Closing down of websites re speculation

Davo

Full Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2000
Messages
55,013
Location
It's Ours For Keeps
Whats all this about then?

I fancy running a book on who the arrested Leeds player re the alleged rape, but have seen a fair few comments of late re mentioning names causing problems?

Why? We know its a Leeds player, and he has been arrested..why would this cause problems? There's loads of abuse towards players/managers etc on most forums....whats the difference?
 
Davo said:
Why? We know its a Leeds player, and he has been arrested..why would this cause problems? There's loads of abuse towards players/managers etc on most forums....whats the difference?
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

No difference at all really. :rolleyes:
 
Davo said:
Go on then, rather than reply with a series of smilies...explain
Click to expand...

Well, if I went around saying that Joe Bloggs was an idiot/ugly/stupid/crap footballer etc. etc. that is basically just a harmless opinion.

If I go round calling someone a rapist, it's in poor taste and because rape is an offence that can lead to imprisonment, then it's more likely to be considered libellous.

Which is why I personally don't see anything remotely amusing or sensible in the paedophile slurs that are aimed at Arsene Wenger. On the other hand, saying he's a biased blinkered prat is harmless.
 
Livvie20 said:
Well, if I went around saying that Joe Bloggs was an idiot/ugly/stupid/crap footballer etc. etc. that is basically just a harmless opinion.

If I go round calling someone a rapist, it's in poor taste and because rape is an offence that can lead to imprisonment, then it's more likely to be considered libellous.

Which is why I personally don't see anything remotely amusing or sensible in the paedophile slurs that are aimed at Arsene Wenger. On the other hand, saying he's a biased blinkered prat is harmless.
Click to expand...

Right, but as you mentioned, calling Wenger a paedophile is surely beyond the pale as well?

Speculation is rife whenever anything like this happens...I don't see the problem with people obviously guessing...hence this thread enquiring about the legal implications for the site..
 
Davo said:
Right, but as you mentioned, calling Wenger a paedophile is surely beyond the pale as well?

Speculation is rife whenever anything like this happens...I don't see the problem with people obviously guessing...hence this thread enquiring about the legal implications for the site..
Click to expand...

Well as it's Niall's site, it's up to him. Speculation about who the alleged rapists are would liven up the forum no end, and perversely, would be a good read, but is it worth the risk?

The comments about Wenger do go too far imo - I don't care much for the bloke, but labelling him a paedophile is going too far. I'm not aware of any basis for it, so it's almost certainly libellous, and it's not funny or clever.
 
Livvie20 said:
Well as it's Niall's site, it's up to him. Speculation about who the alleged rapists are would liven up the forum no end, and perversely, would be a good read, but is it worth the risk?

The comments about Wenger do go too far imo - I don't care much for the bloke, but labelling him a paedophile is going too far. I'm not aware of any basis for it, so it's almost certainly libellous, and it's not funny or clever.
Click to expand...

The risk element is why I'm asking. So, following on from your first daft response you basically have no idea?

Daft bint...


Yeah yeah, sue me
;)
 
Davo said:
The risk element is why I'm asking. So, following on from your first daft response you basically have no idea?

Daft bint...


Yeah yeah, sue me
;)
Click to expand...

You're just not capable of not getting personal are you.

Arrogant twat.
 
Livvie20 said:
You're just not capable of not getting personal are you.

Arrogant twat.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Best not to try to be clever if

a) You're not
b) You're not able to take comeback

Not that I'm suggesting that a) or b) apply to you of course...don't want to get personal
 
Davo said:
:lol:

Best not to try to be clever if

a) You're not
b) You're not able to take comeback

Not that I'm suggesting that a) or b) apply to you of course...don't want to get personal
Click to expand...

Well sweetness, you appear to be the one not able to take comeback as you put it, as I was merely responding.

You called me daft, I responded. Tho I did forget the wink. ;)
 
Livvie20 said:
Well sweetness, you appear to be the one not able to take comeback as you put it, as I was merely responding.

You called me daft, I responded. Tho I did forget the wink. ;)
Click to expand...


Hehehe....ok

Well now the tantrums over, perhaps you would be so kind as to ask the Mods hotline re my original question?

Have you got a stomach ache?

;)
 
Davo said:
Hehehe....ok

Well now the tantrums over, perhaps you would be so kind as to ask the Mods hotline re my original question?

Have you got a stomach ache?

;)
Click to expand...

I didn't have, before I started talking to you.

Now I wouldn't be so rude as to call you daft, but as explained, it isn't considered worth the risk, as atm it's a very grey area. So sorry I cant be more specific. At some time in the near future, the Proprietor may decide that we can go for it.

Thank you for your interest. Have a nice day.
 
If any other mods, or anyone else, actually know anything about these supposed risks..please feel free to explain.
 
A1Dan said:
Can a mod delete this thread before Davo sues for libel please :nervous:
Click to expand...

Libel has to be untrue doesn't it?
 
Davo said:
If any other mods, or anyone else, actually know anything about these supposed risks..please feel free to explain.
Click to expand...

Preferably in words of one syllable.
 
