I would be opposed to any kind of gossip "unsubstantiated" or not, on the board or not.Originally Posted by Rheghead
A chap has successfully claimed £10,000 damages against a person who was making up fictitious stories about him because of an arguement on a messageboard over the Iraq war.
What do orgers feel about spreading unsubstantiated gossip on this board?
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
I would be opposed to any kind of gossip "unsubstantiated" or not, on the board or not.Originally Posted by Rheghead
I can document every thing I say about issues, and express my opinon and question others that I can't... but, why do people bother spreading rumours about other people on messageboards?
Last edited by sjwahwah; 26-Mar-06 at 00:10.
Once gossip and rumours have been substantiated, they become facts,and as such, if used to counter arguments, are appropriate, imo. But where they are simply gossip and rumours, they should never be used......because unsubstantiated gossip and rumours are lies...........and as the poster referenced has found out, their use can...and should......lead to repercussions.
Has claimed or received, there is a difference, surely no Sheriff, HighCourt Judge would award such an amount only by so called hear- say, or a few lines typed by a man on a mission.Originally Posted by Rheghead
Very interesting, Rheghead. Could you provide more details, please?Originally Posted by Rheghead
Yvonne,
Mid Clyth.
why don't you just do a search for it you will probably find it.Originally Posted by Yvonne
Originally Posted by Yvonne
Exactly what I was asking in a round about way!
Following krieve's suggestion, I did a quick search. The followingOriginally Posted by Chillie
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/new...737444,00.html
is maybe what Rheghead was referring to.
lol so did i http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...096902,00.html not sure if this is it .
Yesterday, I was listening to the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 and he had an interviewee who successfully claimed a substantial amount of cash against a fellow messageboarder who conducted a reign of defamation against him. I just wondered if this case had altered the posting tactics of those present on e .org?
EDIT, Michael Smith, that was the case!!!
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
That,s not what I was asking, to claim or receive, as well you know are two different things.Originally Posted by Rheghead
If the Timesonline report is the incident which led to this thread then what was posted was not gossip.
The posts were unfounded defamatory allegations which were intended to be damaging to the persons reputation.
The belief that gossip is, of necessity, carried out with the intention of causing trouble or hurt is not necessarily well founded.
Can anybody put their hand on their heart and swear that they have never, ever gossiped? I certainly can't!
Animals I like, people I tolerate.
Of course we all are guilty of gossip, me as well, I just simply asked the question, was it a claim of damages or did he receive any damage payments if so then he would have to of been found guilty.
Gossip is to be expected.
I would never insult or be-little someone deliberately.
It would appear that the allegations were of the person having convictions for, and still being involved in serious criminal activities involving children which, it would appear, was completely false.
It would appear fairly obvious that the person making the allegations had deliberately invented them with the direct intention of seriously damaging the recipients reputation.
A request for a retraction and an apology, which would have stopped any action for damages, was met only with further abuse.
As a result of that, and the fact that the person making the allegations declined to attend court to defend the case, damages were awarded.
The allegations made were well beyond anything you could call gossip and were defamatory statements made with the sole intent of damaging the persons reputation beyond repair in order to affect his standing in society.
I don't think the term Character Assassination would be an over exaggeration.
Had the statements made been of a type more normal for local gossip and a retraction and apology given when requested the matter would have ended at that point.
I don't think there is anybody who posts on this board who is malicious enough to even attempt to make similar allegations nor do I think anybody would be stupid or pig-headed enough to allow things to get anywhere near that far.
I am certain, and I don't think anybody would disagree, that if anybody did try then the Moderators would make sure that as soon as the first such post appeared then it would be the last thing the person ever got the opportunity post on this board.
Animals I like, people I tolerate.
Note it says "successfully claimed".Originally Posted by Rheghead
I noted that but has he got the hard cash yetOriginally Posted by Ann
wow thats a lot o dosh, well i would feel that the persons repulation has been ruined really hasnt it. its alright for the other person spreading the lies all i will say is that they wouldnt like it if it was the other way round.
It sure is a lot of money - how about you start spreading rumours about me and then when you get fined I will split the 10K payment with you......;0)Originally Posted by the original ducky
In mitigation Mr Bruce de Wert said his client had been drinking and could remember little of the incident.
Bookmarks