forums the site owner is held to a higher standard and more likely to be held responsible (along with the person making the defamatory statements). In both cases the best thing to do is to take down the disputed content immediately.


----------



## h1udd (Sep 1, 2015)

It's no different to a news paper .... If a journalist writes a liablous article about someone or a company and for instance calls them a peado .... Then the paper (it's editor) gets sued

and yes it's a forum that is open for people to join and post, but as jeebsy says .. It's moderated !


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

I would have though, that if a point becomes moderated, then in the name of freedom of speech, it would take nothing to add a caveat, as closed until such time as it has been reviewed, otherwise forum members might get the wrong impression that mods are a law unto themselves


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

dfk41 said:


> I would have though, that if a point becomes moderated, then in the name of freedom of speech, it would take nothing to add a caveat, as closed until such time as it has been reviewed, otherwise forum members might get the wrong impression that mods are a law unto themselves


If a post gets edited then it says at the bottom "Edited on x date by mod's name. Reason:"


----------



## h1udd (Sep 1, 2015)

There will always be forum members like that though, it doesn't matter what you do, they have a strong child like mentality in the way they see moderation as being told off and they don't like it

they are the same people that park on double yellows and get a hissy fit when they get a ticket or drive over the speed limit but the toys get thrown out the pram when they get caught.

You can't win with them, the majority can accept forum rules and moderation .... You will never get through to them as they always think they are in the right despite the overwhelming evidence that most of the threads they get stressed about end up being locked due to escalating annoyance with them


----------



## Yes Row (Jan 23, 2013)

This thread is like eating kippers

"The gift that keeps giving"


----------



## Glenn (Jun 14, 2008)

The mods followed the process and contacted the OP.

I support their action.

As I have said, please let it rest.

The action has been taken.

There will always be people who disagree with decisions.

Put yourself in my position. Tough calls need to be made from time to time and they will not be universally popular.

I accept that.


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

jeebsy said:


> If a post gets edited then it says at the bottom "Edited on x date by mod's name. Reason:"


jeebsy, there was no such posting that I saw. The thread was initially locked without further explanation


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

h1udd said:


> There will always be forum members like that though, it doesn't matter what you do, they have a strong child like mentality in the way they see moderation as being told off and they don't like it
> 
> they are the same people that park on double yellows and get a hissy fit when they get a ticket or drive over the speed limit but the toys get thrown out the pram when they get caught.
> 
> You can't win with them, the majority can accept forum rules and moderation .... You will never get through to them as they always think they are in the right despite the overwhelming evidence that most of the threads they get stressed about end up being locked due to escalating annoyance with them


Look, lets clear this up for once and for all. There was no reason given as to why the thread was initially locked, then removed. It has been passed to the powers to be for guidance and they have come back and suggested nothing untoward could be found.

Quite why you level at me, the dummy and pram scenario is beyond me.

There are two sorts of people in life....leaders and followers..which are you?


----------



## Glenn (Jun 14, 2008)

I am closing this thread as nothing more of value can be added.


----------

