# Important: a note about the 'nonce' threads and naming living individuals



## editor (Oct 12, 2012)

I think I need to explain the difficulties that some of these posts are causing.

When you suggest, imply or infer that some living person is a nonce/kiddy-fiddler/keen indulger in illegal sexual acts/squirrel shafter it puts the site at serious risk.

Unless you can support this claim with credibly-sourced links with references to actual successful prosecutions (NOT just allegations or rumours), there's a chance I'll get a letter from a very expensive lawyer saying that the post is defamatory.

The letter will then include any one of the following demands:

(a) remove the post instantly
(b) remove the post instantly and publish a retraction and apology
(c) remove the post instantly and publish a retraction and post an apology on the front page of the site
(d) remove the post instantly and publish a retraction and post an apology on the front page of the site and pay all legal fees, which may run into thousands of pounds
(e) remove the post instantly and publish a retraction and post an apology on the front page of the site and pay all legal fees, which may run into thousands of pounds - as well as pay substantial damages based on the general widespread appeal and readership of the site

(I have received demands for all of the above over the years, btw)

It doesn't matter if you think it's 'harmless fun' or any possible offence is being 'taken out of context'.

All that matters is that if a hotshot lawyer thinks he can build a defamation case - no matter how far fetched it may seem to you - then there's a chance that they will.

And they'd probably win too because the defamation laws are so fucked up in the UK.

Please think about that before you post and understand that if mods do remove posts it's not because they're "spineless c*nts" or "censoring debate" - it's because we're doing our very best to keep the site open for all.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 12, 2012)

Thanks Ed.


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 12, 2012)

editor said:


> Really not the thread for witty antics.


I'd heartily recommend locking it, then! There's wnough open threads for the chat to continue elsewhere. 

Leave this open, and by 3am on Sat it'll be heading to the bin regardless.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 12, 2012)

Just a thought but another site have been taken down not for noncery allegations but still defamatory they were much smaller than here and didn't discuss the matter as robustly.
I think you know who I mean but I won't mention them by name.
That site now refer to the organisation with letters starring out the middle (a bit like the cunt threads on here) maybe an idea??


----------



## StoneRoad (Oct 12, 2012)

Thanks, ed, for making the point about the defamation risks of such posts to the  forum .....


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 12, 2012)

I'd like to add that we find it incredibly frustrating that the law allows for this, and behind the scenes, we do ignore a lot of the legal threats we get when they're obviously entirely spurious (and, this being the internet, that's a fair-sized category). Defamation of a named (or even just clearly indicated) rich individual is a different matter though.


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2012)

One of the heaviest threats I ever received was over a piece I wrote about a building. The piece was well researched and contained links to credible articles from international publishers. The multi millionaire previous owner decided he wanted to airbrush out his rather dubious involvement with the building. 

Despite my absolute confidence that what I'd written was completely correct, I had to take the article down and post a grovelling apology because there was no way I could take on this lot.

Such are the libel laws of the land. It's not about the truth. It's about how much money you've got.


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> I'd heartily recommend locking it, then! There's wnough open threads for the chat to continue elsewhere.
> 
> Leave this open, and by 3am on Sat it'll be heading to the bin regardless.


This thread will stay but any twatty posts may have to be removed.


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> That site now refer to the organisation with letters starring out the middle (a bit like the cunt threads on here) maybe an idea??


That won't protect them under the law if sufficient people can work out who they're referring to.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 12, 2012)

I also would add to what editor and fridge magnet have already said is that it can be wearing dealing with day-to-day stuff (checking registrations, cleaning up the mess that spammers leave, moving threads etc etc) but sometimes the kind of abuse we get for modding decisions is really just not on. If someone spoke to a shopworker, nurse, bus driver or whatever in the aggressive way that is sometimes hurled in our direction, most people here would be appalled. Just because we aren't paid for doing this, it doesn't mean our work is of no value and that it's OK to insult us as if we are valueless.

I've been on a forum where posters get banned for mild swearing and where the moderators delete and ban for the tiniest thing. I think this is a tolerant board and most posters here are lovely. However some posters are conspicuously and astonishingly selfish with somewhat shoddy character traits revealed as a result.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 12, 2012)

editor said:


> That won't protect them under the law if sufficient people can work out who they're referring to.


Maybe that's why that board is all but dead now and gone to other parts of internet.
Odd thing is the litigants are widely slagged off here but the offending post on there was oddly obscure and buried quite well
Undoubtedly this site gets more traffic.


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Maybe that's why that board is all but dead now and gone to other parts of internet.
> Odd thing is the litigants are widely slagged off here but the offending post on there was oddly obscure and buried quite well
> Undoubtedly this site gets more traffic.


I've had all sorts of unexpected legal threats from long dormant posts. Sometimes it's really hard to work out what on earth they're complaining about.


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2012)

toblerone3 said:


> lighten up.


This is an example of the sort of post I'll be deleting later. (see post #8 for clarification)


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 12, 2012)

editor said:


> I've had all sorts of unexpected legal threats of long dormant posts. Sometimes it's really hard to work out what on earth they're complaining about.


I think it's sometimes a weird meld of vanity googling and litigiousness. Or just trying it on.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 12, 2012)

Either way, this site does not have the time or money to get entangled legally.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 12, 2012)

Back in the 1980's M*** *******e used to 'bang the drum', at the time we thought there was nothing we could do, but in these 'post Phil Collins days' , we now know that we should have said 'something'


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 12, 2012)

editor said:


> When you suggest, imply or infer that some living person is a nonce/kiddy-fiddler/keen indulger in illegal sexual acts/squirrel shafter it puts the site at serious risk.
> 
> Unless you can support this claim with credibly-sourced links with references to actual successful prosecutions (NOT just allegations or rumours), there's a chance I'll get a letter from a very expensive lawyer saying that the post is defamatory.


