View Full Version : User banned
Niall Fernie
29-Mar-10, 07:29
While we are aware that some previously banned members have re-registered with new identites, we decided to give them the opportunity to remain, albeit under the watchful eye of Mod & Admin team.
One such member was Stavro, who initially steered clear of the topics which had caused his previous ban. However more recently he has been partaking in similar debates and making statements which are of concern to the team.
Upon further investigation a website was discovered which indicates the political and religious leanings of this individual. This is something which Caithness.Org does not wish to be associated with in any way whatsoever so we've issued him an immediate ban. We would link to the site but don't want to give it any traffic.
If any other member feels strongly about this ban, and wishes to be made an Ex-Orger in protest, then we will be happy to do that - simply send me a PM.
So does this mean you can't have a politcal and religious view? I don't really understand it
Wise up olin-You are a guest here,if you are not in favour of the rules--
Bog off.
Wise up olin-You are a guest here,if you are not in favour of the rules--
Bog off.
Calm down you . What part of what I said implies that I am not in favour of rules?
I have seen countless threads where people express a love for God and all this other shenanigins.
I also have seen threads where people post their opinions and views on various subjects and nothing has happened.
I am just wondering what was said or done to have that guy banned that is all.
Moderator
29-Mar-10, 14:50
Until such a time as Admin are available to comment, suffice to say that the content of the site in question contains, amongst other things, pro-Nazi / anti-Jew sentiments and Holocaust denial. Even though Stavro's posts had touched upon these subjects he'd not shown his full colours, and it was realised that a ban was necessary to stop the him using the Forum as a soapbox for those type of debates in the future.
As far as the Mod team are aware this is the first and only time Admin have felt strongly enough to ban a member based on content external to this site, and the first time the reason for any ban has been made public. It could easily have been done quietly and privately, but it was felt that a certain amount of open-ness was justified. This is a community-orientated site and Admin wish it to remain so.
ShelleyCowie
29-Mar-10, 15:01
Until such a time as Admin are available to comment, suffice to say that the content of the site in question contains, amongst other things, pro-Nazi / anti-Jew sentiments and Holocaust denial. Even though Stavro's posts had touched upon these subjects he'd not shown his full colours, and it was realised that a ban was necessary to stop the him using the Forum as a soapbox for those type of debates in the future.
As far as the Mod team are aware this is the first and only time Admin have felt strongly enough to ban a member based on content external to this site, and the first time the reason for any ban has been made public. It could easily have been done quietly and privately, but it was felt that a certain amount of open-ness was justified. This is a community-orientated site and Admin wish it to remain so.
Hats off to ya's!
You really didnt have to put this publically as you said, could have just been private. But you chose to share it with the rest of the orgers.
Hats off to ya's!
You really didnt have to put this publically as you said, could have just been private. But you chose to share it with the rest of the orgers.
Well actually I think it is a bit weird. There are people on here expressing their views about Religion the whole time? I do not agree with anything that the Nazi's did and I find the holocaust to be one of the worst things to happen in history so far.
I just think its a weird situation is all but I am not arguing. I think they probably did the right thing however its just the original comment said "politcal and religious leanings" which made me think that the Org didn't want to be associated with anything he thought or believed. Quite rightly so but I am just as much against Stavro as I am against anyone else saying God is real.
Its a weird situation which I ain't gonna let bother me and after all I am apparently a guest whatever that means?
Hats off to ya's!
You really didnt have to put this publically as you said, could have just been private. But you chose to share it with the rest of the orgers.
I agree, I realised these were his views some time ago. I applaud those who were able to make this decision.
You could have locked this thread after making the initial statement, but are allowing comment, very couragous!
ShelleyCowie
29-Mar-10, 15:17
Well actually I think it is a bit weird. There are people on here expressing their views about Religion the whole time? I do not agree with anything that the Nazi's did and I find the holocaust to be one of the worst things to happen in history so far.
I just think its a weird situation is all but I am not arguing. I think they probably did the right thing however its just the original comment said "politcal and religious leanings" which made me think that the Org didn't want to be associated with anything he thought or believed. Quite rightly so but I am just as much against Stavro as I am against anyone else saying God is real.
Its a weird situation which I ain't gonna let bother me and after all I am apparently a guest whatever that means?
