Halfway House campaign website shut down due to 'damaging, false and offensive' content

5:00pm Tuesday 25th September 2012 in News Photograph of the Author By Hayley Mortimer, Reporter

The website used by opponents of the decision to close the Halfway House in Box was taken off the web The website used by opponents of the decision to close the Halfway House in Box was taken off the web

A WEBSITE used by campaigners fighting to save the Halfway House pub in Box had to be shut down due to concerns that the content was 'damaging, false and offensive'.

Pub owners the Novalis Trust instructed lawyers to contact the internet service provider which was hosting SaveTheHalfwayHouse.com.


It was taken down on Monday, September 17.

Jake Lukas, chief executive of Novalis Trust, said: "The action taken to close down the website is in response to damaging, false and offensive allegations.

"The website was predominantly a vehicle for contributors to vent grievances about a wide range of topics and to permit anonymous attacks, defamatory and harassing in nature against named or readily identifiable individuals.

"These contributors have taken extensive steps to conceal their identities, including using an internet identity protection service."

The trust, which also owns Cotswold Chine School, closed the pub on July 8.

Plans to turn it into a village shop and cafe have not been well received by the community and hundreds have taken part in protests and signed an online petition.

The website provided readers with updates on the campaign to save the pub and was used by supporters to comment on why the Halfway House should be kept open.

It contained 72 questions which campaigners wanted answering.

Campaigner Sean Kelly said: "This is by no means an attack on the school. The teachers and carers do an excellent job."


A new service provider is now hosting the website and the Novalis Trust says it will consider legal action if the company does not take it down.

Comments(22)

Cuthbert Thickett says...
7:22pm Tue 25 Sep 12

The Novalis trust has every right to get this website taken down, it is run by a bunch of Daily Mail reading nimbys who have attacked the school at every opportunity since its inception. The bile and vitriol that existed on this site was carefully edited to maximise and distort the true feelings of the community and satisfy the egos of the websites owners. Get over it, pubs are closing every day in the uk, there is another pub 200 yds across the common, use it!

Report this post »

Robert Sinfield says...
8:41am Wed 26 Sep 12

One can only assume 'Cuthbert Thickett' (if such a person exists) never visited this pub and in all likelihood has never been to Box either, unless it is to go to work there of course...

Anybody who thinks the closing down of village pubs is acceptable, shows a total lack of understanding for village life. Once a pub goes, a village starts to die.

I believe the school is riding rough shod over it's neighbours and the closing down of the website shows nothing other than a heavy handed attitude.

I believe dear old Cuthbert is the same person who said the villagers would not complain if the school housed the 'overflow of students from Eton'.

That, I think, gives you some sort of idea about the sense and reasoning behind his arguments which are no more than misguided generalisations about people he has never met.

This is not a class war Cuthbert, try getting past your own prejudices on this one, there's a good chap.

Rob Sinfield.

(My real name and no Mr Thickett, I do not read The Daily Mail).

Report this post »

Cuthbert Thickett says...
9:50am Wed 26 Sep 12

I say Mr Sinfield, a marvelous example of Ad Hominem attacks on me as a person, (who you do not know). Lets stick to the facts of the matter shall we. The website is full of scurrilous allegations of sexual impropriety against named individuals, without the evidence being tested. Do you believe that it is acceptable to start throwing these kind of comments around in public? What if they were made about you? I therefore contend, hopefully under the banner of appropriate free speech that the school has every right to get the site taken down, and anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence before trial would support that.

Also to correct your false premise I have been to Box, indeed I have lived in the area all of my life, I have been to the halfway house, I have been to the Crown at Minch where the ex landlord now plies his trade since he moved there. There are many villages without pubs these days, please supply evidence to support your assertion that the village will die without it, do the residents legs not extend to walk 200yds across the common? And finally relating ot your class war comment, are the owners of a business not free to do what they wish with their property, or are you suggesting that the Box socialist cooperative can in some way force the owners of Box businesses to accede to their wishes?