 
Are we still allowed to suggest, imply, or infer that living people were guilty of criminal wrongdoing in things like the Hillsborough cover-up or the Iraq war?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 12, 2012)

Yes, cos they are facts, with proof in the public domain.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 12, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes, cos they are facts, with proof in the public domain.


 
Got any "credibly-sourced links with references to actual successful prosecutions?"


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2012)

Yossarian said:


> Are we still allowed to suggest, imply, or infer that living people were guilty of criminal wrongdoing in things like the Hillsborough cover-up or the Iraq war?


I think I've laid out the framework of how we are compelled to stay within the law fairly comprehensively, and I'm sure you're sensible enough to work out what is acceptable.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 13, 2012)

> To summarise, in my view a comment which falls within the objective limits of *the defence of fair comment can lose its immunity only by proof that the defendant did not genuinely hold the view he expressed. Honesty of belief is the touchstone.* Actuation by spite, animosity, intent to injure, intent to arouse controversy or other motivation, whatever it may be, even if it is the dominant or sole motive, does not of itself defeat the defence.


Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead NPJ said in Albert Cheng v Tse Wai Chun (2000) 3 HKCFAR 339 at p 360I to 361D



> The comment must be upon ‘facts truly stated’ [29] A commentator must not deliberately distort the true situation.


Branson v Bower [2002] QB 737, at p 748, para 29, Judge Eady

I understand where you're coming from here, but please be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater here, as there have been other posts recently from a poster on here specifically naming a celebrity relating to something she had directly experienced, which then led to others finding that thread and relating similar experiences about the same celebrity.

Something does not have to have been proven in court to be judged as being fair comment, it just needs to be true, or for the person making the statement to have reasonably believed it to have been true (and presumably for the site involved to also have reasonably believed it to be true).

Bottom line here, is that if such allegations are true, then the person named is unlikely to actually take court action as it would involve them perjuring themselves, and risking criminal prosecution if they failed to convince the court they hadn't done what they'd been accused of. If only a small percentage of rapes and sexual assaults ends up in criminal prosecution, then having that as the bar on when someone's allowed to comment, means that only a tiny percentage of those who know from first or second hand experience about dodgy goings on from famous people would be able to post anything about this.... essentially perpetuating the situation that enabled Saville to get away with his activities for an entire lifetime.

That said, there's probably been a fair few comments that wouldn't stand up to the fair comment defence as well, so there obviously is the question of where to set the bar, but IMO only allowing comments based on actual guilty verdicts is setting the bar too high (though I'd certainly support you if you wanted to temporarily remove a post while checking the supporting evidence with the poster etc).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 13, 2012)

The thing is that _any_ court action kills the site. We can't do court action. They know that. We don't have the money to go there in the first place. It doesn't matter if we'd win.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 13, 2012)

editor said:


> And they'd probably win too because the defamation laws are so fucked up in the UK.


 
If an allegation is made that a pubic figure is engaging in these acts, and the allegation is without foundation in fact, then they_ should_ win.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 13, 2012)

> Defence:
> To establish a defence of “Innocent dissemination” under the Defamation Act 1996 a service provider will need to show that:
> (a) it is not the author, editor or publisher of the statement;
> (b) it took reasonable care in relation to its publication; and
> ...


This looks to be a reasonable legal guide into this stuff specifically for forum owners and similar

you may of course have already read it, but in case you haven't...


----------



## free spirit (Oct 13, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The thing is that _any_ court action kills the site. We can't do court action. They know that. We don't have the money to go there in the first place. It doesn't matter if we'd win.


 
What if the site were able to set up a legal defence fund, or a list of posters who pledge to support the site financially if legal action were necessary to defend it from malicious prosecution in a situation like this?

At a time when the entire country is kicking off about how someone this famous could have got away with a trail of abuse over a period of decades, it just seems wrong for the response to be to batten down the hatches and prevent all further speculation or comments about anyone else who anyone knows or suspects to have been involved in similar situations.

This is the sort of stuff the internet is supposed to be able to stop people being able to keep covered up, but it seems the reverse is true, and those with the clout to get lawyered up can carry on with inpunity as long as they never get successfully prosecuted.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 13, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If an allegation is made that a pubic figure is engaging in these acts, and the allegation is without foundation in fact, then they_ should_ win.


true, but what if the allegation is based on fact, but just hasn't actually resulted in a successful prosecution - as is the case with Jimmy Saville.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 13, 2012)

free spirit said:


> true, but what if the allegation is based on fact, but just hasn't actually resulted in a successful prosecution - as is the case with Jimmy Saville.


 
Jimmy Savile is dead.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 13, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Jimmy Savile is dead.


Should we have to wait until people are dead before their victims, or others who're directly aware of the situation are allowed to speak out publicly in the absense of a successful prosecution?

That would actually seem to be what was actually the situation with Jimmy Saville, but surely the point now is to look at ways to ensure that's not the case in the future, and similar situations can't just be kept brushed under the carpet for fear of legal action by the rich and powerful.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 13, 2012)

free spirit said:


> What if the site were able to set up a legal defence fund, or a list of posters who pledge to support the site financially if legal action were necessary to defend it from malicious prosecution in a situation like this?
> 
> At a time when the entire country is kicking off about how someone this famous could have got away with a trail of abuse over a period of decades, it just seems wrong for the response to be to batten down the hatches and prevent all further speculation or comments about anyone else who anyone knows or suspects to have been involved in similar situations.
> 
> This is the sort of stuff the internet is supposed to be able to stop people being able to keep covered up, but it seems the reverse is true, and those with the clout to get lawyered up can carry on with inpunity as long as they never get successfully prosecuted.


