Lisenchuk Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I for one have no idea who this is all about ! The council's scrubber,she cleans the town hall steps now and then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 John, wouldn't it afford posters and potentially the forum greater protection if the people involved were named, as it is not defamatory to state something which is true, even if it is pointless, intrusive and perhaps embarrassing for those involved, than letting people guess and potentially defame people who are not involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 I've no idea who is alleged to be involved, what it is about or what site is being, obliquely referred to. Its up to the OP. If someone was named and they complained then the mods would have to take a view at that time. We don't normally respond to general complaints about taste, and despite what some think, I don't think its hypocritical, or contradictory, for the Forums to have a policy about empty topic starts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 I've no idea who is alleged to be involved, what it is about or what site is being, obliquely referred to. Its up to the OP. If someone was named and they complained then the mods would have to take a view at that time. We don't normally respond to general complaints about taste, and despite what some think, I don't think its hypocritical, or contradictory, for the Forums to have a policy about empty topic starts Surely the risk here is that some posters will make assumptions about who it is, then refer to them in terms sufficient to identify them, obliquely or otherwise, be wrong about who it is and end up defaming an 'innocent' party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 You're getting into strange territory here Censorship when you suggest this thread should be moderated, when we don't even have a name. It would set a potentially very worrying precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 You're getting into strange territory here Censorship when you suggest this thread should be moderated, when we don't even have a name. It would set a potentially very worrying precedent. I'm not suggesting any moderation whatsoever. I am merely suggesting it would be safer to have the person involved named, rather than people insinuating who it is. It's pretty obvious who is being referred to in some of the subsequent posts and if they are not the people involved we are, potentially, creating legal problems for ourselves by linking them to the original post and, at the very least, potentially unfairly linking them to something a bit seedy which they have nothing to do with. This is one of those occasions where, I think, it is safest to just use the actual name, as long as the OP is telling the truth. It avoids any potentially damaging or upsetting inaccurate identification happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 I've no idea who is alleged to be involved, what it is about or what site is being, obliquely referred to. Its up to the OP. If someone was named and they complained then the mods would have to take a view at that time. We don't normally respond to general complaints about taste, and despite what some think, I don't think its hypocritical, or contradictory, for the Forums to have a policy about empty topic starts Surely the risk here is that some posters will make assumptions about who it is, then refer to them in terms sufficient to identify them, obliquely or otherwise, be wrong about who it is and end up defaming an 'innocent' party.I thought it was you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 I haven't a clue who it is but it's a strange type of censorship (no pun intended) that names a person to protect their reputation. Nothing about that works for me. I think I see where you're coming from but it's just illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 I haven't a clue who it is but it's a strange type of censorship (no pun intended) that names a person to protect their reputation. Nothing about that works for me. I think I see where you're coming from but it's just illogical. Naming the person doesn't protect their reputation, it just ensures no one else's reputation is damaged by mistaken connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 I have not suggested anyone should be named. I've said what would happen if someone was named . At the moment no one has reported the thread alleging that they are defamed. The mods do not act as common law editors for very good legal reasons. Yes there is the risk identified by censorship, again, if that happened we would respond appropriately. Its a no brainer. BUT we are dammed if we do, imagine the cries of interference with free speech if we closed the thread and the fact that we would be acting as common law editors and thus lose the statutory protection we have if we are reactive/responsive only AND dammed if we don't as in Boredoms post. Even for me the legal position I've set out is spot on and 100% accurate, Toytown law school or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 John,I thought the 'toytown law school' comment was directed at Censorship rather than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 John,I thought the 'toytown law school' comment was directed at Censorship rather than you. am I wrong John that the greater risk is the wrong person being identified than naming the person actually involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Cens,who do you suggest has been wrongly identified here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 my apologies Boredom. But you see I thought you were referring to me and my legal skills because I actually did go to Toytown Law school. See how easy it is, I've had friends call me concerned because they identified your post as referring to me and implying I'm incompetent in my profession, now that is defamatory. There is no danger to MF or its owners or moderating team as long as we follow and keep the protection of the Electronic Transactions legislation. ie only act, and act swiftly, when something is reported. Of course that protection does not apply to posters. You post salacious stuff AYOR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Frankly I think the thread is in poor taste and awful non-specific tittle tattle about a person unknown but that's all it appears to be. hot tub? or not........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.