Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Issue with moderation on the 'Politics›Budget 2025 (or is it 2026 )' thread and claims made via PM

  • 10-10-2025 12:38AM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭



    Hi,

    I would like to raise a concern about the moderation that took place on the above thread. I am unfamiliar with the process so hoping I am raising this in the correct place.

    Link to thread - https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058426180/budget-2025-or-is-it-2026/p6

    See mod note added here :

    image.png

    The discussion that had taken place prior to this included funds that had been spent on IPAS and similar. This had relevance to the topic being discussed, as it was included as part of the Budget 2026

    See here :
    https://extra.ie/2025/10/08/news/irish-news/refugee-budget-e2bn-2026

    Quote -
    According to yesterday’s Budget documents: ‘€1.6billion is being allocated in contingency funding across International Protection Processing, International Protection Accommodation and Ukraine Accommodation for 2026.

    Posters in the thread had raised concerns over the total cost which is coming in around 5 Billion -
    A figure confirmed by Nick Delehanty

    image.png

    So cost IS a fair game topic inside a thread discussing the 2026 Budget.

    Well, not according to @Seth Brundle

    Seth proceeded to remove my post, the contents of which I will add here for clarity.

    I raised concerns about where PUBLIC money was being spent and highlighted that records of Purchase Orders available through Gov.ie show large volumes of money going to LTD companies. When you search these companies up you see that their main shareholders are setup in the usual tax havens of Guernsey, Isle of man etc..

    See example here

    image.png

    CAPE WRATH HOTEL UNLIMITED COMPANY, which operates under the trading name Citywest Hotel is owned by by Alva Glen Holdings Ltd,

    Alva Glen Investments Ltd

    27% owned by Hotel Developments Ltd (Guernsey)
    10% owned by Green Hill Technology Ltd (British Virgin Islands)
    17.5% combined owned by Brayden Ltd and Tamzin Ltd (Isle of Man)

    This means over 54% of Cape Wrath Hotel Unlimited Company is owned primarily through offshore jurisdictions. TAX havens.

    That was the main content of my last post.

    This is a reasonable discussion for post Budget 2026 where new funding has been announced so people can discuss where their TAX Euros are going ESPECIALLY if those Euros are going to Tax haven setups designed to funnel money OUT of the country.

    Seth deleted my post, along with others. I can't comment on what the other posts were but there certainly was no clear issue with what I was posting. I had read pretty much up to the point of my last post also and did not see any problem posts.

    Seth can maybe provide some evidence here to those posts if he wishes.

    So I reached out to Seth. The responses, well…. I will post the messages here.

    image.png

    So there were plenty of posts also discussing the VAT rate for Hospitality, dole increase etc.. Seth ignored these and made a flat-out lie here saying the topic was "Just dem foreigners". Nothing in the thread reflects that.

    He also notes "he has enough to be doing without moderating a racist echochamber"

    This is a very serious accusation to make, and Seth has precisely zero evidence to back this up. I am very annoyed at this.
    To be insinuated that I am engaging in a racist echo chamber for raising VALID concerns about spending post-budget is very frustrating.
    If this were posted on a thread, would it merit a warning at the very least?

    Anyway, I go back to try and reason -

    image.png

    Zero evidence once again to support the claims made by Seth such as the posts being about "why foreigners come here".
    His 2nd point - he at the very least deleted my very much on-topic post, the contents of which I have added above.

    His last statement as well is IMO nonsense. I've already outlined the content of the discussion.

    image.png

    Seth shows here (as a moderator of the politics forum) a staggering lack of understanding about the Budget that had just been released.

    Then shuts down the conversation completely. Now I understand this is not a professional role but still as a moderator on Boards.ie Seth is representing Boards.ie and as such he could show a crumb of professionalism while acting in the role.

    My main concern here is that from the above, it is hard to get away from the feeling that Seth has a very particular viewpoint here and is using his moderation to shut down any talk that comes within any distance of that topic.

    Funny enough, you could call it creating an echo chamber.

    His messages to me back that up as you can see he has inserted many claims about posts that were simply not true or at the very least I cannot see to be true.