Thing is we dont exactly know what was said on the other site. So it was the Mod + admin teams decision.
The org has a reputation beyond anything imaginable. Not that im saying they have to keep that up. But its not our site, and we are all guests here Olin, not just you.
I did think it was a bit weird myself when i saw the thread name as mods dont often post about things like this but im glad they did. It just shows they have nothing to hide.
I agree, I realised these were his views some time ago. I applaud those who were able to make this decision.
I never really read many of Stavros posts as they were of no interest to me really. A few yes, but not the religious.
Im glad the mods + admin team have told their reasons why.
And as they said they realise some people have re-registered under new names and give them a chance which i think is nice of them :)
Calm down you .
I have seen countless threads where people express a love for God and all this other shenanigins.
I also have seen threads where people post their opinions and views on various subjects and nothing has happened.
I am just wondering what was said or done to have that guy banned that is all.
The highlighted word says it all.... Why don't you leave this alone. The entire site will be better from this decision!
porshiepoo
29-Mar-10, 15:27
The highlighted word says it all.... Why don't you leave this alone. The entire site will be better from this decision!
Hey, Olin is entitled to state an opinion. The thread wasn't locked so opinion was obviously allowed and when Olin was immediately told 'bog off if you don't like it' they had a right to defend themselves and explain their post.
I personally didn't have much to do with with Stavros but I do understand the decision from Admin to ban him from this site. At the end of the day the site does need to be monitored and steps taken to prevent it becoming a sounding board for any kind of pro-Nazi / Anti - Jew rants, however, Olin was entitled to express his opinion and his view and as far as I am aware that is not a hanging offence on this forum just yet :eek:, nor IMO does it warrant a 'bog off' response.
p.s Sandyr1, obviously I'm not suggesting you responded with 'bog off'.
roadbowler
29-Mar-10, 15:49
i'm afraid your biggest mistake was posting this thread in public. Unfortunately there is this thing called defamation which is delict and an offence in Scotland. Also, unfortunately, the decision to post this in public and not privately to the user concerned now brings this action into the realms of a legal remedy to be sought if the user so decides. "defamation" is legally defined as the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of a society generally. Also, unfortunately, not only are the owners and now moderators of this site by posting the above liable for an action against them for defamation, latest case law in Scotland also says any sponsors of a website are also liable. Woopsy! If someone knows what's good for them, this thread will not be here long! But, unfortunately, the damage is done. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Och guys, get a grip.
Telling people the holocaust never existed and Adolf was a fine man.... you really want that happening on our lovely .org?
changilass
29-Mar-10, 16:20
How do you defame a user name? Is it in fact possible?
I agree, I realised these were his views some time ago. I applaud those who were able to make this decision.
You could have locked this thread after making the initial statement, but are allowing comment, very couragous!
For once I fully agree with the mad hairy biker community of Ducati. There are some things which are beyond the pale and should never be allowed to soil a public forum.
Och guys, get a grip.
Telling people the holocaust never existed and Adolf was a fine man.... you really want that happening on our lovely .org?
It's not that I agree with his statements. I find saying god is real to be just as bad a statement as the holocaust thing or even 9/11 was a conspiracy which I have also seen on here!
I just think if you're getting rid of one arguement to do with beliefs then I don't see why some about god and that are still on here?
Well I for one am completely behind the admin & mods, I have had to complain several times about this particular member and my family and I find views that are pro-nazi totally unacceptable. Well done Niall!!!!
Well I for one am completely behind the admin & mods, I have had to complain several times about this particular member and my family and I find views that are pro-nazi totally unacceptable. I have seen the website concerned and it is awful and extremely worrying!
Well done Niall!!!!
I am for their decision too! I have not seen the website but have seen some like it and I just can't believe there are people like that out there!
It's not that I agree with his statements. I find saying god is real to be just as bad a statement as the holocaust thing or even 9/11 was a conspiracy which I have also seen on here!
I just think if you're getting rid of one arguement to do with beliefs then I don't see why some about god and that are still on here?
