'Reinstate Mad Frankie?'

[Keen_Ed]

Do I think this is a good use of a senior member of staffs time?

If you don't want to deal with the consequences of running forums, don't have forums.

But don't get angry with the forums users for complaining about what is obviously seen as a travesty of justice.

You've made your bed. Lie in it.

 

[Richard Shead]

I will

If you don't want to deal with the consequences of running forums, don't have forums.

But don't get angry with the forums users for complaining about what is obviously seen as a travesty of justice.

You've made your bed. Lie in it.

Its coming upto 1730, I am off home....

My point was the amount of time it has taken to deal with something such as this.

I am not getting involved anymore so goodnight!

 

[haydude]

Yeah, thats great, a excellent sentiment. Unfortunatley we are not in the US, the servers are in the UK and therefore we are publishing this in the UK... and the stuff that is posted on the site is subject to the same laws in regards to libel and defamation that apply to any other method of publishing in the UK.

To clarify, I am not from the US, but rather one of the European Republics so much despised by the Brits.

I agree that when it comes to defamation one must maintain a responsible behaviour. I hope that the banning was preceeded by warnings.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

I have no truck with the arguement, and I dont think that any of MF's posts were the problem.... There were several other posts put up by other folks which were bad news for IPC... It was just easier to ban MF, as he started the thread and was feeding the fire, than to lose the long standing forum members who were causing the problem.

The thread was actionable, no doubt about that IMO.. (But that is based on my experience as a journalist and owner of a Press Agency and a contributor to the national newspaper, versus as a lawyer..) so I have no doubt that there may be some debate in regards to my opinion.

As a working journalist, me thinks you are overreacting.

 

[toad]

Am I the only one here that has no idea what everyone is talking about?

 

[photodog]

As a working journalist, me thinks you are overreacting.

More than likely.... but if I had been ST44 I would have been laughing all the way to the bank... media lawyers are overly cautious in their approach... and there is no upside to them arguing the case on this one. Certainly we have on several occasions simply had to drift the mearest whiff of grapeshot across the bows of several big companies.. (NI, LWT, SKY in particular...) and they wrote us cheques.


I would also put forward another proposition....

Was MadFrankie a troll?

Note how quickly ST44 was into the debate...


Was the whole thing a play by SHT to set up a debate... knowing full well how the forum would react..... (Like Nuts as per usual..) and knowing how the forum would react, they could then destroy/damage the credibility of the sailing community's opposition??..... What has been the result of that thread??

Certainly not a credible debate.... in fact I would submit that in many respects, we have come off worse... We behaved so poorly that the forum hosts pulled the plug.. What does that say to a third party?

I am begining to think that in fact this whole thing was a set up... I think that they know full well that the only real opposition to the anchor ban will be leisure boaters.. and we are the odvious expression of that community. I think that they knew that they HAD to destroy our credibility to move forward... if they left us as a "Fleet in Being" then we would continue to pose a long term threat to their goals...

They new how we would react... they set us up... MadFrankie came in to act as a diversion.... ST44 gave cover fire and stired up the nest... and then the lawyers torpedoed us.

And now the odds on IPC helping us, or allowing another thread like that to even get off the ground.. is almost Nil.

Dont forget its not us that they have to win over... its the Non-boaty conservation types who are naturally not pre-disposed to being our bestest buddies...

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Am I the only one here that has no idea what everyone is talking about?

Simple really. Mad Frankie said something and then someone said something back. So anyway, someone said as a local he was an ****hole, but that was on a newspaper's website, I think, and then the fight started. Before we knew it we had another five years of New Labour. But it wasn't Mad Frankie's fault - well, not entirely. Honest, Guv.

Mad Frankie is INNOCENT.

Free the Studland one.

 

[photodog]

Mad Frankie is a Traitor!

Hang the Studland One!

 

[EdWingfield]

Making plain who we are, and not hiding behind some pen-name would lead to better behaviour?