    Boards has been struggling and on a day like the budget you would expect to see higher than normal traffic in the politics forum - I don't normally post there myself but obviously the budget draws attention. There should be encouragement for discussion.

    Boards is meant to be a place of discussion, where posters can share info and maybe learn something they didn't know before. Or at least that's what I think it should be.

    Instead, we have the opposite here. I understand that moderators are unpaid and do likely face / see a lot of shite here but Seth is completely out of step here in my view.

    The funny thing about this is just a few posts before on the thread I did ask this question -

    image.png

    And Seth bundles along and pretty much confirms the above.

    You can't ask where your TAX Euros are going in regards to the IPAS and other setups because people like Seth will come along and call you a racist…

    Racist for not wanting to be taken for a ride by some incredibly wealthy people.. Right

    I am not sure what to expect here but I felt I could not just let this slip by given the very serious accusations made and what I can only perceive to be a mod using their power to silence a topic they do not agree with.

    Perhaps Seth was just having a bad day given the forum was likely more active than normal. If so, an acknowledgement by the mod in question that they overstepped the line would be greatly appreciated and we'll draw a line under it.

    Thank you for your time

    Post edited by Spear on


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,696 ✭✭✭Backstreet Moyes


    Fair play to bother even posting that exchange instead of going elsewhere.

    Site has no chance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,375 ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Does there really need to be one of these threads for every single perceived slight? There's already a thread in the CA forum where people can post the same tedious tropes over and over again about immigration. Not ever thread needs to be an immigration thread.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,696 ✭✭✭Backstreet Moyes


    Boards is looking for money to survive.

    One mod is using his power to shut down discussion he doesn't like.

    Another Mod who doesn't like the same discussion says the same.

    Boards

    Moderation is not a reason people are leaving.

    Moderators

    Abusing their power to shut down discussion they don't like and reducing traffic on a site on life support.

    It honestly looks like this place is finding ways to make sure it doesn't survive.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    I'm not being funny here but did you read my post at all?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    Any update?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    This is dragging on here a bit everyone
    I don't think I could have offered any more detail than I have.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,476 ✭✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Whatever structure was in place for dealing with HelpDesk threads isn't working now, whether mods of the forum used to notify relevant c-mods / admin, or admin took an active interest and dealt with things as they cropped up, it's not happening now anyway

    In Feedback as well there seems to be threads going with no particular input from mods or admin, maybe I should start a helpdesk thread on it...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,476 ✭✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Just bumping this thread so it doesn't get sent to the archive again, I think @Dizzyblonde is the politics cmod but they haven't been active lately

    @Spear how would a thread like this usually be dealt with?



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 26,945 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    Dizzyblonde hasn't been on in 6 weeks, and there's no other politics cmod, so it'll need to bumped up to admins. I'll notify them.

    If anything is ever missed or outstanding just PM me and I'll hunt them down.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    Just adding a post so this hopefully stays alive to resolution



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭tibruit


    "He also notes "he has enough to be doing without moderating a racist echo chamber" "

    Ah Seth and his 44k posts. Isn`t he a gas fella altogether?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    Is this pretty much a dead duck?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    Any feedback here?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 920 ✭✭✭PmMeUrDogs


    @Spear

    Unanswered since last year



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 26,945 CMod ✭✭✭✭Spear


    I've given the admins a reminder for this one too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 920 ✭✭✭PmMeUrDogs




  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,525 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Apologies that this has not received any attention to date. I know Admin resources have been stretched a bit, particularly as I have been very inactive for over a year now. I will take a look at this. It may take a little more time as I will need to revisit the thread in question and try and work out what has been deleted. I say more time, but hopefully that will be days and not weeks.



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,525 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    I have taken a look at the thread and all the deleted comments.

    There was only a handful of posts deleted relating to the immigration angle. Some of them were clearly veering into the discussion of refugees and IPAS and indeed not discussing the budget. The mod used their discretion to remove those posts and others they felt would encourage discussion on immigration. As far as I can see the mod did not state that anything you posted was racist. They were concerned that it widened the discussion in a way that would encourage negative commentary on immigration and asylum seekers rather than Budget specifics.

