Post removed

[moondancer]

[ QUOTE ]
... and since when did someone have to be convicted of a criminal act in order to be, in the opinion of another, a crook?

Oh, and a statement is only libelous once a court has convicted someone of libel in relation to it... Anyone may have an opinion that it's libelous, of course...

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be right. But unfortunately law courts have found that those who host and moderate forums are deemed to have participated in a libel. So I don't blame IPC for pulling the thread. Also in libel the onus of proof lies with the person who has made, and those who have repeated the libel. So the person who has allegedly been libeled just has to lodge the case and sit back, whilst the sop who has misguidedly made or repeated a libel, even one which may be patently true, has to prove the libel. Which may be very difficult. All IMHO.

 

[Oen]

...and do you think that to knowingly receive deposits against goods when the very continuance of the business is in serious doubt could not reasonably be described as 'crooked'?

Your point is valid, but this instance clearly illustrates the failings of the present law and, crucially, the ultra-conservative manner in which it's interpreted by managers of websites. In my opinion, this is contrary to the common good.

I'm very worried that this forum's management are so quick to pull any thread which might either be considered even slightly suspect, or crucially, which criticises their advertisers.

 

[alldownwind]

[ QUOTE ]
...and, crucially, the ultra-conservative manner in which it's interpreted by managers of websites.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well you can hardly blame them. After all, they don't have to run the forums at all, and one can imagine them just giving up if it all became too much of a pain. Presumably the only benefit to them is that perhaps they manage to persuade advertisers onto the site by telling them that zillions of forumites will study the ads... /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[Lakesailor]

Keith was right to pull it. He is protecting himself, his employers and quite likely some of the posters.
If you want to come out in public accusing people of crimes they have not yet been convicted of, you need to start your own web site.

 

[Oen]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to come out in public accusing people of crimes they have not yet been convicted of, you need to start your own web site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that 'crook' means 'one who has been convicted of a crime'?

I suggest you read your dictionary.

 

[fireball]

[ QUOTE ]
...and do you think that to knowingly receive deposits against goods when the very continuance of the business is in serious doubt could not reasonably be described as 'crooked'?

[/ QUOTE ]
No business could ever start then ....
Although I do think that if Client Accounts are not held in Trust by law then perhaps they should be. Business fail all over the shop - usually down to cash flow failings ...

 

[Oen]

[ QUOTE ]
After all, they don't have to run the forums at all, and one can imagine them just giving up if it all became too much of a pain.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they don't. But their commercial clout makes these the 'big' forums.

I find myself extremely disappointed that the internet works so effectively against free speech.

 

[Koeketiene]

If you can only call some-one something after they've been convicted in court?

So I can't call Gordon Brown a thief or Tony Blair a liar or Dubya an idiot because they've not been convicted in court?

 

[Oen]

There's a world of difference between the way a reasonable client aproaches a new-start business and the way in which that same person would aproach a large established concern.

Apples and bananas, I'm afraid.

 

[Oen]

You can!!! Enough people would agree with you to qualify your remarks as 'fair comment', especially in this context.

 

[Guest]

It's not an ultra-conservative attitude on their part. It's a fact that the publisher is liable for libel as well as the writer, and that IPC as publisher of this site would be liable.

It's also immoral to accuse people of being criminals on this site without a proper trial. If their conduct was criminal, then no doubt there will be a trial in due course, and if found guilty you can accuse them of being crooks.

A business is entitled to carry on trading, which includes taking deposits, until it becomes clear, or should have become clear, that the company was going insolvent. If the directors carry on the business after that, then they may be liable for the debts of the company (called "wrongful trading"). It's not a criminal offence to do so, but they have to pay out of their own pockets, and may be disqualified as acting as directors of companies in the future.

It's only a criminal offence if it's the more serious case of "fraudulent trading" during insolvency.

 

[Oen]

My last quick response here for a while - though this is a matter that you will have realised I feel passionate about...

Simon, again, you need to understand that to be 'crooked', a person need not have been convicted of anything.

I didn't see the original post, but I gather that the individual was not called a 'criminal'. That would have been a different matter. The response from Keith was materially wrong - he offered an opinion disguised as fact.