It would take a vast amount of user contribution to put together a legal team which could take care of court cases independently - and the ed is the person who'd be targeted here.

Seriously, I am exceptionally unhappy with all of this. I was a teenage cyberpunk (ahem), I'm an EFF member, all that sort of thing, and I really really don't want the current setup to be true, where people with money can just bully sites to take shit down, and there is no recourse via the courts because that would take the site owners out of work for lengths of time that they can't afford either monetarily or in terms of stress and disruption - and even if they fight they'll likely lose regardless of the strength of the case. But when it comes to identifiable targets like Urban, it _is_ true; the chilling effects work.

There are lots of ways of getting potentially "defamatory" information out via other networks which are harder to track and interfere with. I and others here are certainly very happy to talk about those. There is also a very large number of things that a site like Urban can and does do. It's not like this is crippling. It's just that there are certain channels that are best for certain information.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 13, 2012)

I've sent you a pm.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 13, 2012)

fwiw, and this is conjecture, but I'm of the opinion that this crap about people in authority at multiple institutions all individually deciding to brush accusations against Jimmy Saville under the carpet just because he might pull the plug on his charity fund raising / stop being a volunteer porter etc to be a fairly obvious smokescreen.

The only way I can see that Saville would have had the clout to get these allegations quashed so easily for so long would be if he actually had fairly solid incriminating evidence / information about the activities of others higher up in these organisations.

In which case, Saville could easily just be the high profile tip of a very big iceberg, which in turn means that it's important that there are outlets available for people to openly post their experiences / information they might have against others to get it into the public domain.

I hope posting this genuinely held opinion doesn't flout these rules, and no I don't have any specific information myself.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 13, 2012)

free spirit said:


> Should we have to wait until people are dead before their victims, or others who're directly aware of the situation are allowed to speak out publicly in the absense of a successful prosecution?
> 
> That would actually seem to be what was actually the situation with Jimmy Saville, but surely the point now is to look at ways to ensure that's not the case in the future, and similar situations can't just be kept brushed under the carpet for fear of legal action by the rich and powerful.


 
We're talking about threats of legal action made in cases of alleged defamation. If the public figure is dead, there can be no successful action for defamation. If the public figure is alive, there can be a successful action - even if the allegations were ultimately proven true, but at the time of the publication, insufficient proof existed.

The law is quite reasonable in this regard, imo: people shouldn't go around making heinous accusations unless there is solid proof to back the accusations up. Rumor-spreading is amenable to court action, as it should be.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 13, 2012)

i think some are missing the point. its not about not wanting to allow people to name and shame. its about rich people having the ability to shut the site down using injunctions etc that the site doesnt have the means to fight - even if the allegation is 100% true. it doesnt matter if the person doing the accusing has photgraphc evidence and a letter from the guys/gals mum saying they are a wrongun, until they have been done for it its still only an allegation. during the period between allegation and the daily mail headlines they can use expensive lawyers to shut urban down. the likes of the press can fight the injunctions etc but urban cant.

if the ed gets a takedown notice and goes "fuck you - the guy was a kiddie fiddler" all that will happen is the host will take the site down as the lawyer adds them to the distribution list for a legal rogering.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 13, 2012)

...and just make it clear, Biggus Dickus has been banned for two weeks for posting an allegation on a living celeb. His post has been deleted. I'm fed up to the back teeth of his juvenile boundary pushing. Twat.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 13, 2012)

i guess an alteranitve option would be that you are allowed to make an allegation provided you lob a couple of hundred grand into the server fund. you get it back (less deductions for the odd curry or two) once a conviction is obtained


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 13, 2012)

A couple of hundred grand wouldn't get one very far if one was determined to persist with an allegation against a latter-day Maxwell.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 13, 2012)

Yeah, I think a minimum of £650,000


----------



## Pingu (Oct 13, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Yeah, I think a minimum of £650,000


per post...


----------



## Pingu (Oct 13, 2012)

if this idea takes off btw i had better get an invite to the first curry


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 13, 2012)

Unfortunately it would involve personal responsibility. Something that clearly isn't present when posters put editor, the mods and this whole site in the legal firing line for the lols


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 13, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If the public figure is alive, there can be a successful action - even if the allegations were ultimately proven true, but at the time of the publication, insufficient proof existed.


 
It is worth noting that the 'Daily Mirror' was successfully sued for libel in the late 50s by Liberace for hinting that the latter might possibly not be heterosexual.  (more here)


----------



## stuff_it (Oct 13, 2012)

firky said:


> Centrepoint is fugly, like.


Shhh!


----------



## free spirit (Oct 14, 2012)

I take back my previous posts.

I've just been through all the Savile threads, and it's clear from them that Urban has zero interest in being any sort of a safe space for people to post up relevant personal experiences or experiences of others they're aware of regardless of the legal situation.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Oct 14, 2012)

free spirit said:


> I take back my previous posts.
> 
> I've just been through all the Savile threads, and it's clear from them that Urban has zero interest in being any sort of a safe space for people to post up relevant personal experiences or experiences of others they're aware of regardless of the legal situation.


Surely the local police station should be where such things should be reported. We now find out that there may have been credible witnesses to alleged behavior at the BBC. why are these people not being locked up for aiding and abetting? Rather like the US football coach. How can people witness rape of children and not report it to the proper authorities?


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Oct 14, 2012)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Surely the local police station should be where such things should be reported. We now find out that there may have been credible witnesses to alleged behavior at the BBC. why are these people not being locked up for aiding and abetting? Rather like the US football coach. How can people witness rape of children and not report it to the proper authorities?


According to a few reports those that did report it were told to keep quiet, pretty fucking disgusting affair all round really, I wonder if those that decided to cover it up for whatever reason can be done for non assistance to persons in danger or some other law.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 14, 2012)

Didn't it take the London Greenpeace people over a decade to win the McLibel trial? Could this site, and the communities around it, survive being offline for a decade? Or even a year?


