Censored thread - an interesting dilemma

Letters page analogy

At risk of being picky this analogy is a little bit off course.

Published letters in any magazine or newspaper are accepted for publication. The editor has to be satisfied of the accuracy of the content. Letters will be edited for spelling, grammar and length and may also have portions altered or deleted if they look likely to fall foul of the several pieces of legislation against which a publication has to judge its content. Although some readers believe it to be the case, there is no 'diplomatic immunity' offered to publications for their letters pages.

We could achieve the same type of environment here only on a moderated forum (ie one where all posts are held offline until approved).

Posts on this unmoderated forum go live immediately as submitted by the poster. If we notice any obvious problems on routine checks or are notified of potential problems we will take action in the interests of the health of the forum and those using and viewing it. But otherwise it is much more like a public meeting room hosted on our premises.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: An explanation

Hi,

Sorry didn't mean to offend. It's only how it looks from an outsider looking at the actions and an interest in what the legal implications might be for forums. I don't think you should be held responsible for comments made on the forum as long as you don't publish items of an obscene nature or discriminate against people by not allowing them access.

As far as impartiality is concerned, the fact is the title is "Practical Boat Owner Reader to Reader Forum", so you can't blame me for drawing some conclusions about the link. Obviously I stand corrected now.

You have to say that it does look like you have been "asked" to remove the postings by the insurance company involved. Couldn't you let companies register and make comment themselves.

Anyway I am sure the argument will drag on and that this sort of thing will happen again when people feel they have a complaint, but I still think you should delete the statement from the insurance company now that the other posts have been deleted in a few days otherwise it is very biased. I am not saying I agree with the way people have complained, but a public forum is bound to have these types of discussion.

Poggy
Poggy

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: An explanation

The insurance company statement has been live for less than 24 hours; some of the previous posts to which it refers were live longer than that. I have them logged and wish to remain impartial. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Let me answer the other points in general terms. If we suspect we have potential for a legal issue or are notified of such by anyone we automatically flag it to the legal team here as a precaution and suspend the thread that minute. Complainants don't really get the chance to demand anything because it is already done. Our ultimate aim is to avoid entanglement of the kind that could rapidly see the whole facility suspended or radically altered. The aim is to protect the 99 point something per cent of what happens here that appears to be very useful to all concerned.

I agree that this system looks like it could be abused but it is a fact that no company or individual in the marine industry has sought to constantly gag the ybw.com forums.

We do not discriminate against anyone as long as they respect this facility. Companies can freely register and engage, as indeed some have done, as long as they abide by the usual terms, conditions and conventions. However, some have not had the easiest ride from posters in the past and it is also fair to say that many are inexperienced in the language and dynamic of bulletin boards, which can lead to the use of phrases of the light-the-blue-touchpaper kind. Some companies therefore consider engagement to be firmly in the lose-lose category.

Finally,you didn't offend in previous post...I was simply keen to explain the differences.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Offsite links

Its helpful to see your position but I don't think this explains why you won't let me mention my website here. I don't think there can be any legal problems with a link to another site from this forum. Is it ok for me to link to my site?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: An explanation

I am not a legal expert, but I know bits about how the law applies to the internet.

The law is unclear in a number of areas, because a lot depends on how the courts interpret old laws which were never meant to apply in the online world. As yet I don't believe there is any case law relating to this sort of thing, and I'm sure Kim doesn't want to set a precedent.

In similar areas, the service providers seem to be considered somewhere between a common provider (e.g. telephone - with no responsibility) and a publisher (with total responsibility). The forum owner is almost certainly not automatically liable for any opinions expressed, but if he failed to take action if someone complained then he could almost certainly be sued successfully.

In between is the area where the administrator is aware of libelous content but doesn't act.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: An explanation

I personally would fid it a great shame if this forum degenerated into a 'moan' forum, I have had a lot of helpful and constructive advice as well as much amusement here. In my view the Forum is ruled well in Kimmie's own inimitable benevolent paternalistic manner. (but do'nt tell him or hell get bigger headed)

It does appear to me that most complaints/warnings are aired in a moderate and responsible fashion but occasionally someone gets a bee in their bonnet and the danger is not only that the complainees gets pissed off but also those contibuting to the forum cease to enjoy and therefore cease to participate.

Long live moderation in both senses of the word!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: An explanation

I posted a simple question and it was wiped out within seconds - I jut put it up as a jibe at the ever increasing list of posters who may be taking this all too seriously!

Ian

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: An explanation

Sorry Ian, bit draconian but the thought of yet another insurance thread when several are already live filled me with a sense of something slightly less than relish.

Also all of this is reminding me about my major brush with an insurance company five years back...Direct Line concerning a claim following a particularly destructive break and enter on my house. Nine months, a file six inches thick and a boost to BT profits later, finally got the thing settled. DL appointed a loss adjuster that certainly seemed intent on minimising DL's losses.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: An explanation

Er sorry, again! Just trying to raise the odd smile..

My insurance co paid up without any hassle at all when I broached and crashed in the Hoya Round the Island Race, they are called .......

Ian

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I'd have to agree - I found it impossible to get anything approaching the level of cover that Pantaenius offer. Just trying to get racing risks on a rig value of £120k caused most insurers to back right off. Those that didnt wanted a rig survey that would have cost close to £ 2,000 by the time the boat had been moved to a yard that could extract an 80 foot stick. As for the thought of singlehanded sailing, wide cruising area (Bergen to La Rochelle from memory) - no one could get even close to the cover so the premium was to a certain extent irrelevant. It would have been nice if the insurance market hadn't recouped it's 9/11 losses on all insurance sectors - but that is the market makers at work - not P specifically.

On balance I'm happy with what I've been offered.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Trouble is they did comment on an individual case. They said it contained inaccuracies. I agree that reasoned debate is impossible , especially in public and under threat of a lawsuit , but they really have shot themselves in the foot on this one.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Magazine coverage?

Hopefully it will have dawned on the magazine editors that insurance is a hot topic and worthy of space in print. How to de-stink ones deck shoes is about as daring as Yachting Monthly gets at the moment!

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.rixon.net/z> St Malo to the Med on the web</A> /forums/images/icons/wink.gif
 
I agree with you Bill. From a PR perspective, a business (or individual) which uses the threat of legal action to coerce an innocent (in the circumstances) publisher (in a technical sense) to remove material from public view which IN ITS OPINION is defamatory and substitute its own statement has, in my book, scored a spectacular own goal. The statement which appears could have been added by the company or its UK director in the ordinary way and I think most readers would have respected that type of response.

As it is, one is left, inevitably, wondering what exactly it is that Pantaenius needs to be so defensive about. I have checked the Companies House records and can confirm that the statements about the company's last year results and its shareholders are correct. There is nothing really exceptional in the accounts, except the very large dividend payment. One might comment that a substantial dividend (approx. 30% of the company's net worth in this case) is sometimes made when a change of ownership is contemplated, but there are other explanations.

It is of course true that Pantaenius as a broker does not (necessarily) benefit if the underwriters take a (shall we say) more robust view of their claims settlement procedures. However, it can also be remarked that Pantaenius has a subsidiary named Marine Claims Service Limited. I have not checked accounts etc for this company but it seems reasonable to suppose that it is a loss adjuster for Pantaenius policies. I'm not sure if it is commercially usual or possible for a loss adjuster to benefit directly by "minimising" the quantum of claims it settles on behalf of its principal. Perhaps a reader who has insurance expertise can comment?

If any readers wish to see the information I have gathered (audited accounts to 31.12.01, annual return (shareholder information) as at 10.2.03 and current appointments, feel free to pm me with an e-mail address.

Finally, I have read a number of comments on these boards, aimed at individuals but, as mentioned in another post, also MDL Marinas, which are arguably defamatory. Is it the case that IPC will delete the threads to which the target of any such comments may object if the objection is coupled with a mere threat of legal action? Comment Kim?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top