 

[Major Catastrophe]

More than likely.... but if I had been ST44 I would have been laughing all the way to the bank... media lawyers are overly cautious in their approach... and there is no upside to them arguing the case on this one. Certainly we have on several occasions simply had to drift the mearest whiff of grapeshot across the bows of several big companies.. (NI, LWT, SKY in particular...) and they wrote us cheques.


I would also put forward another proposition....

Was MadFrankie a troll?

Note how quickly ST44 was into the debate...


Was the whole thing a play by SHT to set up a debate... knowing full well how the forum would react..... (Like Nuts as per usual..) and knowing how the forum would react, they could then destroy/damage the credibility of the sailing community's opposition??..... What has been the result of that thread??

Certainly not a credible debate.... in fact I would submit that in many respects, we have come off worse... We behaved so poorly that the forum hosts pulled the plug.. What does that say to a third party?

I am begining to think that in fact this whole thing was a set up... I think that they know full well that the only real opposition to the anchor ban will be leisure boaters.. and we are the odvious expression of that community. I think that they knew that they HAD to destroy our credibility to move forward... if they left us as a "Fleet in Being" then we would continue to pose a long term threat to their goals...

They new how we would react... they set us up... MadFrankie came in to act as a diversion.... ST44 gave cover fire and stired up the nest... and then the lawyers torpedoed us.

And now the odds on IPC helping us, or allowing another thread like that to even get off the ground.. is almost Nil.

Dont forget its not us that they have to win over... its the Non-boaty conservation types who are naturally not pre-disposed to being our bestest buddies...

No, ST44 has been making inflammatory posts on here for, I think at least two years - look at his posting history. He has said equally bad things,, none of which were libellous, just as Mad Frankie said nothing libellous. He just broke Dan's interpretation of the forum rules, even though I believe with justification.

But, the debate has not been stifled as Dan has said that the Studland debate can continue on here. Only trouble is, we have become sidelined by Mad Frankie's ban.

Mad Frankie is alive and well and so is Steve Trewhella who is having a go at Mad Frankie on the Studland Bay Preservation Society Blog

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Making plain who we are, and not hiding behind some pen-name would lead to better behaviour?

How do we do that? Just because you say you are Ed Wingfield means nothing. You could have made it up and made up that you hail from a mythical kingdom that doesn't exist.

At least many people on here know I am real because I play at boats with them and drink with them.

EDIT: Just came to me are you sure you aren't Ed Winchester

 

[webcraft]

if the other person is not annoymous, then you need to be very carefull not to engage in personal insults... ST44 was being clearly ID'd by everyone in sight... as such he was capable of suffering a defamation and a loss, (given his position in the SHT.)

I can think of no reason why IPC should spend money on defending a defamation action when doing so will add nothing to their bottom line.

Dog, I suspect you are talking a heap of freshwater fish. Perhaps you have been hanging arond with the Paparazzi too long. I for one am not anonymous on here and have not only had my character read to me in some very unpleasant ways over the last year, I have in addition had various personal details published by one of our resident a*seholes. Should I send for the police? Would Dan have banned that particular a*sehole if I had made a fuss? I think not.

Nothing was said about Mr. Trewhella that was in any way defamatory - it was all publicly available information. Mad Frankie was not out of order and Dan not only IMO made a mistake in banning him but in the process risked alienating a lot of long-time residents of this parish.

To me this has confirmed that this forum is fundamentally a waste of time. An amusing and entertaining one, but essentially a waste of time. No toys out of the pram here but unless thre is a sea-change I will be trying to spend less time on here in future, as I am sure will others.

I feel for Dan as I have also had a lot of grief for my (unpaid) moderation of a different forum (not BM, another one) and suffered a lot of personal attacks as a result. However, I thought Richard's comment was bang out of order, and really do not believe that he expects our sympathy. Both of you are getting paid a salary for this aren't you? It's work, don't expect it to always be fun.

- W

 

[photodog]

No, ST44 has been making inflammatory posts on here for, I think at least two years - look at his posting history. He has said equally bad things,, none of which were libellous, just as Mad Frankie said nothing libellous. He just broke Dan's interpretation of the forum rules, even though I believe with justification.