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2012)

They only won a few points in the McLibel trial, and the two people concerned had just about given up their entire lives to fight it. The libel laws in Britain favour the rich and powerful and my advice is to always cave in unless you really REALLY think the matter is important enough to risk everything on.

I fucking hate the fact that this is the way things have to be, but it's better to survive and be a bit bruised than be crushed by some rich fucker.


----------



## RubyToogood (Oct 15, 2012)

free spirit said:


> I take back my previous posts.
> 
> I've just been through all the Savile threads, and it's clear from them that Urban has zero interest in being any sort of a safe space for people to post up relevant personal experiences or experiences of others they're aware of regardless of the legal situation.


It's not a safe space. It's the internet. Any attempt to represent it as a safe space would give a misleading impression.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 15, 2012)

free spirit said:


> What if the site were able to set up a legal defence fund, or a list of posters who pledge to support the site financially if legal action were necessary to defend it from malicious prosecution in a situation like this?
> 
> At a time when the entire country is kicking off about how someone this famous could have got away with a trail of abuse over a period of decades, it just seems wrong for the response to be to batten down the hatches and prevent all further speculation or comments about anyone else who anyone knows or suspects to have been involved in similar situations.
> 
> This is the sort of stuff the internet is supposed to be able to stop people being able to keep covered up, but it seems the reverse is true, and those with the clout to get lawyered up can carry on with inpunity as long as they never get successfully prosecuted.


 
Have you any idea how much money would be involved? Besides, were a defence fund to be set up, the knowledge that there was money, could well spur on a potential litigant.


----------



## longdog (Oct 17, 2012)

The sums don't even come close to adding up.

Even being conservative you're probably not going to get much change out of £100,000 just for the legal fees in a libel case.

How many regular posters are there on here in total? 100? Lets call it 200 for the sake of argument. How many of those have £500 to spare to bail out a website because somebody's not capable of exercising a little bit of common sense?


----------



## Meltingpot (Oct 18, 2012)

longdog said:


> The sums don't even come close to adding up.
> 
> Even being conservative you're probably not going to get much change out of £100,000 just for the legal fees in a libel case.
> 
> How many regular posters are there on here in total? 100? Lets call it 200 for the sake of argument. How many of those have £500 to spare to bail out a website because somebody's not capable of exercising a little bit of common sense?


 
Point taken, but I've seen about 420 one (admittedly unusual) lunchtime.


----------



## Meltingpot (Oct 18, 2012)

The annoying thing is that the law's easily fixed in this regard; all you have to do is make the penalty for a dishonest libel suit - one designed to shut someone up who's in fact telling the truth about you - truly prohibitive.

If a journalist is telling the truth about a company, for example, and the company tries to launch a libel suit to shut the journalist up, he should be able to sue the company for the shirts off their backs.

Bankrupt a few, and the others will soon start to sit up and take notice.

There's another side to this; newspapers in the UK are free to print scurrilous and even blatantly false stories about people with impunity, knowing that most people don't have deep enough pockets and perhaps sufficient stamina and tenacity to take them on and win in the libel courts.

There's a solution to this too; if a newspaper publishes a defamatory story about an individual, and that story is proven wrong, the paper should publish a retraction and apology for that story as prominent in the paper as the original story was. If the original story was a front page and heading, so should the retraction and apology be.

Both of these would work but they'd be inconvenient for those in power, which is why they aren't being implemented at the moment.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 18, 2012)

longdog said:


> The sums don't even come close to adding up.
> 
> Even being conservative you're probably not going to get much change out of £100,000 just for the legal fees in a libel case.
> 
> How many regular posters are there on here in total? 100? Lets call it 200 for the sake of argument. How many of those have £500 to spare to bail out a website because somebody's not capable of exercising a little bit of common sense?


 
Interesting question. Perhaps calls for a poll.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 19, 2012)

£100,000?  Maybe for the preliminary arguments.  Reckon on the best part of a million, to be safe.  For one libel case.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 20, 2012)

Agree fully with Eds OP. We all use urban as a free resource and we shouldn't do things that risk it's existence or cause needlless shit for mods. It's about posting as a grown up, not dicking about (well, not dicking about in ways that fuck the site up, I'll defend to the death my right to _dick about_....). In fact I'd guess most of the posts that could have caused problems were in the dicking about category, 'I be _he's_ a nonce' type stuff. Can't promise to have seen all the threads, but the allegations/testimonies of _actual_ abuse seemed to have been about Savile and Nutkins, who are beyond legal action.  So yeah, I agree absolutley, don't do things that endanger the site just for fun (inc my own post about xxxxxxx  ) .

There's a _however_ though, perhaps an obvious one: adopting what you do and say in response to threats is how power works and how genuine allegations, not the dicking about variety, are closed down.  In fact those threats, implied or actual, kept Savile afloat for the last few decades.  There's also Freespirit's point about urban needing to be a place where people can share things that have happened to them (and again, as far as I can tell, that only happened in relation to now deceased nonces).  None of that is rowing back from what I said in the first para.  If I was Ed I'd be constantly shitting myself about these legal challenges, pretty much as any other board mod/owner would.  In terms of campaigning and risking the board I'd also want to make sure I didn't get into a legal case caused by dicking about posts, leaving the powder dry for something substantial, for example real and plausible accusations - and even then it would be difficult.  So, what, I'm still agreeing with the OP and not making any digs about having a defensive mindset on this stuff.  It's just a thought that this is ultimately how power works.


----------



## laptop (Oct 20, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> If a journalist is telling the truth about a company, for example, and the company tries to launch a libel suit to shut the journalist up, she should be able to sue the company for the shirts off their backs.
> 
> Bankrupt a few, and the others will soon start to sit up and take notice.