Davo said:
If any other mods, or anyone else, actually know anything about these supposed risks..please feel free to explain.
Click to expand...


I really dont see why we should run the risk of naming names with regard to ongoing police actions as it has already caused sites to be taken down - lawyers and no doubt the media are watching us.

So, no names please.
 
Livvie20 said:
Preferably in words of one syllable.
Click to expand...

Look darling, just because you didn't know the answer to perfectly reasonable question - and have got a bit upset at my little joke - doesn't give you the right to continue this vicious vendetta against my good self...

If it continues I shall be forced to report you, and your position as Mod will no doubt come under some scrutiny...
 
Davo said:
Look darling, just because you didn't know the answer to perfectly reasonable question - and have got a bit upset at my little joke - doesn't give you the right to continue this vicious vendetta against my good self...

If it continues I shall be forced to report you, and your position as Mod will no doubt come under some scrutiny...
Click to expand...

Passing a comment doesn't mean I'm upset. You're mistaking me for someone who cares what you think - darling.

I hadn't thought of a vicious vendetta. Thankyou for bringing it to my attention. :)

I realise that as the member with the most posts, you are held in high esteem and my position as mod. depends solely upon your good will. I can only throw myself on your mercy.
 
Livvie20 said:
Passing a comment doesn't mean I'm upset. You're mistaking me for someone who cares what you think - darling.

I hadn't thought of a vicious vendetta. Thankyou for bringing it to my attention. :)

I realise that as the member with the most posts, you are held in high esteem and my position as mod. depends solely upon your good will. I can only throw myself on your mercy.
Click to expand...

Ahh...don't worry about it, I was only mucking around. As far as I'm concerned you should be allowed to carry on performing the fine job you do as a Mod.....

Glad to hear I didn't upset you....for a minute there I thought I had
 
Davo said:
Ahh...don't worry about it, I was only mucking around. As far as I'm concerned you should be allowed to carry on performing the fine job you do as a Mod.....

Glad to hear I didn't upset you....for a minute there I thought I had
Click to expand...

Patronising git. ;)
 
I've feck all to do with the legal profession but I believe (from what I have read) that for there to be a successful libel case the allegation has to be a) untrue and b) there has to be a demonstrated loss of reputation (which has a $ value).

In the latest alleged rape case if all anyone does is name the players allegedly involved/staying at the hotel (or whatever carefully worded statement gives the game away without making accusation that could be proven to be untrue then a libel action is unlikely to succeed. However there are other considerations.

The press are (allegedly ;) ) constrained by a code of conduct and since this may become a sexual criminal case where courts insist on all concerned remain anonymous then they need to be careful to avoid a) contempt of court and b) prejudicing the case to the point where it collapses as the assault case against the Leeds players did.

As far as I'm aware no sites have been shut down, other than voluntarily to avoid any potential legal action. The law is very grey regarding the internet. If the site is hosted and owned offshore (outside the EU to be safe) then there is probably feck all any UK lawyer could do anyway. There are also grey issues about who is responsible for posts on a BB - the owner or the essentially anonymous posters whose opinion is the problem.

The other thing about libel suits is that if you have dosh for a good lawyer then they are a good way to keep people from saying what you don't want them to say (for fear of a costly law suit) as was shown by Robert Maxwell (former owner of The Mirror) who kept true allegations about his business practices and private life (allegedly) out of the press for many many years.

Essentially the small fish who are closing sites or (like the Caf) are asking for caution because the lawyers of the players allegedly involved are trawling the net to try to keep id's under wraps and site owners want to be careful even though the chances of legal action against them are slim no matter what is being said.
 
Wibble said:
I've feck all to do with the legal proffesion but I believe (from what I have read) that for there to be a succesful libel case the allegation has to be a) untrue and b) there has to be a demonstrated loss of reputation (which has a $ value).

In the latest alleged rape case if all anyone does is name the players allegedly involved/staying at the hotel (or whatever carefully worded statement gives the game away without maikng accusation that could be proven to be untrue then a libel action is unlikely to succeed. However there are other considerations.

The press are (allegedly ;) ) constrained by a code of conduct and since this may become a sexual criminal case where courts insist on all concerned remain anonymous then they need to be careful to avoid a) contempt of court and b) prejudicing the case to the point where it collapses as the assualt case against the Leeds players did.

As far as I'm aware no sites have been shut down, other than voluntarily to avoid any potential legal action. The law is very grey regarding the internet. If the site is hosted and owned offshore (outside the EU to be safe) then there is probably feck all any UK lawyer could do anyway. There are also grey issues about who is responsible for posts on a BB - the owner or the essentially anonymous posters who's opinion is the problem.

The other thing about libel suits is that if you have dosh for a good lawyer then they are a good way to keep people from saying what you don't want them to say (for fear of a costly law suit) as was shown by Robert Maxwell (former owner of The Mirror) who kept true allegations about his business practices and private life (allegedly) out of the press for many many years.

Essentially the small fish who are closing sites or (like the Caf) are asking for caution because the lawyers of the players allegedly involved are trawling the net to try to keep id's under wraps and site owners want to be careful even though the chances of legal action against them are slim no matter what is being said.
Click to expand...