 

[Guest]

Thanks, I'm familiar with the word crooked and its meaning(s). It is the behaviour one might expect from a crook. Can also mean bent. Hope you don't need me to explain to you what it means in detail, it's a fairly well understood term.

 

[Lakesailor]

[ QUOTE ]

you need to understand that to be 'crooked', a person need not have been convicted of anything.


[/ QUOTE ] But it is defamatory and actionable.
You keep picking up people on definitions whilst ignoring the wider picture.
IPC do not want their website to be used for a witch hunt.

If you want to get pernickity, your statement "I find myself extremely disappointed that the internet works so effectively against free speech." is wrong .

Start your own web site and call the people concerned what you like.

Then it'll just be you that will be responsible.

 

[sailorman]

[Dubya an idiot ]

/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[rickp]

[ QUOTE ]
I find myself extremely disappointed that the internet works so effectively against free speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lobby your MP then. Too few were interested in this when Godfrey [--word removed--] it up for us all /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Rick

 

[Oen]

[ QUOTE ]
defamatory and actionable

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, in my opinion, and bearing in mind the circumstances, it's fair comment with which many would agree.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to get pernickity, your statement "I find myself extremely disappointed that the internet works so effectively against free speech." is wrong .

[/ QUOTE ]

Err, no, it's my expression of my opinion - or are you suggesting that you know better than I do what I think..?

BTW, my MP doesn't even reply to correspondence...

/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[moondancer]

[ QUOTE ]

Or, in my opinion, and bearing in mind the circumstances, it's fair comment with which many would agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you may or may not be right. But if someone took exception to your comments and felt that you calling them 'crooked' or a 'crook' was damaging to them then the onus would (and could be) be on you to prove it. This could be quite a costly venting of spleen and would involve dragging IPC into it.

It has nothing to do with the internet. There is no difference to the statements being posted on the Internet or magazine.

I would imagine it would take one messy dispute for these forum to be closed - which is clearly why they took rapid action. A lot of us would then be pi**ed off at the action of those who couldn't choose their words more carefully and more subtly.

With respect to Gordon and Tony, I suspect they have higher tolerance levels than businessmen when it comes to defamation. /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

 

[Lakesailor]

[ QUOTE ]
in my opinion, and bearing in mind the circumstances, it's fair comment

[/ QUOTE ]

But it's not your opinion that matters. It's M'lud's.


I'm not saying I know better than you what you think. That is typical playground arguing. Deliberately misunderstanding what I say to try and make your point fit.
It was you that said
[ QUOTE ]
the internet works so effectively against free speech.

[/ QUOTE ]
It does not.
I say again, Start your own website and say whatever you like.



But you won't, will you?

 

[fireball]

Not at all apples and bananas ...

The value of a product is what someone is willing to pay for it. If nobody is willing to pay for your product then you don't have a business. The fact that your product may have been desired last month doesn't mean it will be wanted this month. You can build up forecasts and expectations, but you cannot guarantee a business will still be viable - it is all about risk management, balancing the income vs expenditure. Any bank funding will be based on their view that the business (and the ppl that are running it) are a viable risk - it always helps if you can put up some security ... like building property for instance ...

Anyway - back to the calling someone a crook ... I would think the post would've passed if it was worded differently ... something along the lines of - In my opinion Mr Director was behaving like a crook - as this is a clear statement of opinion and not set down as fact, also it isn't calling Mr Director a crook, only that in this instance he is opinioned to have been behaving like one ...

Free speech is a wonderful argument - I should be able to say what I want when I want ... does that include race hatred? Does that include the right to call anyone a crook - of course it does, and you are free to say what you want. Likewise, the targets of your free speech are entitled to seek redress - so if your speech includes race hatred then the law is there to protect the race against you and you are likely to suffer a punishment. You have been free to make your comments, but you may well suffer punishments. Likewise, if you call someone a crook and they take exception to that then they are entitled to take you (and any publisher) to court to seek redress ... again, you have been free to make the comments, but you have to accept the potential price of your free speech.