 
I reckon it'd have to be _personal_ penalties. Send a few directors to jail...

There is a downside. Consider:

Company A sues journalist B for libel
The case fails - _apparently_ decisively
Journalist B sues company A for malicious libel action
That case fails too (is it heard in front of a jury? Are there three jurors who just hate all journalists more than they hate drugs company execs?)
The journalist (or newspaper) is now a lot poorer, and their reputation is rather damaged...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 20, 2012)

Wilf said:


> We all use urban as a free resource


 
Two-way street.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 20, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Two-way street.


 Yeah, I suppose it is (if I've got your meaning right).  Just think it's fair enough for Ed to say don't cause hassle just for the sake of it, my 'dicking about' point.  Same time, if we are talking about something serious and genuine, I'd like to think urban was willing to take some risks - even if that's easy to say and it wouldn't me taking those risks.


----------



## editor (Nov 1, 2012)

Bumped because it's starting again.

Please DO NOT start throwing around names just because you think they may 'look like a nonce' or whatever. If you do, threads will have to disappear and you may find yourself banned.


----------



## tommers (Nov 1, 2012)

Sorry Ed.  It was a gag (I have no reason at all to think it's true), but I can see why it might cause you problems.

Soz.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 4, 2012)

laptop said:


> I reckon it'd have to be _personal_ penalties. Send a few directors to jail....


 

That could be done as well, particularly if there's a strong public interest defence, e.g. the journalist was exposing corruption or covering up of pollution for example.



laptop said:


> There is a downside. Consider:
> 
> Company A sues journalist B for libel
> The case fails - _apparently_ decisively
> ...


 
That's a fair point. I was assuming the subsequent case would succeed (I wasn't really thinking about it at all tbh).


----------



## Waiheke.Island (Nov 4, 2012)

Interesting query I guess you could call it. If someone like myself posting from another country throw shit and name call, will they still hold your site accountable ?
Not that I intend to do it, just interested.


----------



## Gromit (Nov 4, 2012)

Waiheke.Island said:


> Interesting query I guess you could call it. If someone like myself posting from another country throw shit and name call, will they still hold your site accountable ?
> Not that I intend to do it, just interested.



If the site doesn't make reasonable attempts to identify and remove such material as soon as is reasonably practicable then a case can be made against them in a UK court no matter the origin / location of the poster.

...Is the impression i get from the original post.


----------



## gosub (Nov 4, 2012)

because all documentation for hosting and everything is UK based.  Editor is effectively a UK publisher of our words


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2012)

Waiheke.Island said:


> Interesting query I guess you could call it. If someone like myself posting from another country throw shit and name call, will they still hold your site accountable ?
> Not that I intend to do it, just interested.


We're still technically accountable, wherever the geographical source of the libel.


----------



## Waiheke.Island (Nov 5, 2012)

Thats a bit rough. In a New Zealand website message board you can tell someone or call someone whatever you like. And they do.
Its a shame they have gone OTT over there. It must spoil it for you guys.


----------



## gabi (Nov 5, 2012)

Waiheke.Island said:


> Thats a bit rough. In a New Zealand website message board you can tell someone or call someone whatever you like. And they do.
> Its a shame they have gone OTT over there. It must spoil it for you guys.


 
That's completely and utterly untrue. Our libel laws are based on the UK's.


----------



## Waiheke.Island (Nov 5, 2012)

gabi said:


> That's completely and utterly untrue. Our libel laws are based on the UK's.


You would be laughed out of court here for some of the rubbish the Poms are getting to court. Are you a Kiwi living here ?
NZ I mean.


----------



## gabi (Nov 5, 2012)

No, I'm a kiwi living in the UK.



> In New Zealand it is an offence under section 123 the Crimes Act 1961 to publish any blasphemous libel. The maximum punishment is one year imprisonment. No one can be prosecuted without the consent of the Attorney General.


 
Like most of our laws, the libel laws are rooted in british legislation.


----------



## Waiheke.Island (Nov 5, 2012)

gabi said:


> No, I'm a kiwi living in the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> Like most of our laws, the libel laws are rooted in british legislation.


How long since you lived in New Zealand ?


----------



## gabi (Nov 5, 2012)

I don't know what about the first sentence is confusing


----------



## Waiheke.Island (Nov 5, 2012)

When was the last time you were here ?


----------



## gabi (Nov 5, 2012)

You edited your post I see.

14 years anyway, in answer to your amended question.


----------



## gabi (Nov 5, 2012)

And you've edited it again. Nuts.

4 months in answer to your re-edited post.


----------



## Waiheke.Island (Nov 5, 2012)

Honestly Gabi i think you might be out of touch. Check the last time people were convicted here on such charges.


----------



## Waiheke.Island (Nov 5, 2012)

Realistic charges.


----------



## gabi (Nov 5, 2012)

Waiheke.Island said:


> Honestly Gabi i think you might be out of touch. Check the last time people were convicted here on such charges.


 
Quoting you this time as you seem to have a habit of editing.

Not many libel cases make it to court in the UK either. Usually a threatening letter sorts out the problem. Just like in NZ. Most people can't be arsed/can't afford to go to court.

http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=433


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2012)

*Thread moved to UK politics forum.  Poster who choose to ignore this will be banned.


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2012)

Please note:


> *Lord McAlpine raises prospect of legal action over false abuse allegations*
> 
> 
> The BBC and several dozen Twitter users face the prospect of legal action after Lord McAlpine indicated that he could sue for libel over what he described as "wholly false and seriously defamatory" reports linking him to north Wales child abuse allegations.
> ...