Surely arguing for or against the existence of God is completely different from detecting a conspiracy involving the attack on the world trade centre!
roadbowler
29-Mar-10, 17:03
changilass, do you think by calling yourself by any other name diminishes your rights or responsibilities?? If you are assaulted whilst wearing a clown suit can the defender claim they were attacking the clown not you the human? Think again. Actually, where the problem lies in a defamation action on the internet, is identifing the offender if using a pseudonym then of course the jurisdiction of the which the claim can be brought. So, if you think you are immune from the law on the net, think again. It has been done before and by my research 99 times out of a hundred are settled out of court. What the admin and "moderator" are doing here is quite sick in my opinion. Ban someone then call them a nazi and open a thread to specifically invite a slagging session on the person which they cannot defend. Disgusting!
changilass
29-Mar-10, 17:10
No one called anyone a nazi, the only thing that has been said is that there is pro nazi stuff on the users website - very different. Where is the invite to insult the user? I have looked but cannot find it.
Surely if you are pro nazi, then you wouldn't see it as an insult? would you?
At the end of the day the user had been banned previously (same as a few others) and was back under another username, the fact that they have been banned again isnt a big loss.
While we are aware that some previously banned members have re-registered with new identites, we decided to give them the opportunity to remain, albeit under the watchful eye of Mod & Admin team.
That part surprises me.
If people are previously banned why are they allowed back on?
Posting that publicly surely is just going to encourage more people back who have been previously banned.
northener
29-Mar-10, 17:24
changilass, do you think by calling yourself by any other name diminishes your rights or responsibilities?? If you are assaulted whilst wearing a clown suit can the defender claim they were attacking the clown not you the human? Think again. Actually, where the problem lies in a defamation action on the internet, is identifing the offender if using a pseudonym then of course the jurisdiction of the which the claim can be brought. So, if you think you are immune from the law on the net, think again. It has been done before and by my research 99 times out of a hundred are settled out of court. What the admin and "moderator" are doing here is quite sick in my opinion. Ban someone then call them a nazi and open a thread to specifically invite a slagging session on the person which they cannot defend. Disgusting!
The owners and moderators of any site can remove whoever they see fit.
Stavro was banned because of his beliefs, these beliefs could be interpreted as Anti-Zionist or even Anti-Semitic. Therefore the website is quite within it's rights to ban anyone who they believe is promoting anti-Semitism through links with websites which many would find offensive.
Whether you like it or not, this is a site owned by someone who wishes the site to be run as they see fit - it's not some airy-fairy 'freedom of speech' forum. The owners call the shots. Period.
Nobodies gonna get convicted because the owners haven't banned Stavro on the grounds of his ethnicity, religion or ability. Political beliefs aren't covered by anti-discrimination law.
roadbowler
29-Mar-10, 17:36
northerner, do we need to define defamation again? Aye, they can ban who they like for whatever they like. However, their mistake is defamation. If they would have told him this in private, fine. They have made a mistake by making these claims public! There is a very big difference. Changi, your reply is not worth a response.
northerner, do we need to define defamation again? Aye, they can ban who they like for whatever they like. However, their mistake is defamation. If they would have told him this in private, fine. They have made a mistake by making these claims public! There is a very big difference. Changi, your reply is not worth a response.
You seem quite cross, what is your problem, if I may ask?
changilass
29-Mar-10, 17:40
lol roadbowler, did you stick your tongue out at the screen and say nahnahnah as you typed that?
You really do make me smile at times.
Unfortunately there is this thing called defamation which is delict and an offence in Scotland.
How can you commit defamation of an anonymous internet identity? I have been honest about who I am, Stavos however has lived (and bitten) under an anonymous pseudonym.
I have not seen the link that was posted, but I have read a lot of Stavro's posts and whilst I can see why people were not enamored by him, I would have to say that none of these posts were those of the type of person he is being associated with.
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Niemöller 1892-1954
Ban someone then call them a nazi and open a thread to specifically invite a slagging session on the person which they cannot defend. Disgusting!
That is a travesty of what in fact happened.
But I love your use of the word "disgusting."
Wasn't there a guy in Surrey who used to fire off letters to the local newspaper signed "Disgusted, Surbiton"?
Has anybody booked "Disgusted Thurso"?
If nobody has I migh consider changing my name. So can I please have first dibs on it.
Note the slight change in the tense; I dont wish to be knows as "Disgusting Rich)
Thanks, guys!