Report this post »

dimreepr says...
1:18pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Having tried to comment on the website with an alternative point of view (several times) I came to one inevitable conclusion; censorship designed to bolster a very one sided position. Given the type of responses here (http://www.stroudne
wsandjournal.co.uk/n
ews/9834681.One_hund
red_campaigners_prot
est_at_the_closure_o
f_the_Halfway_House_
pub_in_Box/?action=s
uccess) with, as far as I can see, little or no contradictory evidence is it any wonder Cuthbert sees it that way?

Report this post »

chrisrainbow says...
6:36pm Wed 26 Sep 12

well cuthbert thickett,according to magna carta clause 61,every citizen has the right of lawful rebellion and as there is no contract in force,from the likes of people like you,a case cant possibly be brought against your opposers. the trouble with people like you is that you like to chuck your weight around,without any proper foundation.who will you summons? you need a name and DOB for a case to be brought,sure you can invite opposers to court ,but WHO. and besides another site can soon be started,so the whole process will start again. as for your comment that residents can walk across the common,i suggest you take a long walk mate,lets face it ,if it were not for people like the protesters,fighting the likes of you sir,we would be under nazi rule.

Report this post »

dimreepr says...
7:12pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Chrisraindow if you’re going to be ridiculous please do so with some accuracy
Clause 61 of the 1215 charter states: "The barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the realm they wish, who with all their might are to observe, maintain and cause to be observed the peace and liberties which we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present charter"
Clause 61 was removed from all later versions of the charter. Forty years later, after another confrontation between king and barons, the Provisions of Oxford forced on the king a council of twenty four members, 12 selected by the crown, 12 by the barons, which would then elect a king's council of fifteen members; this however was also annulled when Henry III finally won that power struggle. The only clauses that are still valid today are: 1, 9 and 29 or in the case of the 1215 charter 13 and 39.
Forcing the trust to do the protesters bidding, simply because they say so, sounds more ‘right wing’ than allowing them to make business decisions based on the needs of the trust.

Report this post »

chrisrainbow says...
2:45pm Sat 29 Sep 12

todays history lesson was provided by DIMREEPER,meanwhile ,back at the halfway house,i can only repeat what i know to be correct,that every citizen has the right of lawful rebellion and to take away a lovely public house in such a lovely location,then these protesters must be commended. there are too many ,so called ,authoritarians,who consider themselves above any actions in the name of financial gain and this is where britain is today.i fully support the protesters,if yiu disagree,that is your right,but the protesters wont be giving up,because of enforcements,which are only statutes,an act is what it says,AN ACT.it has to have a contract to be enforced,so please produce the contract .NO CONTRACT ,NO CASE.the protesters are free to do as they please and there is not a law in the land that can stop them,now pick something out of that

Report this post »

dimreepr says...
4:28pm Sat 29 Sep 12

Chrisrainbow
It’s very hard to disseminate the meaning from this, seemingly random, collection of words. However I will try, I think what you mean by “every citizen has the right of lawful rebellion” is that we can all, with proviso’s, protest (a rebellion, by definition, isn’t lawful) no argument from me if that’s what you do mean.
Simultaneously you, seem to, demand your legal rights and suggest defying the law is fine. Let’s get some perspective shall we, the protestors aren’t fighting an oppressive regime here, the only real change the trusts plans entail is no alcohol will be served. Are the residents/protestors of box so alcohol dependent that a short walk, is such a problem?

Report this post »

Juggy333 says...
10:32am Sun 30 Sep 12

I'm not an alcoholic, professor, snob, bully, racist.... I do however enjoy walking the common, eating & socialising with a beverage of MY choice in the varied selection of public houses surrounding my home. One of which was the half way house in Box. Bully tactics, name calling & general playground antics won't bring the pub back - however I do think that the novalis trust should be investigated - if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to be concerned of.... Due to their quick responses to silence people with their charity cash & legal threats maybe there is more to it than Jo public appreciates...