    My reading is the mod took a decision to remove any scope for such discussion and posted the warning having deleted posts they felt could encourage discussion to move in that direction

    I appreciate you felt your post was highly relevant. My own view is it was potentially taking the thread off at a tangent. The details of who may own which shares in particular companies is not discussing the Budget. It is discussing the nature of potential beneficiaries. Maybe a bit of a fine line between the two, but I can understand the position the mod took, particularly when looking at the warning posted by the mod

    My overall view is the mod used discretion. They could see the direction the thread was steering towards and sought to reduce the risk of the thread escalating into a wider discussion on immigration, and your post was considered to be one that could have encouraged that. I can understand your frustration, but I can also understand the mod's position.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    Hi Beasty,

    Thank you for reviewing. I can't say I am not disappointed with the outcome.

    A couple of points, if I may.

    I presume you can see my screenshots in my opening post on this thread?
    They may not be loading.

    You say, "As far as I can see, the mod did not state that anything you posted was racist"

    First screenshot of my conversation with the mod shows the following :

    "So no, I've enough to do without moderating a rascist echochamber disguised as a discussion on the budget."

    image.png

    That is fairly clearly calling the posts racist in nature, no?

    "They were concerned that it widened the discussion in a way that would encourage negative commentary on immigration and asylum seekers rather than Budget specifics."

    I fail to see the justification here. Should the mod just not deal with posts that cross a line, rather than shutting down discussion that is relevant to the topic of the thread?

    "I appreciate you felt your post was highly relevant. My own view is it was potentially taking the thread off at a tangent. The details of who may own which shares in particular companies is not discussing the Budget. It is discussing the nature of potential beneficiaries."

    Money was allocated in the budget to help fund these centres. It is the same as asking why the cigs went up or why fuel tax went up etc… The thread was for discussing the 2026 and where that budget was being spent and the cost of it on the people of Ireland.

    Why would you not be able to question why there was additional funding made available (and where it goes) to these centres in this budget?
    I cannot understand the logic here if I am honest.

    "My overall view is the mod used discretion. They could see the direction the thread was steering towards and sought to reduce the risk of the thread escalating into a wider discussion on immigration, and your post was considered to be one that could have encouraged that. I can understand your frustration, but I can also understand the mod's position."

    My view is the mod doesn't agree with certain aspects of such a discussion and rather than let a conversation develop on a conversation platform, they squashed the whole thing with the justification of 'what might have happened'.

    It's a nonsensical position if I am being totally honest, but I suppose this is as high as this can go now so we are at a bit of a dead end here.



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,525 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    I cannot see the mod explicitly calling out your post as racist

    The point the mod was making was that turning it into a discussion of immigration and particularly asylum seekers encourages some to express views that may be considered racist



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,600 ✭✭✭IncognitoMan


    The mod described the posts he removed as follows when I asked via PM why my post was removed -

    "It was noteworthy that this was pretty much all that the budget discussion was about - not about social welfare, not about health, not about any other area of spending. Just dem foreigners!"

    Which can be seen to be false when you review the posts.

    And then followed up with

    "So no, I've enough to do without moderating a rascist echochamber disguised as a discussion on the budget."

    I don't know how much more explicit you need it to be to be honest here…

    On your second point,

    The discussion in the thread was about the COST of IPAS centers in a thread on the BUDGET which INCLUDED more funds being allocated for IPAS centers.

    This wasn't speculation, I provided evidence and shared links.

    There was also discussion on other aspects of the budget.

    The solution (to a problem that had not yet shown up) from the Mod was to curtail ALL discussion on a relevant topic rather than actually moderating any post that MAY cross a line later on?

    This is a nuts position to take lads, surely you can see that?
    This is a message board for DISCUSSION.

    If you are just going to pick and choose what can and cannot be discussed then are you are just creating an echo chamber.
    The irony of that is not lost given the PMs I received back from the mod in question.

    Is this as high as this can go now Beasty? Because I honestly feel like I am hitting my head off a brick wall here.
    If there is nothing more to be done then fine, I'll leave it there. It is what it is.



  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,525 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    It's a single decision made by a mod exercising their discretion. Yes, getting an Admin's view on the matter is as far as this can go.



Leave a Comment

Rich Text Editor. To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph. An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu. Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.

Advertisement
Advertisement