John Little
29-Mar-10, 17:58
I do not think that defamation of a pseudonym is likely. The complainant would first of all have to prove that he/she was the owner of the false name.
Then they would have to prove that they personally had suffered from the defamation of their alias.
Considering the secret nature of pseudonyms I would think it almost impossible to do it.
The person is not defamed because it is not the person who has expressed the defamed views.
It is an alias, a fictional person
Also the views expressed by a fictional character are not necessarily those of the person holding the alias - if it were then many fiction authers would be in deep trouble.
roadbowler
29-Mar-10, 18:04
my problem is i'm disgusted with how people treat others at times. Ever hear the phrase, to add insult to injury? Think it's a bit sick. Simple.
Ok here goes....as most of you will know or will at least have a look and see,Stavros was on my friend list and I can honestly say that i have never seen or should I say read, that has made me have concerns about their "agenda" on here. How do we know that the Stavros on here is the same one on another website? Plenty of people have gone on other sites using usernames from the org,just to cause trouble!! Plenty on here are outspoken about their beliefs........x
my problem is i'm disgusted with how people treat others at times. Ever hear the phrase, to add insult to injury? Think it's a bit sick. Simple.
I'm sure we all know what to do if we are so 'sick' of the site!
Ok here goes....as most of you will know or will at least have a look and see,Stavros was on my friend list and I can honestly say that i have never seen or should I say read, that has made me have concerns about their "agenda" on here. How do we know that the Stavros on here is the same one on another website? Plenty of people have gone on other sites using usernames from the org,just to cause trouble!! Plenty on here are outspoken about their beliefs........xhi thumper well said so very true
I do not think that defamation of a pseudonym is likely. The complainant would first of all have to prove that he/she was the owner of the false name.
Then they would have to prove that they personally had suffered from the defamation of their alias.
Considering the secret nature of pseudonyms I would think it almost impossible to do it.
The person is not defamed because it is not the person who has expressed the defamed views.
It is an alias, a fictional person
Also the views expressed by a fictional character are not necessarily those of the person holding the alias - if it were then many fiction authers would be in deep trouble. so true so very true
roadbowler
29-Mar-10, 18:25
what do ye think now? See any striking similarities? http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.6/ukdefamation
. Ban someone then call them a nazi and open a thread to specifically invite a slagging session on the person which they cannot defend. Disgusting!
Some positions are undefensible. Some views are so universally disgusting, they deserve no right to reply.
Let me guess: no thanks.
telfordstar
29-Mar-10, 18:34
This thread is like a whole new can of worms that has just been opened. Although I've no idea of stavos posts were tbh I'm guessing this linked website Must of been bad for the mods and admin to take the step to ban him.
As for the rest of you bickering on here get a grip. Everyone has different views on things end of! If we all had the same views then the world would be a pretty crap place. Rant over.........
John Little
29-Mar-10, 18:50
"See any striking similarities?"
Not really - it's the other way about.
Here you have a pseudonym being sued for slander against a person whom I assume was not a pseudonym. If someone uses an alias to make libellous allegations against a real person then clearly there is jurisprudence dealing with the matter.
But in this case we have a real person (mod) banning a pseudonym and stating that they have views which many would find unacceptable.
I have no idea who the person is behind the pseudonym; they are completely anonymous. So if indeed a slander/libel has taken place it is against an anonymous So long as they do not reveal their true identity they are not harmed by what is said.
I do not think that defamation of a pseudonym is likely. The complainant would first of all have to prove that he/she was the owner of the false name.
Then they would have to prove that they personally had suffered from the defamation of their alias.
Considering the secret nature of pseudonyms I would think it almost impossible to do it.
The person is not defamed because it is not the person who has expressed the defamed views.
It is an alias, a fictional person
Also the views expressed by a fictional character are not necessarily those of the person holding the alias - if it were then many fiction authers would be in deep trouble.
Actually that isn't the case. I have never met Stavro but I know who he is as do many others on the forum. Something doesn't have to be widely distributed to be classed as defamation, a letter to one person qualifies.