Report this post »

chrisrainbow says...
1:43pm Sun 30 Sep 12

DIMREEPER,its interesting that you make the point of BREAKING THE LAW,which law do you mean? i am rather confused as CRIMINAL LAW requires an injured party and CIVIL LAW requires a contract.LEGAL IS STATUTE,it requires consent,i.e signiture,name,dob etc and LAWFUL,which is basic COMMON LAW.as there is no injured party,breach of peace,physical harm under common law,i would like to know how your law can be enforced.its usually people like you thet chant the mantra,BREAKING THE LAW,in order to get your own way,but i am afraid you have slipped up here,as i am assuming you mean STATUTE,which is the definition of a man made law,decreed by government,which needs contract to be enforced. a law is an act and its just what it says ACT,STATUTE,you do not have to STAND UNDER an act.google VERONICA CHAPMAN FREEDOM IS MORE THAN JUST A 7 LETTER WORD. you will see all info here.also YOU TUBE JOHN HARRIS ITS AN ILLUSION.it is not UNLAWFUL to rebel,but to take away a beautiful ammenity,such as the HALFWAY HOUSE,in the name of profit,to my mind is UNLAWFUL and you can argue with me ,with your LEGALEASE as much as you like,you will not get away with your attempts to bully the people to line your grubby little pockets.

Report this post »

dimreepr says...
6:25pm Sun 30 Sep 12

chrisrainbow, this is just more inaccurate nonsense riddled with ad hominem attacks and logical phalluses. Just who, exactly, am I bullying and how does it benefit, financially? As for your obsession with the legal situation, the following may help.
“English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.”
juggt333, what you are describing is known as a privilege and by no means have the rights, of the individual or collective, been violated. I’m pleased to see you acknowledge the Strategy of the protesters on that site were, in your words “bully tactics, name calling and general playground antics”. I do however struggle to come to terms with your call for the trust to be investigated, for what pray tell? Their responses, to the website in question, certainly weren’t what I would consider “quick”. What more is there to it? As far as I can see it was a very quite pub, as such, due for closure simple business.
Just to make it clear, for all, I have absolutely nothing to do with the trust; I am merely engaging in a debate.

Report this post »

Charles Golightly says...
6:55pm Sun 30 Sep 12

I say rainbow old chap, it would help me a lot if you could at least attempt to make some kind of sense. It seems that Barack Room Nazi lawyers like yourself think that you can shout and bully commoners into accepting your tired old ranting ways about a long since defunct legal system. I accept that English is probably not your first language but may I suggest that you go back to school and at least try to type in the Queens English.

Now don't get me wrong, there is nothing I would like more than to see those bally riff raff types that they get at the chine sent back where they came from, and leave our beautiful village to the law abiding residents. We don't need this type around here.

I do remember that they used to serve an excellent Chateau Laffite 74 at teh Halfway House, absolutely splindid it was too, much better than that new world South American dishwater they serve over the common!

Report this post »

chrisrainbow says...
7:43pm Sun 30 Sep 12

CHARLIE OLD BOY,may i suggest,that as it seems you like to ramble,perhaps a long walk off a short pier.you could take plenty with you,DIMREEPER PERHAPS,either way,the protest continues,obviously ,i didnt realise that your first language was b****cks and you have shown yourself for what you are,there is a word for someone ,such as yourself and it is,how do you day,QUEENS ENGLISH? enjoy your walk.

Report this post »

dimreepr says...
9:44pm Sun 30 Sep 12

chrisrainbow, I see you have descended, if such were possible, into a more colourful and somewhat more childlike debating style. I hope you realise you have done your fellow protesters absolutely no favours what so ever. If you intend to help your fellows forward their campaign, may I suggest you grow up first.

Report this post »

valleys4life says...
11:23am Mon 1 Oct 12

Break it up, break it up! This seems to be getting personal. Even to the extent that you're all making a fuss about each others standards of spelling and grammar. Surely you should concentrate your efforts on supporting the arguments towards or against saving the Halfway House rather than trolling each other on a newspaper website! If this is your forte, why not head to the comments section of the dailymail.co.uk, or the like?

I for one would like to see the Halfway House remain a pub, as it should be - regardless of profits, social statuses, spelling proficiency etc.

The fact this pub has created such a following and response to its potential closure only goes to show the support it has. So come on people, SAVE THE HALFWAY HOUSE.... or someone please build another public house in Box :)

Report this post »

dimreepr says...
6:47pm Mon 1 Oct 12

As far as I can see ‘valleys4life’ this is just a thinly veiled insult hiding behind “the voice of reason”, I fail to see how any of my posts could be considered trolling, I’ve merely responded, as now, with rebuttals.

