"We get into difficult areas when this site's moderators and their supporters confuse the right to take an action with any right to prevent discussion on the action or on the action's wisdom and effects."

Some discussions are best not held in the open, for the whole readership on the web to pore over. Because they pertain to events that if stirred up again will hurt innocent third parties unnecessarily. So, when Shambles insists on having them so discussed, he was warned, publicly and privately about the consequences of such a discussion being opened up. And that's when the fun started - because he kept insisting, and his insistent messages were wiped, and for days now he still keeps insisting, and clearly this is no longer about "democracy" (ha! have you noticed the kind of regime that calls itself "democratic" these days?) but about a perverse need on his part to "be right" at best, and malice against those likely to be hurt at worst.

I may have stirred your curiosity with my obtuseness - well, tough luck. The "innocent third parties" I referred to have been on tranquallisers since this whole sorry affair began, just from the fear of past events being raked up; and I believe there has been a thankfully unsuccessful attempt at OD, too. Now, these individuals have suffered enough in the past, have never been accused of anything, they have only ever been victims. And our collective attempt "to get at the truth... for the benefit of all", more than simply smacking of sick curiosity, victimises such individuals further.

I have been told the details, and will not divulge them. A few others have too. Curiously, they are among those trying to shut Shambles up. Who, if he has any shred of decency left, will let this be.