The laws of defamation are some of the most unjust laws we have, they should be changed and many have campaigned to get them changed. There is no presumption of innocence, the person bringing the case does not have to prove the defendant guilty, they are presumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence. The person bringing the case does not have to prove what was said was false, the defendant has to prove it was true.
northener
29-Mar-10, 18:57
what do ye think now? See any striking similarities? http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.6/ukdefamation
Tracy Williams, another participant in the discussion, posted under pseudonym series of defamatory remarks about Smith on an internet bulletin board calling him a "lard brain" a "Nazi", a "racist bigot" and a "nonce". She also alleged that he had sexually harassed a female co-worker.
Er, no. I don't see any similarity at all.
Well I'm in complete agreement with the administrators here. While i respect other's beliefs, some things are just beyond the par, and dangerous to boot.
roadbowler
29-Mar-10, 19:10
afraid not john little. An alias is not fictional as you put it. Can john lydon sue someone for defaming johnny rotten? The case i post above is a well known one there is many others. What possibly makes you think you are truly anonymous posting on this site anyways?
afraid not john little. An alias is not fictional as you put it. Can john lydon sue someone for defaming johnny rotten? The case i post above is a well known one there is many others. What possibly makes you think you are truly anonymous posting on this site anyways?
Think Im anonymous. I dont know anyone on here and as far as i know they dont know me.
John Little
29-Mar-10, 19:21
Oh I am not anonymous - this is my real name - which is why I try to be polite at all times :)
Point about John Lydon is that his pseudonym is widely known. I would imagine that would stick.
In the case of Stavro, Fred says that he knows who he is - and so do many on the Org. Well I don't know who he is, and I doubt that everyone does.
The element of choice must come in here too. If Stavro chose to reveal his identity to others then he chose to. If he had not done so, then surely he could not be libelled.
And do the mods know his real name, and have they published it?
I have to say that I have had some experience of this; I sought legal advice a few years ago over something that was written about me. The solicitor was very clear that the laws on Libel were so complex that a court case would be prohibitively expensive. There was also the question of how the 'libel' was phrased. Malicious and defamatory statements were totally different to 'opinion' for anything expressed as 'opinion' was not libel. The solicitor told me it was a minefiled and advised me not to touch it - so I did not.
While we are aware that some previously banned members have re-registered with new identites, we decided to give them the opportunity to remain, albeit under the watchful eye of Mod & Admin team.
A few who are making waves in this thread, should take note, they know who you are [lol]
telfordstar
29-Mar-10, 19:49
A few who are making waves in this thread, should take note, they know who you are [lol]
Very well said golach. I'm fine my concience is clear :)
Tubthumper
29-Mar-10, 20:19
Fred, you've got a brass neck getting involved in an argument about defamation, what about your stramash on here re Robert Green and the Hollie Greig case?
Were you and Stavros not spitting out demands for named individuals to be metaphorically strung up?
Or was i just dreaming??
Sheesh, the hypocrisy makes me boak....
Tubthumper
29-Mar-10, 20:27
afraid not john little. An alias is not fictional as you put it. Can john lydon sue someone for defaming johnny rotten? The case i post above is a well known one there is many others. What possibly makes you think you are truly anonymous posting on this site anyways?
I suspect there's an element of poop in your legal analyses RB. Sorry about that.
The owners and moderators of any site can remove whoever they see fit.
Stavro was banned because of his beliefs, these beliefs could be interpreted as Anti-Zionist or even Anti-Semitic. Therefore the website is quite within it's rights to ban anyone who they believe is promoting anti-Semitism through links with websites which many would find offensive.
Whether you like it or not, this is a site owned by someone who wishes the site to be run as they see fit - it's not some airy-fairy 'freedom of speech' forum. The owners call the shots. Period.
Nobodies gonna get convicted because the owners haven't banned Stavro on the grounds of his ethnicity, religion or ability. Political beliefs aren't covered by anti-discrimination law.
The problem with banning views or groups is that first you have to police what is or is not the correct view for instance the current view is being anti-anti Semitic if you see what I mean or could it be if you are seen to be pro Palestine you are seen to be anti -Zionist.
The current ban for instance on certain groups of employees being part of the BNP is another example. What happens to that ban if for instance the BNP were voted in to power at a general election!!!
Just to clarify I am not pro BNP I despise them as I do the NAZI but I highlight the problem when certain views are deemed unsuitable !!
