I'll start off by saying I was never on the Wigan list, and the reason I hadn't put my name down for it is purely to do with geography, and the fact that there is a hell of a lot of geography between me and Wigan!
I have immense respect for NWC, and indeed all organisers of major Munches, and I trust her judgement completely. However... that trust has come about through a long history of munch attending (and indeed oranising) over the years. This sort of trust isn't something that I would expect a newcomer to the site to have, which brings me to my main point: The original purpose of Munches was to be a way for new arrivals to the swinging scene, or indeed non swingers who were considering the lifestyle to meet and talk to swingers socially. Nowadays, Munches have a tendency to be a piss-up for the regulars, but I think we shouldn't lose sight of their role as ways for newbies to made welcome and to see and disuss what they might be getting themselves into.
I've always (apart from in the special case of when I was actually vetting attendees for a munch I was involved in running) had a relaxed attitude to journalists getting into munches, because there isn't actually any scandal there. Some people meet up in a pub, have a laugh, drink a lot, and a few go home and shag each other... in other words exactly what you'd see in any lively town centre pub on a busy night. There will probably be more snogging and less fighting, but apart from that, nothing to write a story about... but new attendees don't know that. Newbies are generally scared witless, often so scared they don't even turn up. Having a self-admitted journalist or two there will not assist newbies in overcoming their fear, and it's for that reason, and that reason alone that I wouldnt be happy with people attending for any purely journalistic purpose: I'm ok with it, the organisers might be ok with it, but it's a real stretch to expect timid newbies to be ok with it.
god bless you dammie....
staggy
the only reason for this post from me (phill) is to show my support for naughty wigan couple.
job well done as always :thumbup:
choozy here,
i agree with phil,
looking forward to a good night,
see you all there.
It seems The Editor is otherwise engaged or I'm sure she would post and answer all our questions..
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/140211.html
*not a snipe....mearly an observation*
Well this has been the 'juiciest' thread of late and very interesting to read.
Business needs to be expedient if it requires to make a profit, so I'm not surprised that such 'hot moves' are now beginning to appear.
Forget the 'unknown other', it seems highly hypocritical that they feel their identity should be protected whilst, others may feel they are exposed. In this scenario its bad business. Announce them or come on your own.
The magazine needs to be published before it can be analysed. It is an opportunity to meet the editor at the munch. It is a response to the prior doubts and worries which occurred in the first days of the launch. If you don't go talk to the girl you won't know what she's like. So it's a reasonable compromise.
As everyone else has now had their say on the matter, I feel that I must also be allowed to have my say. I will warn that if my response appears to be bitter in tone, it is because that is exactly how I am feeling, bitter towards some of my so called friends who feel it is ok to discuss my motives in public like this.
Am I going to apologise again for INVITING them to attend, or for the rant which follows? Am I hell! I will however, explain the background and how this came about and then you can carry on with your analysis of my decision, my integrity and yet again go on about how I have abandoned my duty of care to the members of the site who were/are attending the Wigan Munch.
Obviously from the posts in this thread, you thought I took this decision lightly and that I do not give a dam about the people attending or take security seriously. Well, from my point of view, that is exactly what your posts say! To say I’m disgusted at the attitude of some people would be putting it lightly. Only I’m not going to name names!
Firstly, this thread was a personal attack (and yes, the word attack describes perfectly how it feels) and for anyone who thinks differently sit back and read the whole thread. Sit back and read where my name is constantly quoted throughout, how the munch I am organising is the full topic for discussion. So how can this not be described as personal, and an attack on me, my decision and my integrity? I would also like to comment on the people who have had quite a dig at me in the post, then had the audacity to send a pm saying it wasn’t meant as a dig. What did they expect me to do? PM them back and say go ahead, rip me to pieces? Don’t bother picking out the nice comments where people have said they are not having a go at me, if they weren’t, they would not have quoted the Munch Thread, they would not have even mentioned my name in the thread.
Secondly, do people honestly think I would have allowed anyone to attend this munch if I felt that any other person was being put in a position where their privacy would have been in jeopardy?
Background
A few weeks ago, an active, swinging member of the site sent me a pm asking if I thought it would be a good idea for the SHMeditor to attend. Initially, I was very cautious but the more I thought about it, the more I realised that it was an idea which may need some more investigation. Following a PM conversation with St3v3 and myself, SHMEditor contacted me and we discussed the munch and the ethos behind the Munches. She agreed that it would be a brilliant opportunity to meet members of the site. I then went on to speak over the phone to SHMEditor, Annie, and had a very long and detailed conversation over her. I was voluntarily given the assurance I sought, that she would not be interviewing people, no photos would be taken, no ‘quotes’ would written down. It was purely a chance for her to meet the ‘community’. She has a very good understanding of the lifestyle, but as with all new members, she does not know this community, but then again, neither did any of you till you had joined the site. I also suggested that the other member of the team currently working on the magazine, should attend – the Publisher (and I honestly cannot remember the user name and this is the ONLY reason why their name as not been quoted, but I can assure you, they DO have an account set up on this site). Are Annie and the publisher swingers? What does that matter? How many other members do we have who are non-swingers, but yet love the lifestyle and attend munches? Who says we are swingers? Should they/we be ‘banned’ from attending a munch? Would Annie be a member of this site if it hadn’t been for SHM? Well I don’t know, and only Annie can answer that, but I do know the reason she has not been logging on as often as people think she should have, and it has nothing what so ever to do with not being genuinely interested in make the Magazine a success or her interest in the community.
In no way was Admin or any of the Symbios employees behind my decision to allow Annie to attend. So for the people who have taken this as yet another opportunity to have a go at Admin, I’m sorry but yet again, you got your facts wrong. For the ONE person who sent the pm saying is this one rule for members and another for Mods – no it isn’t and you know it isn’t. As for me being a Moderator, well, along with my future on this site, and being a member of this so-called community, that is also now in doubt.
I do know the munch rules, and again thank you to the member who asked me if I was aware of them.
Other people have taken the opportunity to pull apart my previous posts and to pull apart the Munch terminology/ rules/ background, well I am also going to take your stance on things and interpret things in a manner that suits my needs. The guidelines, or whatever you want to call them, say that Munches are to allow new members of the site the opportunity to meet other members of the forum and chat rooms, to ask questions, and to (in my interpretation) allow them to find out more about swinging and the community.
Is SHMEditor, and the publisher a new member of the site? Do they want to come along and meet people? Do they want to learn about this community? Obviously, you don’t think so.
Definition of a member. Well yet again, you can interpret this in which ever way you want, I took the guidelines to mean a member of the site. Dictionary definition says:
Noun - member (plural members)
1. One who officially belongs to a group.
2. A limb.
I have removed other definitions as they refer to certain parts of the male anatomy. Thinking about it, perhaps they are relevent!
Perhaps the Munch guidelines should be amended and the singluar word ‘member’ removed and replaced with ‘member of the munch clique’ or ‘if your face fits you can attend’. Would that be a better description?
I will also add, how many other people who are on the list work in an occupation where they could potentially put other people in situations where they are risking their privacy? I do know we have members of the police force on there – perhaps I should stop them from attending as they may follow me next time I am out dogging and arrest me. We have a DJ – perhaps I should stop him attending as he may tell everyone in his night club that we are swingers. We have a person who works for the Inland Revenue – perhaps I should stop them attending as they may want to check that the DJ has reported his ‘earnings’ for the night. We have someone who works in jobcentre, will they be checking everyone’s national insurance numbers to check if they are claiming any benefits? SHMeditor and the publisher WERE NOT attending in a journalistic capacity, so what different does it make what their occupations are? Have I ever asked any of you for a CV? Did I know you could be trusted before I met any of you?
Maybe I should ask the bar staff to wear blind folds, you never know they may be budding journalists in real life. Perhaps they will look at you being in your ‘gold fish bowls’ stare are you, ask you questions, and, god forbid it, but actually want to talk to you.
So thank you everyone for trusting my judgement, thank you for tearing me to pieces and thank you for the attack. One line in the title of this thread saying it is not personal, does not make it ok. It does not stop it from being personal. It is and it was personal!
My feelings at this moment in time are that I do not want to have any future involvement in any Munch, or in the organisation or attendance at any social event arranged for this community. However I do not feel that I am able to cancel the Munch at such short notice. People have paid out for hotels, for uniforms, arranged babysitters etc, so the Munch will still go ahead. I am therefore working on handing over this to other organisers and will put a post in the Munch thread as soon as I am able to sort this out.
Have I over reacted with this post? I don’t think so but I am sure you will dissect this post and tell me I have. Do I care? No, I honestly don’t anymore. So again, thank you for your support. Maybe I should buy some Horlicks, I just might be able to sleep tonight.
:lol:
, to a site which is based around making money and profit.