Legal position: 


> Niri Shan, head of media law at London solicitors' firm Taylor Wessing, warned that "ignorance is no defence" for Twitter users and that they could easily find themselves in the high court if McAlpine chooses to take action.
> 
> "If you publish to a third party that someone is a paedophile or a suspected paedophile then you are liable to a defamation claim," he said. "They're just as responsible as a newspaper or broadcasters, and just as liable."
> 
> Individual Twitter users could even face legal action if McAlpine sues the BBC, because the corporation could argue that it is being sued as a result of what other people have published.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 9, 2012)

Worth underlining that from the POV of protecting the site to the max it is unwise to even allude too much to specific..."a former tory leader" for example (NOT someone I have in mind as an alledged abuser), when alluding to something in the last 20 years can only mean a few people. 

Also, 3rd party stuff "X said Y did Z" is a no-no. 

I've done both of these with fairly good intent elsewhere online and retracted or been deleted. 

It's not as if we KNOW these people anyway, it's all a blur really and for the police to sort out if they're not inept or obstructed for some reason.

The important things, as I keep saying, are often far more in the themes and patterns.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20269114


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2012)

This is worth reading just in case anyone thinks it's OK to repeat something 'because it's all over Twitter."



> When individuals post material online, they act as publishers and their publications are subject to the same laws as those of professional publishers, such as newspapers.
> 
> This includes publications made by way of a tweet. A retweet also amounts to a further publication.
> The person who retweets that material will be responsible for the content of that retweet.
> ...


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2012)

Just  to remind people: frivolous off-topic posts will be removed from this thread.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 16, 2012)

You might want to sticky this for a little while.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2012)

It's been stickied for some time. Our policy about posting up names here remains the same: we first remove and warn and then we remove and ban.


----------



## Corax (Nov 16, 2012)

I don't really understand why anyone can genuinely fail to understand this, or have any problem with it.  It doesn't restrict 'free speech' or 'outing' people in the slightest.

If you have information that someone's a nonce, you can very easily start a free blog with that info on it.  You can even let people on here know you've started a blog on the subject, and are looking for comments.  Free speech prevails, but you're taking the risk personally rather than dumping it on editor.  Where's the problem?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 16, 2012)

Corax said:


> If you have information that someone's a nonce, you can very easily start a free blog with that info on it.


Or better still, take that information to the Police


----------



## Corax (Nov 16, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Or better still, take that information to the Police


Well yes.  But that doesn't always result in the response that you or I may expect...


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Nov 18, 2012)

Sorry guys... you're talking with your collective dicks hanging out!

I've faced similar shit on my boards and the only thing you can be 'forced' to do, is take down the 'offending' post, and unless you refuse to take it down when asked to do so, you can't be held responsible for the 'offending' post, and implying that you can be is simply scaremongering!

That's all...


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 18, 2012)

editor said:


> It's been stickied for some time. Our policy about posting up names here remains the same: we first remove and warn and then we remove and execute the poster.


 
Jesus Christ. 

Well...harsh but fair.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 18, 2012)

You are talking bollocks.

eta: to internet legal expert "Dr_Herbz"


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 18, 2012)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Sorry guys... you're talking with your collective dicks hanging out!


You are talking with your collective brain cells hanging out. All three of them.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 18, 2012)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I've faced similar shit on my boards and the only thing you can be 'forced' to do, is take down the 'offending' post, and unless you refuse to take it down when asked to do so, you can't be held responsible for the 'offending' post, and implying that you can be is simply scaremongering!


Actually why don't you fuck off back to your little board, start libelling extremely rich and powerful people and wait for the writs to roll in?


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2012)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Sorry guys... you're talking with your collective dicks hanging out!
> 
> I've faced similar shit on my boards and the only thing you can be 'forced' to do, is take down the 'offending' post, and unless you refuse to take it down when asked to do so, you can't be held responsible for the 'offending' post, and implying that you can be is simply scaremongering!
> 
> That's all...


How many people read your boards?


----------



## Elvis Parsley (Nov 18, 2012)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Sorry guys... you're talking with your collective dicks hanging out!
> 
> I've faced similar shit on my boards and the only thing you can be 'forced' to do, is take down the 'offending' post, and unless you refuse to take it down when asked to do so, you can't be held responsible for the 'offending' post, and implying that you can be is simply scaremongering!
> 
> That's all...


christ 

well at least you're consistent, every time you come here you prove yourself to be, without doubt, the stupidest poster on Urban75

you should get a medal or something


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 18, 2012)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Sorry guys... you're talking with your collective dicks hanging out!
> 
> I've faced similar shit on my boards and the only thing you can be 'forced' to do, is take down the 'offending' post, and unless you refuse to take it down when asked to do so, you can't be held responsible for the 'offending' post, and implying that you can be is simply scaremongering!
> 
> That's all...


Carerwatch got taken down because someone said something very non outrageous about atos.
They're not the only ones to get threatened with lawyers.


----------



## elbows (Nov 18, 2012)

I've been looking at the defamation bill 2012-2013 that is currently going through the upper house. If it goes through in its current form then it clarifies a few things in regards to website operators, makes clear a particular defence they can use, but this wont substantially change the position of sites like u75 on its own.

I wont bore on about the detail much at this stage, but it seems to me that they have set it up in a manner that will encourage website operators to provide information to the claimant which they will be able to use to attempt to discover the identity of the offending poster. It wont stop website operators from receiving threats, or having to take action to protect themselves.

Section 5 of this for anyone thats interested. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2012-2013/0041/20130041.pdf


----------



## Corax (Nov 18, 2012)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Sorry guys... you're talking with your collective dicks hanging out!
> 
> I've faced similar shit on my boards and the only thing you can be 'forced' to do, is take down the 'offending' post, and unless you refuse to take it down when asked to do so, you can't be held responsible for the 'offending' post, and implying that you can be is simply scaremongering!
> 
> That's all...