But, the debate has not been stifled as Dan has said that the Studland debate can continue on here. Only trouble is, we have become sidelined by Mad Frankie's ban.

Mad Frankie is alive and well and so is Steve Trewhella who is having a go at Mad Frankie on the Studland Bay Preservation Society Blog

I much prefer my conspiracy idea.

Bwhahahah!

The Forces of evil have been plotting against us!!

 

[photodog]

Dog, I suspect you are talking a heap of freshwater fish. Perhaps you have been hanging arond with the Paparazzi too long. I for one am not anonymous on here and have not only had my character read to me in some very unpleasant ways over the last year, I have in addition had various personal details published by one of our resident a*seholes. Should I send for the police? Would Dan have banned that particular a*sehole if I had made a fuss? I think not.


No... but A) you are sensible... and are seeking to engage in the debate with full knowledge of the place... B) If your Lawyers bitched I bet you would get a result!

Nothing was said about Mr. Trewhella that was in any way defamatory
I refer my learned friend to my post in the other thread... - it was all publicly available information. Mad Frankie was not out of orderI agree... I think he was the patsie and Dan not only IMO made a mistake in banning him but in the process risked alienating a lot of long-time residents of this parish.I think Dan saved several long term residents from being banned



- W

 

[webcraft]

I think we are all too scared of lawyers. I would have invited them to go ahead if they thought they had a case. I have done this in the past (with a big shot firm of Californian lawyers representing a big prestigious organisation) and the silence was deafening. The SHT's lawyers would have made a very easy £100 or so if they phoned or emailed IPC, whether or not IPC did anything. I doubt however if they would have recommended a court case - SHT doesn't have the funds if they lose, while IPC has a lot more clout.

As for the terrible bannable things said by other members - I didn't see any. I have had worse things said about me and my real identity is also known. Interesting that you think I have a case with the right lawyer - if I do then our legal system is more fecked than I thought and no-one in their right minds should run a forum


- W

 

[Major Catastrophe]

and no-one in their right minds should run a forum

That's why leave it to you and IPC to run forums.

 

[webcraft]

That's why leave it to you and IPC to run forums.

I think I deserved that

- W

 

[photodog]

our legal system is more fecked than I thought and no-one in their right minds should run a forum


- W

Now you get it!

But, as a aside... you may wish to archive all that guff you get, and then just before you want to retire........


I am not saying something is right or wrong... I am just pointing out how the lawyers will view this... What you consider reasonable is not the same as what they will....

But come on... this is odviously defamatory to someone who works as a conservationist...

"He strikes me as the sort of unstable animal rights nutter who would happily sink your yacht to save a single seahorse."

and this I would suggest... "all you want to do is manage your own little private zoo"

and this... "he doesn't care about balance of probability, long established rights, safety of people etc."

 

[toad]

Simple really. Mad Frankie said something and then someone said something back. So anyway, someone said as a local he was an ****hole, but that was on a newspaper's website, I think, and then the fight started. Before we knew it we had another five years of New Labour. But it wasn't Mad Frankie's fault - well, not entirely. Honest, Guv.

Mad Frankie is INNOCENT.

Free the Studland one.

So its just another winter bust up then
Edit. Just looked at the other thread

 

[Boreades]

Originally Posted by webcraft

our legal system is more fecked than I thought and no-one in their right minds should run a forum

Originally Posted by photodog

I am not saying something is right or wrong... I am just pointing out how the lawyers will view this... What you consider reasonable is not the same as what they will....

You're both right. When legal people get involved, it's got nothing to do with what we would consider as reasonable, and by the way it's got nothing to do with the YBW Terms and Conditions either, even thought they are a contract in law..

I can tell you with 100% certainty, from being on the receiving end, that people can and do take legal action. A web site hosting content in all innocence as a free service for the community can end up spending a lot on legal costs and then even more on complying with the terms of the judgement. At the very least, that would be enforced moderation, possibly with automated removal of some topics or keywords. The likes of which would makes Dan's current light touch a thing of nostalgic memories.

No wonder that YBW seems "risk-adverse", they do know how much court cases can cost.