My Malignant Melanoma

Under the Data Protection Act, I have received censored versions of Macmillan's internal communications relating to my complaint against What Now's poor standard of moderation, which make interesting reading.

It is made clear that they know that I did not break the site rules, but simply tightened the rules applying to me until I could not help but break them.

This was done because of a campaign of complaints against me by promoters of alternative medicine.

The decision by the Chief Exec to support the moderator's decision was on the basis of the claim to him by the moderators that I am the only person other than spammers who anyone ever complained about on the What Now site. Can this really be true?

Despite banning me for "emotive language", Macmillan staff refer in the documents to my official complaint as "all this Sean nonsense", and repeatedly refer to me as being "aggressive", "dismissive", and "patronising" to promoters of quackery as if that were an objective view. They presented their Chief Exec with a highly partial view of the history of my participation, which could only support their version of events.

Back when I was having active treatment, and had a lot of time on my hands, I might have carried this further. With the upsurge I have had in work, and my ongoing Mountain Rescue training, I'm not sure I have the time.

The moderators have been forced to effectively moderate the site for claims of benefit from alternative techniques. My work there is done. For the moment.