“New figures show 300 community pubs have closed in just 6 months’”- CAMRA

“An average of 16 pubs a week closes their doors”- Financial Times

These figures show the Half Way House is far from unique. Why should a business run at a loss just to satisfy a small number of people, however strongly they feel? As I’ve previously stated no rights have been violated, perhaps if the protesters had supported the pub with as much fervour as they have shown protesting, we wouldn’t be having this debate.

Report this post »

valleys4life says...
10:53am Tue 2 Oct 12

dimreepr, you are a fool. You have taken my post personally and retaliated directly. Well done, no wonder this issue has got into such a mess.

The stats you present show no reason to close yet another pub, they simply illustrate the hard times of the current state of the economy - although you have attached no date to these flaky statements.

This BBC article, shows to me how ridiculous this issue has become and why it is quite clear how the Novalis Trust care more about their school than the community.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-glo
ucestershire-1942152
8

If you don't copy and paste the link, may I at least remind you this pub has stood for 230 years, was bought by the school 10 years ago where they have attempted to make it an upmarket establishment and failed. If they did a little market research and turned this pub into what the people want, then I'm sure this pub could stand for another 230 years - but first the Novalis Trust needs to sell it to someone who actually wants to run a successful business there!

Report this post »

Juggy333 says...
11:49am Tue 2 Oct 12

Well said valleys4life,
I personally don't think the novalis ever wanted the half way house to succeed as a pub - an asset far more useful financially to them for other uses within the school. All aspects of the pub tenancy agreement would make it near impossible for the tenant to make a healthy living.
It's a shame it will never be reverted back to a good traditional pub :)
Surely the novalis trust can't buy everyone's silence...... Or can they....

Report this post »

dimreepr says...
8:51pm Tue 2 Oct 12

Valley4life, it’s abundantly clear, you would never stoop to insult or use such tactics as strawmen or ad hominem to bolster an otherwise weak or ineffectual argument. I therefore humbly apologise for my gratuitous retaliation.

The quotes I presented were, obviously, never intended as a reason for the pubs closure merely as support for the sentence that followed; as such no dates were needed. The page you linked to provide nothing new in terms of news or supportive evidence, a waste of my time. The school has been the recipient of xenophobic attacks by the locals since its inception and no doubt suffered an informal boycott when they acquired, refurbished and reopened the pub. The trust had very specific reasons for wanting the pub, which were ratified by the charity commission. Those reasons haven’t changed, therefore, they have no wish to sell it nor should they be forced to. Frankly the protesters shot themselves in the foot; time to stop whining about it.

Report this post »

Charles Golightly says...
7:38am Wed 3 Oct 12

I say Dim old boy, I don't know who the blazes you think you are, but to go casting such frivolous assertians towards the members of our save the Pub group is jolly bad form. Now lets look at it this way, Box is a small village populated by decent law abiding people, we just dont have the kind of riff raff around here that you find in places like Stonehouse or Stroud. Now we want a pub, a village pub, and until those bounders at the chine came along we had one. We we just want them to lease it or sell it to a decent sort so that we have a pub again, surely thats not too difficult a concept to grasp is it? Insulting my good friends Valleys and Juggy just because they are decent sorts, live in decent homes and have a healthy attitude to life really isn't cricket. I for one will be happy the day the Chine takes iteself, and the undesirables it purports to look after away from here and finds itself a more suitable location. Somewhere like Stonehouse where the locals are more suited to cope with this kind of thing.

Report this post »

valleys4life says...
9:46am Wed 3 Oct 12

Well I guess there's always one who has to take a side, otherwise life would be boring, but I can't help thinking this dim guy is far too bitter to engage in any real debate.

Report this post »

dimreepr says...
6:24pm Wed 3 Oct 12

The manifest conclusion I take from this debate; the protesters arguments are so weak the only possible way to sustain the position is through ad hominem or logical fallacy. This post in one sentence, achieves both... kudos.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree