NickiCrutchfield
New member
Silliness on my part.
Last edited:
'Reinstate Mad Frankie?'
- Thread starter reginaldon
- Start date
BrendanS
Well-known member
You haven't read Dan's warnings about circumventing the swear filter? Bye bye!
NickiCrutchfield
New member
I wondered if that might be the case and no I haven't. Oh well I'll pack my bags then.
BrendanS
Well-known member
NickiCrutchfield
New member
Ahem. I was talking rubbish. Never post after the pub Nicki!
Last edited:
Richard Shead
Slipped Anchor
I dont want your
Sympathy and for the record ybw is one of 14 brands I look after, do you honestly think we have a team of people (and of course the time) all being paid a salary to look after a forum?. The forum is one of many things associated with ybw that people are paid to do.
That was my opinion and I am entitled to it, I am sorry if you are offended by it, I was simply applying a bit of common sense to something that I believe has taken up far too much time.
As Dan has said the subject matter is not closed so why doesn't someone simply start a new thread?
When my mum said enough is enough and she did not want to hear another word on the subject I listened and moved on. (not directed at anyone)
On a different subject I often have a lucky mascot on the stand at sbs and lbs, ranging from teddy bears, weird plants, crazy pictures, gnomes, ships bells, fake cats but this year I now know for certain what it will be....
Sympathy and for the record ybw is one of 14 brands I look after, do you honestly think we have a team of people (and of course the time) all being paid a salary to look after a forum?. The forum is one of many things associated with ybw that people are paid to do.
That was my opinion and I am entitled to it, I am sorry if you are offended by it, I was simply applying a bit of common sense to something that I believe has taken up far too much time.
As Dan has said the subject matter is not closed so why doesn't someone simply start a new thread?
When my mum said enough is enough and she did not want to hear another word on the subject I listened and moved on. (not directed at anyone)
On a different subject I often have a lucky mascot on the stand at sbs and lbs, ranging from teddy bears, weird plants, crazy pictures, gnomes, ships bells, fake cats but this year I now know for certain what it will be....
IanH
Active member
LOL in that case I am now planning to make my first ever visit to SIBS this year.
Ian
Ubergeekian
New member
Mad Frankie's head on a pike?
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
A seahorse being rogered by a diver?
jhr
Well-known member
..just make sure it's wearing a tag
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.
I think that's cowardly banning madfranky while acknowledging that he was not the problem.
I still think that you are a big girls blouse photodog & I am very averse to bully's that just go around threatening legal action.A little bit of guts & they can all be faced down.
The debate has been brilliant & the facts have spoken for themselves,the real travesty is that we have not got anyone independent & objective to assess them.
(I'll get back to this later a mate of mine has just called round).
British Justice being rogered by a big cuddly teddy bear.
late-night-lochin
New member
I'm not a legal man, I'm an engineer and this is a potentially worrying statement if it's correct.
As "MadFrankie" only really exists in cyberspace could MadFrankie actually be sued? I suspect not in the same way as Donald Duck could not be sued. However, somebody has claim to the legal rights of Donald Duck (Warner Bros?) so presumably they could be sued because of Donald Duck's actions.
Does anybody actually claim the legal right to MadFrankie? I don't know.
However, if it is possible to sue either the actual person who posts under the fictious name of MadFrankie or the website that hosts MadFrankie for liable, deformation of charicter etc, it then follows that somebody may be able to sue if they take advice from a forum and following that advice leads to an accident or other misfortune.
Anyone with a legal background know the answer?
Richard Shead
Slipped Anchor
Just to throw a spanner in the works
We (as in Time Wanrer, owners of IPC) own Donald duck just to clear that one up..
Moderation is complicated in the eyes of the law and I doubt anyone on here would like to see a fully moderated forum.
We (as in Time Wanrer, owners of IPC) own Donald duck just to clear that one up..
Moderation is complicated in the eyes of the law and I doubt anyone on here would like to see a fully moderated forum.
Richard can I ask you this question (yes Baldrick has f*cked off & I am back).
Why can't you make it an obligation of membership to these forums that the participants are responsible for their actions & not you?A disclaimer I think it is called.
Richard Shead
Slipped Anchor
I am going to let Dan
Answer that one if you don't mind, I have not seen him this morning (perhaps he has been kidnapped!) as he will have the proper answer for this.
Cheers
Answer that one if you don't mind, I have not seen him this morning (perhaps he has been kidnapped!) as he will have the proper answer for this.
Cheers
jhr
Well-known member
I'll be interested to see what Dan says in reply but I don't think it's possible for you to sign away IPC's responsibility for what you post on here, in the same way that you can't avoid your H&S responsibilities as skipper of a yacht by getting your sailing mates to sign a disclaimer when they crew for you...
British libel laws are the envy of litigious individuals everywhere, to the extent that there is the concept of "libel tourism", whereby a rich American or other foreign national can sue a US author in the British courts, even if the book wasn't published in the UK and they don't live here, on the grounds that it nevertheless might be available over here. The damages awarded can be much bigger than those in the US - which is why they do it of course
British libel laws are the envy of litigious individuals everywhere, to the extent that there is the concept of "libel tourism", whereby a rich American or other foreign national can sue a US author in the British courts, even if the book wasn't published in the UK and they don't live here, on the grounds that it nevertheless might be available over here. The damages awarded can be much bigger than those in the US - which is why they do it of course
reginaldon
New member
It's not about libel, injury or justice, it's about how much the legal profession can make out of this one - adjournments what whatever footling reason etc. how can we hope for any reform, when most of the MPs are lawyers
D
DogWatch
Guest
'Evelyn Beatrice Hall' was the president of your country?
D
DogWatch
Guest
opening myself up for a drubbing
If you are serious, how are there any newspaper columnists still working, or even barristers; "I put it to you, you were there and you did steal that car", that would mean every person walking out of court on a technicality would sue for deformation, no?
I fear we are going this way, but I don't think things are quite as bad as you suspect. Anyhow, ST44 said far worse about me than I did him, should I sue them? Will you be suing me for disagreeing with you?
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."
If you are serious, how are there any newspaper columnists still working, or even barristers; "I put it to you, you were there and you did steal that car", that would mean every person walking out of court on a technicality would sue for deformation, no?
I fear we are going this way, but I don't think things are quite as bad as you suspect. Anyhow, ST44 said far worse about me than I did him, should I sue them? Will you be suing me for disagreeing with you?