Fred, you've got a brass neck getting involved in an argument about defamation, what about your stramash on here re Robert Green and the Hollie Greig case?
Were you and Stavros not spitting out demands for named individuals to be metaphorically strung up?
Or was i just dreaming??
Sheesh, the hypocrisy makes me boak....
Yes you were dreaming.
I didn't use anyone's name in that thread.
In any case no one would be daft enough to sue me for defamation, I have no money, there's no way they could win.
John Little
29-Mar-10, 20:36
There is an assumption here that the Org is a democracy. Yet somebody pays for the bandwidth, the space- whatever. I do not know who pays for, but it does seem to me that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
If mods decide that something is anappropriate then that is probably the end of the matter,
If not then Mods pull the plug - which is easy to do, and no more Org.
A certain latitude is allowed but in this game, even if Rangers play Celtic, the ref's decision is surely final?
Yoda the flump
29-Mar-10, 20:42
To be fair to the mods Stavro have made of least one comment on the holocaust that he was challenged on as it was factually incorrect.
Still I do not really agree with making this public, a simple ban would have done.
John Little
29-Mar-10, 20:45
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject - Winston Spencer Churchill
http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=683215)
I love that!!! Great tag!!
Sorry - thread drift,,,, guilty.
changilass
29-Mar-10, 20:45
How many times in the past, when there has been a ban or an infraction issued, have folks started thread after thread about what happened to so and so?
Rock and a hard place springs to mind.
I wonder if anyone has actually pm'd Niall in protest?
Tubthumper
29-Mar-10, 20:52
Yes you were dreaming. I didn't use anyone's name in that thread. In any case no one would be daft enough to sue me for defamation, I have no money, there's no way they could win.
Clever of you. Stir it up, create publicity by linking to another site, but avoid all blame. Brave. Principled. Takes a stand.
Who said 'They' need to get money to win? Isn't it all about justice being seen to be done?? A bit shallow all of a sudden.
Or is that you squirming and in denial, Freddy?
Clever of you. Stir it up, create publicity by linking to another site, but avoid all blame. Brave. Principled. Takes a stand.
Who said 'They' need to get money to win? Isn't it all about justice being seen to be done?? A bit shallow all of a sudden.
Or is that you squirming and in denial, Freddy?
If someone wanted to spend a lot of their money seeing justice done that would be up to them, wouldn't harm me none.
But as it happens I wasn't stupid enough to make any accusations so it's all hypothetical, I said nothing I could be sued for.
Was going to name and shame someone for giving me bad rep for my last post (not sure why it warranted it). Deleted as I don't want bad rep again off a petty person lol
Ok here goes....as most of you will know or will at least have a look and see,Stavros was on my friend list and I can honestly say that i have never seen or should I say read, that has made me have concerns about their "agenda" on here. How do we know that the Stavros on here is the same one on another website? Plenty of people have gone on other sites using usernames from the org,just to cause trouble!! Plenty on here are outspoken about their beliefs........x
Im sure the Mods have thoroughly investigated all this before they took the decision to ban Stavro. The mods know who stavro is & im guessing he had probably used his proper name on the website in question.
I have had several run ins with stavro in the past so i agree entirely with the mods on this one!
butterfly
29-Mar-10, 21:17
No doubt the mods had good reason but i dont agree with making it public,nor do i like where this thread is going.........................
John Little
29-Mar-10, 21:19
Where is it going???
Was going to name and shame someone for giving me bad rep for my last post (not sure why it warranted it). Deleted as I don't want bad rep again off a petty person lol
Go right ahead Leanne,it was me after all,and as you seem to think I have to justify it no I wasnt being petty,simply disagree with your post that peole who "hide" behind usernames arent like those of you who dont
Tubthumper
29-Mar-10, 21:31
If someone wanted to spend a lot of their money seeing justice done that would be up to them, wouldn't harm me none.
But as it happens I wasn't stupid enough to make any accusations so it's all hypothetical, I said nothing I could be sued for.
So all that guff you came out with was just that - guff.
I thought as much. Shallow. No substance. Typical guitarist.
So all that guff you came out with was just that - guff.
I thought as much. Shallow. No substance. Typical guitarist.
Are you saying all guitarists are shallow and have no substance?
