How do we give credit.......

bilbobaggins

bilbobaggins

N/A
Joined
12 Feb 2005
Messages
9,993
Location
Grey Havens Marina - Elves pontoon
Visit site
......and otherwise?

I'm presuming that most on here would - first of all - like to acknowledge value-for-money good service, and encourage its growth. That's easy - we just say so on here. No-one has a problem with that. Except it's rather rare. The problem comes when we have something less satisfactory to report. These days, the legal-beagles make it very hard indeed for ordinary dissatisfied citizens to warn off others, when something very unsatisfactory - and hugely expensive - occurs.

That's not right. The control should be ours. So here's what I suggest. For your consideration......

First: Where an individual/company has done good, let's hear it, in detail. It's an English thing to go light on this.... Good reports strongly encourage good activity.

Second: Where an individual/ company has done REALLY less than kosher, let's hear there was a contract, but with comment ONLY on the good bits. Where there were significant failings - be silent.......

As in - Wibbly Brokers Ltd.

Response to my initial selling inquiry - +++++
Response to 3 potential viewers - ++*
Response to my questions about viewers' observations - +****
Response to my questions about 1 offer - ***
Response to my question about withdrawn offer - *****
Response to my written complaint - *****

I have no commercial axe to grind here. I'm certain, nonetheless, that a procedure could be developed BY US which would help guide us in times of need. Isn't it long overdue?


/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
The problem with this is we only ever hear one side of the story...
 
Ok - but there are occasions on here that a post is made stating a case. Further on down the thread more info becomes apparent and you find the case is not so straight as first posted.
People tend to jump and post .... only to find later they may have posted too soon !

As I posted on another thread - I have personal experience of stating facts, FACTS archived and still available in files etc. - but that didn't alter the fact that IPC received Legal threats over the post and I / IPC had to apologise .... (I apologised to IPC and refused to apologise to the party named - stating clearly that I still had all the communications / documents) .... IPC had to pull the thread. The party was extremely hard on the matter and it was debateable whether my stand would incur further action. I agreed to not post and name party again and it died a death.

Beware - you may be agrieved party and in the right - but it doesn't change fact that IPC can be held liable for any Commercial losses / libel etc. even though it's you that posts.
 
In principle the idea of naming and shaming and, indeed, naming and praising is attractive. But IPC as operators of Scuttlebutt, is in a difficult position.

Any trade or reputation threatening post on Scuttlebutt leaves IPC open to expensive claims for libel and damages. IPC cannot simply take the word of a poster that he has ducumentary proof of his claims. By the time these are produced an expensive court case could be well under way.

Past experience has shown that posters can be mistaken, get carried away by a misplaced sense of outrage, have personal axes to grind, or make more of something than is actually the case. Also, even if a complain it factually correct, is it fair to pillory a company over one error when it otherwise operates in exemplary fashion?

You cannot blame IPC and the Scuttlebutt minders for taking a cautious approach to this subject.
 
Yes, yes, yes. I understand all that.

But I really rail against the circumstances, weak decision-makers and fear of truth that has us all today so afraid of distorted law that we shun the natural and right instinct to communicate truth to our fellows.

We have, as a society, reversed ourselves into a bad place in which fear of the law suppresses honest truth, honestly told, and gives cover and support to unscrupulous practices. That's aberrant. It needs to be changed.

In my book, journalists should take the lead - exercise responsibility - in seeking ways forward for 'truth, justice and a bigger slice of pizza', instead of reinforcing the indefensible. The one way leads to greater public respect; the other points to, well, public disdain.

IMHO.
 
Bilbo - I fully agree with you and I tried to give straight honest substantiated fact in my case - didn't alter fact that IPC were threatened with action.

I think that world has taken lead from USA (?) in people taking legal action for all sorts instead of straight honest fair dealing. Over there a whole market has been created and people make fortunes out of it ...
 
When (in a previous lifetime) I studied law at Uni I was often told, "The best defence to slander is to prove it is the truth". It applies equally to libel.
Having said that, IPC were in a tricky situation so I can understand them taking the easy way out.

I am pretty sure Voltaire was widely quoted on this matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top