Is this where we need to petition to have threads removed?

[frobisher]

Following on from the removal (without explanation or clarification) of the McCann thread, I wish to report that I find the Oscar Pistorious thread to be offensive and potentially libelous. I would advise PH to remove it immediately as you are potentially opening yourself up to legal action by leaving it in place.

• disclaimer: although my tongue is in my cheek, the point I am trying to make is a serious one. What can we and what can't we discuss?

[Zod]

Pistorious has been charged with murder. The McCanns have been charged with nothing.

I'm sure there are plenty of other forums where you can discuss the McCanns to your heart's content.

[TTwiggy]

Zod said:

Pistorious has been charged with murder. The McCanns have been charged with nothing.

I'm sure there are plenty of other forums where you can discuss the McCanns to your heart's content.

There's a 58 page (and counting) thread putting the boot into Jimmy Savile. What has he been charged with?

[frobisher]

Therefore all it takes is an edict from the mods rather than those that think they are sole arbiters of what is and isn't worth discussing, surely?

Oh and what if Pistorious is found not guilty? The fact he's charged doesn't make libelous comments legal!

[Zod]

TTwiggy said:

Zod said:

Pistorious has been charged with murder. The McCanns have been charged with nothing.

I'm sure there are plenty of other forums where you can discuss the McCanns to your heart's content.

There's a 58 page (and counting) thread putting the boot into Jimmy Savile. What has he been charged with?

He's a bit dead.

[S1_RS]

Their website so their rules. Seems fair to me.

[frobisher]

S1_RS said:

Their website so their rules. Seems fair to me.

So it would seem prudent to actually make a rule, right? Otherwise a new poster could decide to start a topic on the McCanns and we're right back where we were again.

So if it's ok to libel Pistorious as he's been charged, what about the Boris Johnson thread? I'd have thought he'd take a dim view on "He grabs headlines, he sucks up to Murdoch" as quoted in there. Seems libelous to me. Potentially anyway. Can't be too careful. Get it down PH, quick!

[anonymous-user]

Simple rules; don't defame people. Saying "allegedly", or adding smileys doesn't make a defamatory statement not defamatory. Comment, to be fair comment, must be clearly expressed as comment, and not allege facts that the maker of the statement can't prove. Thus, saying "I am only speculating but isn't it funny about the X, Y and Z" may be defamatory. Nudge nudge, hint hint may be defamatory, as Mrs Bercow has learned. The McCann thread was replete with actionable statements. It is presumably being edited, so as to reduce the risk of PH being sued, quite apart from considerations of common decency towards the McCann family and their friends.

There are also rules about contempt of court. A publication that causes a substantial risk of serious prejudice to a fair trial is a contempt. This does NOT mean that you can't discuss a case pending before any court. The so called "sub judice" rule doesn't really exist.

Before people go on about free speech, this site is run as a free service by PH, and PH, which is not a public body, is entitled to control what is said here. An example: I broke the rules the other day by putting up a Pope joke image that was sweary. PH took it down. Fair cop.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 14th February 15:02

[TTwiggy]

Zod said:

TTwiggy said:

Zod said:

Pistorious has been charged with murder. The McCanns have been charged with nothing.

I'm sure there are plenty of other forums where you can discuss the McCanns to your heart's content.

There's a 58 page (and counting) thread putting the boot into Jimmy Savile. What has he been charged with?

He's a bit dead.

Indeed, and my point was facetious, hence the smiley. I think that all some of us would like is some explanation of why a thread that ran for nearly three years with little or no complaint was suddenly pulled.

It's not my site, and I acknowledge that I have no right to decide what can or cannot be discussed, but maybe some clarification would be nice? It would also be interesting (though I doubt we'll see an answer) to know if some posters (who are not mods) have more 'sway' with the site than others, or if it's merely coincidence that complaints by them result in thread pulls.

I look forward to the closure of this thread in a matter of moments

[JustinP1]

From what I am aware, when the thread was taken down a few days ago it would be for 'cleansing'.

Today it seems that is has 'gone' according to the thread in website feedback. It would be good if PH have some explanation.

The reason is being, the Judge's verdict to the suing of the pensioner is due in about a weeks time, and I would suggest that it would be interesting when it is released.

If the thread really has 'gone', then it would be good for clarification on what subjects are 'banned' and the reason the thread was deleted - if indeed it has been.

Would we be allowed to discuss the Judge's verdict? Or is it that anything McCann related off limits?

[Piersman2]

S1_RS said:

Their website so their rules. Seems fair to me.

+1

And the McCanns thread was only going back over old stuff that had already been discussed throughout the whole thread, in minute detail!

[mattviatura]

Frobisher has a point.