I've been watching this unfold throughout the day and have been rather amused. Also a little surprised it's not descended into chaos and been closed....yet.
For me I think this bit clears most of it up:
........This is something which Caithness.Org does not wish to be associated with in any way whatsoever.......
It doesn't matter if you agree with it, THEM, Stavro or whatever. As has been pointed out, it is their toy and if they want to throw it out of the cot they can.
THEM refers to the Mods, Admin, Site owners or whichever co-conspirational body that pays the bills around here.
I just can't make my mind up just now who I'm going to be outraged for....
northerner, do we need to define defamation again? Aye, they can ban who they like for whatever they like. However, their mistake is defamation. If they would have told him this in private, fine. They have made a mistake by making these claims public! There is a very big difference. Changi, your reply is not worth a response.
What's your position on this roadbowler? Are you a lawyer trying to drum up business?
I just can't make my mind up just know who I'm going to be outraged for....
You can be outraged for me if you like.
I entered this thread merely to correct someone on a point of law, nothing more, I said nothing about anyone, just stated the law.
Yet so far I have been called a libeller, a hypocrite, shallow, squirming, no substance and worse...far far worse.
Is this a record?
telfordstar
29-Mar-10, 22:16
Gee whiz it's like walking in the lions den in this thread!!!!!!
Boozeburglar
29-Mar-10, 22:31
Is this a record?
Yeah, a bleedin' broken record!
You can be outraged for me if you like.
I entered this thread merely to correct someone on a point of law, nothing more, I said nothing about anyone, just stated the law.
Yet so far I have been called a libeller, a hypocrite, shallow, squirming, no substance and worse...far far worse.
Is this a record?
It's pretty good, some have very long memories :lol: I like to treat each thread as a separate entity...unless I really go off on one :eek:
Boozeburglar
29-Mar-10, 23:21
There is no presumption of innocence, the person bringing the case does not have to prove the defendant guilty, they are presumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence. The person bringing the case does not have to prove what was said was false, the defendant has to prove it was true.
The principal of being able to publish the truth is protected, yet publishers are encouraged to consider the voracity of what they publish beforehand with a legal remedy for those they don't afford this consideration to.
I don't see an issue.
You talk about presumption of innocence. The 'defamer' is NOT presumed guilty. They are given the opportunity to justify their actions before a judgement is made, the key point being that they already distributed something in the first place.
(This opportunity to defend themselves is more than those guilty of defamation have afforded their victims; often to permanent damage of their victim's reputation.)
If the 'defamer' does not assume the responsibility to show they possessed evidence to back up whatever they distribute we are surely destined to universal trial and conviction by the media.
Defamation is often done 'invisibly', and it is particularly important then that the onus is on the defamer to prove they have justification for their actions, to discourage whispering campaigns.
Otherwise we are all subject to whispering campaigns, and there is nothing we can do about it if we are lucky enough to find out.
Yeah, a bleedin' broken record!
Rearrange into a well known phrase or saying:
"hunt" "witch".
You can be outraged for me if you like......
Yet so far I have been called a libeller, a hypocrite, shallow, squirming, no substance and worse...far far worse.
Is this a record?
Nah, clearly not good enough for me to be outraged about. Now if all of that had been said about you without you actually posting to the thread then we would be on the money!
:lol:
Boozeburglar
29-Mar-10, 23:35
Rearrange into a well known phrase or saying:
"hunt" "witch".
I was only making a joke.
Don't take it so hard.
;)
crikey, I don't look at the posts for a couple of days, then this!
I'm off for a lie down, all this excitement is making me breathless...
George Brims
30-Mar-10, 00:03
I don't know the legal details and whether the org could have trouble on its hands. But I do know this. The level of debate will improve with that man gone. Debating him was like stirring asphalt with a toothpick.
Niall Fernie
30-Mar-10, 00:06
I am closing this thread as it was not intended for discussion, an omission on my part when I created the thread.
I made the public statement to try and circumvent any musings on the reason for the ban.
The main reason this ban has come about is that the user was banned previously but was given the benefit of the doubt as the user initially was only posting in the music forum. However when the website that was connected with the user was found it was decided that before any of the unsavory topics were brought to Caithness.Org I would reapply the previous ban.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.