What's the address of your boards?  We can all go and test your theory!


----------



## Metal Malcolm (Nov 29, 2012)

It's all over twitter in rumour form, but no out and out confirmation as far as I can see. The only things i've seen have been suggestions that an elderly gentleman is being interviewed, and as someone else has just stated: "The nature of a case like Savile is that many potential witnesses will also be famous. Being interviewed does not imply guilt."

In other words, let's not.


----------



## gabi (Nov 29, 2012)

the media's obviously trying to avoid another lord mcalpine


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2012)

This isn't the thread to speculate about new arrests so I'll be deleting them to stop this important thread being dragged off topic.

Please start a new thread, but, of course, please bear in mind the legal guidelines described above when doing do.

Thanks.


----------



## gabi (Nov 29, 2012)

Er, surely you'd delete a new thread naming this individual?


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2012)

gabi said:


> Er, surely you'd delete a new thread naming this individual?


I said: "Please start a new thread, but, of course, *please bear in mind the legal guidelines described above when doing do*."


----------



## gabi (Nov 29, 2012)

Right.

Thank god for twitter. I wonder how long that has until it has its nuts chopped off though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 29, 2012)

awww, that was a brilliant joke and it didn't name anyone or accuse anyone of anything


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Jimmy Savile is dead.


 
and not before time


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 3, 2012)

Are threads about Jimmy Savile still being deleted? It was a big issue last time I was here.


----------



## editor (Dec 6, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Are threads about Jimmy Savile still being deleted? It was a big issue last time I was here.


As far as I know, no Savile threads have been deleted.


----------



## gabi (Dec 6, 2012)

The BBC finally mentioned that another man in his 80s was arrested under caution last week. Wonder why they why don't report that fully but Cliffords name is all over mainstream media?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2012)

Clifford was arrested, the other one wasn't - he was interviewed under caution. Maybe that's something to do with it. All the others arrested have been named.


----------



## laptop (Dec 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Clifford was arrested, the other one wasn't - he was interviewed under caution. Maybe that's something to do with it. All the others arrested have been named.


 
I suspect that's it.

If people turn it around a bit - consider the case of someone who's been arrested in connection of an action that you approve of but the state doesn't - it's a _really, really good idea_ for it to be OK to report the name of an arrested person.

It's also possible that there's been a court order forbidding the naming of the 80-year-old - which would be a rather good idea if, for example, doing so would prejudice further investigations...


----------



## gosub (Dec 7, 2012)

na not a good idea.

There is a massive gulf between being nicked and being proven to have done something wrong. Especially now google will leave it findable by anyone, anytime, forever.  Misses out 2 very important stages independant assesment(CPS) agreeing there is a case to answer (a realistic place to put the line),then a random sample of the public(jury) agreeing you did it


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2012)

Of course, all this must be balanced against the compelling legal argument that _privacy is for paedos_.


----------



## laptop (Dec 7, 2012)

gosub said:


> na not a good idea.
> 
> There is a massive gulf between being nicked and being proven to have done something wrong....


 
I'll spell it out. Please imagine that your best friend has been nicked and you're not allowed to demand her release by name.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 7, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Clifford was arrested, the other one wasn't - he was interviewed under caution. Maybe that's something to do with it. All the others arrested have been named.


 
Is that why then?  Theories about a super injunction being a possibility


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2012)

i think that's rubbish. I think it's because of the difference between arrest and interview under caution.


----------



## gosub (Dec 7, 2012)

laptop said:


> I'll spell it out. Please imagine that your best friend has been nicked and you're not allowed to demand her release by name.


 
I'll spell it out.All the times you get arrested and never charged coz (a)the dibble was being a twat (b)the dibble was told to clear an area  and deal with concequences later, all following you around for the rest of your natural life; hopefully dragged up at every interview so you can point out that as you weren't even charged, rather than thrown on the reject pile without it being raised....
Standing outside a police station shouting free Joe Bloggs is at most breach of the peacee, and I'm guessing  next time a good mate is arrested, it'll be a text not the media that tells me.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2012)

Clear now everyone?


----------



## laptop (Dec 7, 2012)

gosub said:


> All the times you get arrested and never charged coz (a)the dibble was being a twat (b)the dibble was told to clear an area and deal with concequences later, all following you around for the rest of your natural life...


 
So how are you going to deal with the consequences of the police being allowed to arrest (and hold) people anonymously?



> Standing outside a police station shouting free Joe Bloggs is at most breach of the peacee, and I'm guessing next time a good mate is arrested, it'll be a text not the media that tells me.


 
Rather a lot of trust there, that you'll get that text...


----------



## gosub (Dec 7, 2012)

most times I do, though mates only tend to get couple of arrests a year between us these days, and as we are getting older its for things they get charged with


We aren't talking anti terror 14 day shit here cos national security concerns would obviously demand a blackout , we are talking PACE based so max 36 hours. Being generous you are able to help your mate sort out better legal rep than he has. Still its 36 hours max, mcdonlds breakfasts aren't an amnesty level atrocity, I'd take that kafka period over giving ALL dibbles the ability to to blacken you name for evermore. You could up the unlawful arrest money by ten times it still aint going to cover the impact that could have on your life


----------



## protesticals (Jun 8, 2013)

The Guardian had a forum called Guardian User Talk. It had a great social section but the some posters thought it was acceptable to make nonce comments against a couple of other posters, against real names.

One even threatened legal action against the Guardian and the idiots actually taunted him to do so. He did, the Guardian settled (he claims for 15,000 pounds). GUT was shut down and the Guardian printed an apology.

That's the Guardian. A century+ old newspaper with a legal team and a fair wadge of cash. Anyone who risks a voluntary site should be banned immediately.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jun 22, 2013)

I am totally ashamed of my vile 'outing' here of someone. It was entirely unnecessary and unfounded, and a some people were taken in.