The McCann thread was seemingly closed because a particular member didn't like people discussing the case. That's an unwelcome development.

I'm not bothered about the McCann thread but there are lots of others where people make posts I don't like, so I tend to stay away.

[unrepentant]

What a tedious waste of bandwith. If you don't like PH moderation you can go somewhere else and moan.

[rohrl]

If you think Boris could sue for the statement "He chases headlines, he sucks up to Murdoch" and you can't see the difference between that and someone directly calling the McCanns murderers I would suggest you need to have more of a think on the subject.

[GG89]

Mods on a power trip? wouldn't be the first time IMO.

[GlenMH]

This thread is now in the right place.

As others have said, if you don't like the policies or moderation then the internet is a big place and we're sure you will find somewhere else to air your views.

[anonymous-user]

I objected to the persistent defamatory posts in the McCann thread, made in breach of PH rules. The Mods, and no one else, took a decision to clean up the thread, and have indicated that it will return after editing.

I am strongly in favour of open discussion on all subjects, but discussion need not involve trashing people. I would like to see English libel law substantially reformed in favour of defendants. I would like the UK to have the equivalent of the US First Amendment, that protects free speech, although even in the US there are some restraints on libel. Our own article 10 ECHR rules on free speech are not strong enough.

Having said that, we are stuck with the law as it is at present. I also think that we ought to abide by the PH rules, and in any event it can be risky to defame someone on the internet. Posting using a screen name on a net forum does not guarantee that you won't collect a large bill.

[frobisher]

Breadvan72 said:

Simple rules; don't defame people. Saying "allegedly", or adding smileys doesn't make a defamatory statement not defamatory. Comment, to be fair comment, must be clearly expressed as comment, and not allege facts that the maker of the statement can't prove. Thus, saying "I am only speculating but isn't it funny about the X, Y and Z" may be defamatory. Nudge nudge, hint hint may be defamatory, as Mrs Bercow has learned. The McCann thread was replete with actionable statements. It is presumably being edited, so as to reduce the risk of PH being sued, quite apart from considerations of common decency towards the McCann family and their friends.

There are also rules about contempt of court. A publication that causes a substantial risk of serious prejudice to a fair trial is a contempt. This does NOT mean that you can't discuss a case pending before any court. The so called "sub judice" rule doesn't really exist.

Before people go on about free speech, this site is run as a free service by PH, and PH, which is not a public body, is entitled to control what is said here. An example: I broke the rules the other day by putting up a Pope joke image that was sweary. PH took it down. Fair cop.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Thursday 14th February 15:02

So if Mr & Mrs X from the midlands were to claim, I dunno, that their daughter was abducted or something and they have no proof of this, is that something they are alleging without being able to prove it and it's therefore defamatory? Obviously the answer is "no".

Is this the only thread where you've worried about common decency towards those being discussed? It wouldn't take long for me to go through many threads on here and find potentially libelous statements about many different people. I wouldn't dream of doing anything other that posting clarifications on the subject if I knew something about it.

What you did seems to be above and beyond the remit of many other PH-ers in that your call for the thread to be removed was pretty much immediately actioned and that does raise my eyebrows, at least.

[JustinP1]

Piersman2 said:

S1_RS said:

Their website so their rules. Seems fair to me.

+1

And the McCanns thread was only going back over old stuff that had already been discussed throughout the whole thread, in minute detail!

I have to say that this is the same statement which has been repeated by a number of posters. However, I also have to say that if anyone thinks that, it only proves that they haven't read it.

The catalyst for discussion over the last week was specifically the four separate linked news stories, the most major one being the McCanns decision to run up an almost three hundred thousand pound legal bill suing an unrepresented pensioner in the High Court.

That is current news, in the public domain, and in fact the media's attitude to the case was being discussed.

If we get to the point where there is simply a 'black-out' on non-defamotory discussion simply because of a the link to a litigious couple, then that really is a cop-out.

[blindswelledrat]

frobisher said:

S1_RS said:

Their website so their rules. Seems fair to me.

So it would seem prudent to actually make a rule, right? Otherwise a new poster could decide to start a topic on the McCanns and we're right back where we were again.

So if it's ok to libel Pistorious as he's been charged, what about the Boris Johnson thread? I'd have thought he'd take a dim view on "He grabs headlines, he sucks up to Murdoch" as quoted in there. Seems libelous to me. Potentially anyway. Can't be too careful. Get it down PH, quick!

Just possibly they concluded that any thread that attracts nasty biled filled hateful obsessed stalkers like yourself to the forum for no other reason than to slag off a couple who have lost a child, is no good for the forum regardless of there being no specific rule about it?
That would be my guess.