THE AUGUST 2025 PURGE: HOW THE "FACEBOOK POLICE" SILENCED THE FOOL

THE AUGUST 2025 PURGE: HOW THE "FACEBOOK POLICE" SILENCED THE FOOL For nearly a year, I kept the details of my ejection from the "Official Bollington" Facebook group quiet. I genuinely believed there might be a path back to a mature, open dialogue. I gave the administrators months to respond to my civilized requests for an explanation. Their response? Total, cowardly silence from August until December 2025, followed by a sudden revisionist claim in June 2026 that I was banned for an "unacceptable post." Let us put the actual data into the public ledger. In August 2025, administrator Sarah Butterworth posted an early-morning message. Sandwiched between wishing everyone a nice weekend and her hypocritical mantra that "it costs nothing to be nice," she launched a passive-aggressive attack, all but naming a contributer who tried to defend a person who faced bankrupcy and was experiencing online bullying. I held up a mirror to her. I replied: "Kettles, pots and all that." Within minutes, I was summarily executed from the group. Sarah sent and immediately deleted two messages, acting as judge, jury, and executioner without consulting her co-admins. To ensure no one questioned her authority, she simultaneously banned two other local residents who voiced concern over her behavior. When she sent a voice note accusing me of "provocative/antagonistic content," I challenged her to provide a single receipt. She couldn't. For years, I had been subjected to actual, vitriolic abuse inside her group, and her moderation team never lifted a finger to protect me. But the moment the Fool used five words of polite satire to point out the administrator's own bullying tactics, the trap snapped shut. They censored the constructive criticisms of the residents of St Ives regarding town planters. They protected councillors who spread misinformation. They turned a group that explicitly promised a space to discuss local issues "good, bad or ugly without fear of the Facebook police" into what it actually is: "Linda & Trinny’s Private Fiefdom." When public officials and their administrative enablers distribute misinformation and use censorship to protect their turf, they will face democratic scrutiny. They thought banning me from their echo chamber would silence the narrative. Instead, they just gave the Fool a permanent, un-censorable printing press right here on the internet. The full text of the letter I sent reads. "Hi Johanna, As always I’m honoured that you’ve taken a break from moderating and restricting public discussion elsewhere to visit my corner of the internet. I must admit, it feels beautifully full-circle to receive a lecture on 'frivolity' from you. Lest we forget, it was your own call to citizens during your time as Mayor that directly led to the creation of the Fools Charter. As the Village Fool, I am merely fulfilling the proud, historic mandate that you helped call into existence: using humour, caricature, and satire to hold local authorities accountable. The line drawing of the councillor sitting in the 'naughty corner' is a direct, peaceful response to him repeatedly using this public platform to post false and misleading information about me. Satire is the oldest tool in the world for correcting the record when politicians stretch the truth. Using an official council website photograph to create that caricature is entirely protected under UK fair dealing laws for political critique. Regarding your concern about Google AI being environmentally harmful: I actually looked into the data. Generating that line drawing emitted approximately 0.03 grams of CO2. By comparison, a single mature tree absorbs enough carbon to offset over 15,000 hours of Gemini use. Ironically, the energy used by Meta's servers while you typed your complaint on my timeline likely exceeded the carbon footprint of the art itself. I completely understand that political satire isn't your cup of tea, and you are welcome to unfollow my personal page if my cartoons cause you distress. However, when public officials distribute misinformation about residents, they will continue to face a bit of lighthearted, democratic scrutiny—just as the Fools Charter intended. Got to go they are taking the penalties The Village Fool" AUGUST 2025 Hi Sarah, thank you for your reply. I would like to clarify that I am not ‘demanding’ anything of you. You are the moderator of a group that I joined in the belief that it was for Bollington people past and present where I could “feel free to post anything to do with local issues good, bad or ugly and not be in fear of getting every post scrutinised by the Facebook police.” I appear to have been ejected from the group and I would like to clarify that this is the case and to ask why? Early last Saturday you made an early morning post that dismayed me. Sandwiched between extending wishes for a nice weekend and a reminder that it costs nothing to be nice, you drew my (and everyone else’s) attention to a previous post and asserted that you are standing up to bullies and all but naming the person. I then read the post that you alerted me to. It seemed to me that your accusations of bullying were unfair and presented to the group by the administrator and owner of the group, in a post that can at best be described as passive aggressive. Perhaps unwisely, I replied ‘Kettles, pots and all that’. I could have said ‘I don’t know if you are a bully or not but, from where I stand you are complicit in online bullying’. Within minutes you ejected me from the group, and sent and unsent two messages and given the timeline I have little doubt that you made this decision without reference to other group administrators. I have subsequently been informed that you ejected two other people from the group for expressing concerns about the post that you had highlighted and participated in. In your voice message you again accuse me of posting ‘provocative / antagonistic content’. So perhaps you can point out which posts you are referring to and explain why you never raised your concerns at the time or in the postings themselves? I am aware that some of my views are contentious and challenge the orthodox. They are often presented in a satirical context. Despite expressing my views in a polite and respectful manner I have been subject to more abuse from your group than most people and the moderators have never intervened on my behalf. It’s clear that you find my postings provocative/antagonistic and you state that you ‘represent AND protect the WHOLE community’. The post you censored about the planters contained the views of the people of St Ives and demonstrated that people can make constructive criticism and have a wide variety of views without resorting to abuse (like that in the post). Please do not try to assert that it was not censorship again, as it simply makes me question whether you have access to a dictionary. In a similar vein I started asking people what they think of the two Bollington FB groups and here is one reply which sums up the response of many others. “In my opinion The Bollington Facebook page is censored beyond belief by people that seem to work for or have links to the local council. The Official Bollington is run by xenophobic Bollywogs who hate anyone who wasn't born here or hasn't married into the community.” We can both benefit from reflecting on how this perception has become widespread, its accuracy and how to respond in the future. I am asking for nothing. If you wish to exclude me from your ‘Linda’s & Trinny’s Community Forum’, so be it. It’s not what I signed up for. What Bollington needs is what you purport to provide, a group where people can “feel free to post anything to do with local issues good, bad or ugly and not be in fear of getting every post scrutinised by the Facebook police.