Which is what I said. ;) ;)
 
Wibble said:
I've feck all to do with the legal proffesion but I believe (from what I have read) that for there to be a succesful libel case the allegation has to be a) untrue and b) there has to be a demonstrated loss of reputation (which has a $ value).

In the latest alleged rape case if all anyone does is name the players allegedly involved/staying at the hotel (or whatever carefully worded statement gives the game away without maikng accusation that could be proven to be untrue then a libel action is unlikely to succeed. However there are other considerations.

The press are (allegedly ;) ) constrained by a code of conduct and since this may become a sexual criminal case where courts insist on all concerned remain anonymous then they need to be careful to avoid a) contempt of court and b) prejudicing the case to the point where it collapses as the assualt case against the Leeds players did.

As far as I'm aware no sites have been shut down, other than voluntarily to avoid any potential legal action. The law is very grey regarding the internet. If the site is hosted and owned offshore (outside the EU to be safe) then there is probably feck all any UK lawyer could do anyway. There are also grey issues about who is responsible for posts on a BB - the owner or the essentially anonymous posters who's opinion is the problem.

The other thing about libel suits is that if you have dosh for a good lawyer then they are a good way to keep people from saying what you don't want them to say (for fear of a costly law suit) as was shown by Robert Maxwell (former owner of The Mirror) who kept true allegations about his business practices and private life (allegedly) out of the press for many many years.

Essentially the small fish who are closing sites or (like the Caf) are asking for caution because the lawyers of the players allegedly involved are trawling the net to try to keep id's under wraps and site owners want to be careful even though the chances of legal action against them are slim no matter what is being said.
Click to expand...

I can understand caution prevailing, and am prepared to play along, but I can't help but feel the recent bout of paranoia re naming clubs/names etc is simply that.

Since when do those accused of sexual crimes benefit by anomity? Perhaps they should, but this isn't a hard set rule that has been followed. And speculating, which lets face it is merely guessing, can surely not have any legal implications...forgetting that it will be done in boozers across the country, its a natural talking point. We know that a Leeds player has been arrested in this instance, so where's the harm in questions re which one? I agree in regards to closing down of forums - in that it seems to be on a voluntary basis...

Luckily everyone seems to have taken the warning of caution onboard and not named names....

Apart from 26, ..;)
 
Names being mentioned is not just a matter for the libel laws.

IF a case came to trial and the defendants name has been plastered all over the internet he can and will use that in his defence - saying that he cannot be given a fair trial.

We can all speculate about who is involved in these cases but what's the point?

It could be anyone so whilst it might amuse some of the more bored members of the forum it doesn't actually achieve anything does it?
 
Davo said:
My mistake

I thought you posted some smilies then spat your dummy..

Sorry

;)
Click to expand...

I sincerely apologise if I over-reacted.

Unfortunately, I do tend to get frustrated with anyone who has learning difficulties.

;)
 
Davo said:
Since when do those accused of sexual crimes benefit by anomity?
Click to expand...

I should think John Leslie may well have benefitted from anonymity.

Websites are in the public domain whereas a conversation in a pub would probably be classed as private, no matter how loud you are Davo. That is the problem I guess, though I was surprised to hear of websites being taken off the net because of this.
 
Dans said:
I should think John Leslie may well have benefitted from anonymity.

Websites are in the public domain whereas a conversation in a pub would probably be classed as private, no matter how loud you are Davo. That is the problem I guess, though I was surprised to hear of websites being taken off the net because of this.
Click to expand...

Whether anomity should be given to those accused of sexual offences is a seperate point...currently they don't, and its no surprise that Morris has been swiftly named

Personally I think the whole speculating on websites is little more than paronoia...as soon as one website was voluntarily taken down other panicked and followed suit.

I can understand the decision err on the side of caution mind
 
The difference is that I can come on and read these names hours after they've been posted.

A conversation in the pub is for those who were there at that time.

However you want to think of it, internet fora are print media, and should be subject to the same rules.

Anonymity for the accused in a sexual crime is a natural extension of the principle of "innocent till proven guilty" which is ostensibly in force in the UK...
 
People charged with sexual crimes frequently have their identities protected in an attempt to keep the victims identity secret not due to a presumption of innocence.
 
Wibble said:
People charged with sexual crimes frequently have their identities protected in an attempt to keep the victims identity secret not due to a presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...

Which is wrong... sexual crimes are particularly emotive and releasing the names of the accused is tantamount to prejudgement.

I think anonymity should be extended to all accused actually.
 
spinoza said:
Which is wrong... sexual crimes are particularly emotive and releasing the names of the accused is tantamount to prejudgement.

I think anonymity should be extended to all accused actually.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

The source of Morris being named was the Yorkshire Evening Post and obviously the news spreads.

There have been no names given by the police as to who the 2 arrested over the London rape are and the same applies to the Leeds case.

My understanding is that that is the law and rightly so.

IF the Leeds case turns out to be a load of bollox then the woman goes off with nobody knowing who she is while the one accused has to put up with his name being dragged through the dirt.

IMO that is wrong!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.