I feel like Sally Berkow without with fine and newspaper coverage.

What can I do?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2013)

I understand how disgusted and disturbed people were by what was confirmed about Jimmy Savile nearly a year ago. 

But there is something about the Cyril Smith case that is even more nauseating - not the scandal, but the lack of scandal.

Sexual abuse in the house of commons. MI fucking 5 involved in the cover up. Where is the endless press coverage that the Savile stuff got? 

Once again we see the establishment covering itself, CELEBRITY PAEDO matters. Establishment paedo is a big <YAWN> 

In this context, what is almost too shocking to compute is the distinct possibility that victims are little more than pawns - very useful for attacking the BBC or shifting salacious leering filth rags, far more awkward and necessary to subdue when genuine power is concerned.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2013)

protesticals said:


> The Guardian had a forum called Guardian User Talk. It had a great social section but the some posters thought it was acceptable to make nonce comments against a couple of other posters, against real names.
> 
> One even threatened legal action against the Guardian and the idiots actually taunted him to do so. He did, the Guardian settled (he claims for 15,000 pounds). GUT was shut down and the Guardian printed an apology.
> 
> That's the Guardian. A century+ old newspaper with a legal team and a fair wadge of cash. Anyone who risks a voluntary site should be banned immediately.



There's different accounts of that story, though I don't know which is true. 

Only fair to point out that much of that community and it's spirit lives on here

http://www.notthetalk.com


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 13, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There's different accounts of that story, though I don't know which is true.
> 
> Only fair to point out that much of that community and it's spirit lives on here
> 
> http://www.notthetalk.com


Wow, an anti-communist board. That's pretty relevant.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 13, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I understand how disgusted and disturbed people were by what was confirmed about Jimmy Savile nearly a year ago.
> 
> But there is something about the Cyril Smith case that is even more nauseating - not the scandal, but the lack of scandal.
> 
> ...


I don't see what relevance this has to a thread reminding people of the issues regarding naming living individuals who might sue Urban.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, an anti-communist board. That's pretty relevant.



anti-communist? 

I was just pointing out that the board referred to was reincarnated in lesser form. It's more a footnote.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't see what relevance this has to a thread reminding people of the issues regarding naming living individuals who might sue Urban.



Sorry, there is a more appropriate thread, I just forgot and didn't see it at the top of the list. I'm pretty fucking angry at the general shrugging of shoulders on the Smith scandal tbh and was kind of venting.


----------



## kenny g (Sep 20, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Sorry, there is a more appropriate thread, I just forgot and didn't see it at the top of the list. I'm pretty fucking angry at the general shrugging of shoulders on the Smith scandal tbh and was kind of venting.



I will never look at Lord Steel the same way again knowing how he defended  Cyril during his life.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2013)

kenny g said:


> I will never look at Lord Steel the same way again knowing how he defended  Cyril during his life.


how did you used to look at him?


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 20, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> I don't see what relevance this has to a thread reminding people of the issues regarding naming living individuals who might sue Urban.



The relevance is he's trolling; in case nobody has ever noticed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 27, 2013)

well, looks like the ex lead singer of Lost Prophets has admitted hes a predatory pedo.


----------



## 8den (Nov 27, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I understand how disgusted and disturbed people were by what was confirmed about Jimmy Savile nearly a year ago.
> 
> But there is something about the Cyril Smith case that is even more nauseating - not the scandal, but the lack of scandal.
> 
> ...




Oh fuck the fuck off


----------



## 8den (Nov 27, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> well, looks like the ex lead singer of Lost Prophets has admitted hes a predatory pedo.



Saw that on news night last night, man needs to be sent to a really nasty US federal prison dressed up like a fucking cheap tart.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 27, 2013)

8den said:


> Oh fuck the fuck off



Yeah, appalling isn't it, people being repulsed by wanton establishment cover-ups of child abuse (this thread being more general to the topic than the Watkins case)


----------



## 8den (Nov 27, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Yeah, appalling isn't it, people being repulsed by wanton establishment cover-ups of child abuse (this thread being more general to the topic than the Watkins case)



You are such a fucking twat.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 27, 2013)

8den said:


> You are such a fucking twat.



Are all people who find establishment child abuse cover-ups fucking twats? Do take special classes to compose such comprehensive put-downs?

Would you care to address the issue that there are different levels of justice that seem to apply to celebrities as opposed to members of the political establishment, or is it more important to slag me off?


----------



## 8den (Nov 27, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Are all people who find establishment child abuse cover-ups fucking twats? Do take special classes to compose such comprehensive put-downs?
> 
> Would you care to address the issue that there are different levels of justice that seem to apply to celebrities as opposed to members of the political establishment, or is it more important to slag me off?



Have you ever found a conspiracy theory you don't want to fuck?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 27, 2013)

Yes I have.

The stuff about Smith and Savile, and their establishment links / protection is public knowledge. In other words : Known conspiracy fact. So perhaps there's not quite the need to be as sweary.

Yewtree has been massively more resourced and publicised than Fernbridge too. The crimes of savile far more under the microscope than the crimes at Bryn Estyn. 

Why not say "fuck" some more? It's sure to help us get to the bottom of this stuff.


----------



## 8den (Nov 27, 2013)

run along and start talking about 911


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 28, 2013)

8den said:


> run along and start talking about 911




Oh. You changed subjects. Why is that?


----------



## manny-p (Dec 20, 2013)

edit...


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 20, 2013)

Probably the worst thread you could have posted that on.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 10, 2014)

Christopher Jefferies speaks on the BBC.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 18, 2014)

Lord Mcalpine bites thedust. Wonder if new revelations will come out


----------

