Mods: Any update on the editing of the McCann thread pls?
Discussion
As it's been quite a while now, is there any progress to report? Wouldn't it be simpler to start from scratch and, as stated, self-police it to an extent? As it merrily tootled along for many months before caped wonderboy breadvan stepped in, I'm fairly sure the excesses can be curbed now. I'd be more than happy to jump on anything that is blatantly mythological or un-evidenced ;-)
smegmore said:
My guess - following a brisk exchange of correspondence and some 'meaninful discussion' it will never again see the light of day. Shame really as there was some interesting stuff there, disregarding the nonsense content of course.
...which is no problem if we can just start again. Every thread started at present gets locked and we're told "we're working on it..."I can't think that a new thread, or even re-starting the old one, is going to achieve anything. It boils down to the fact that there are some people who believe the McCanns' version of events, and others who don't. Of the latter, it seem that most people believe that something bad happen to the girl accidentally, and that was covered up, and a very few who think that it wasn't so accidental.
Nobody is going to change his or her mind now, unless some actually new evidence comes to light.
Nobody is going to change his or her mind now, unless some actually new evidence comes to light.
singlecoil said:
I can't think that a new thread, or even re-starting the old one, is going to achieve anything. It boils down to the fact that there are some people who believe the McCanns' version of events, and others who don't. Of the latter, it seem that most people believe that something bad happen to the girl accidentally, and that was covered up, and a very few who think that it wasn't so accidental.
Nobody is going to change his or her mind now, unless some actually new evidence comes to light.
Are all threads on PH intended to "change minds" then? I thought it was a discussion forum?Nobody is going to change his or her mind now, unless some actually new evidence comes to light.
Damage limitation - in terms of avoiding risk of litigation against Haymarket - perhaps? 
As long as some posters cannot contain their enthusiasm
, there is risk of legal action being started against our hosts - this has happened to others who have made 'adverse' comments elsewhere in the past (and has been discussed on that thread and others), he says diplomatically 
.
As long as some posters cannot contain their enthusiasm
, there is risk of legal action being started against our hosts - this has happened to others who have made 'adverse' comments elsewhere in the past (and has been discussed on that thread and others), he says diplomatically .I've previously been most impressed by the efforts taken by PH mods to sustain the McCann debate here, so I'm pretty hopeful the thread will return.
I've long assumed that at least some of the PH mods have taken the time to familiarise themselves with the background to the case, and have therefore discovered that there are plenty of non-loony, non-hater grounds for a debate. I look forward to that debate continuing on one of the vanishingly small number of non-loony, non-hater forums still willing to host McCann discussions.
I've long assumed that at least some of the PH mods have taken the time to familiarise themselves with the background to the case, and have therefore discovered that there are plenty of non-loony, non-hater grounds for a debate. I look forward to that debate continuing on one of the vanishingly small number of non-loony, non-hater forums still willing to host McCann discussions.
frobisher said:
singlecoil said:
I can't think that a new thread, or even re-starting the old one, is going to achieve anything. It boils down to the fact that there are some people who believe the McCanns' version of events, and others who don't. Of the latter, it seem that most people believe that something bad happen to the girl accidentally, and that was covered up, and a very few who think that it wasn't so accidental.
Nobody is going to change his or her mind now, unless some actually new evidence comes to light.
Are all threads on PH intended to "change minds" then? I thought it was a discussion forum?Nobody is going to change his or her mind now, unless some actually new evidence comes to light.
The thing is, as the thread in question showed, all that is left now is to go over the same ground over and over and over and over again.
If someone was to actually discover something new, something that was going to make some kind of difference, there is nothing preventing them from starting a new thread about it.
singlecoil said:
frobisher said:
singlecoil said:
I can't think that a new thread, or even re-starting the old one, is going to achieve anything. It boils down to the fact that there are some people who believe the McCanns' version of events, and others who don't. Of the latter, it seem that most people believe that something bad happen to the girl accidentally, and that was covered up, and a very few who think that it wasn't so accidental.
Nobody is going to change his or her mind now, unless some actually new evidence comes to light.
Are all threads on PH intended to "change minds" then? I thought it was a discussion forum?Nobody is going to change his or her mind now, unless some actually new evidence comes to light.
The thing is, as the thread in question showed, all that is left now is to go over the same ground over and over and over and over again.
If someone was to actually discover something new, something that was going to make some kind of difference, there is nothing preventing them from starting a new thread about it.
The McCanns have already been in the news this week, this time over online threats from "hate trolls".
singlecoil said:
It is indeed a discussion forum, and who on earth suggested that changing anyone's mind was an intention?
The thing is, as the thread in question showed, all that is left now is to go over the same ground over and over and over and over again.
If someone was to actually discover something new, something that was going to make some kind of difference, there is nothing preventing them from starting a new thread about it.
a) you referred to not being able to change anyone's mind as though that was a reason for not talking about the whole case andThe thing is, as the thread in question showed, all that is left now is to go over the same ground over and over and over and over again.
If someone was to actually discover something new, something that was going to make some kind of difference, there is nothing preventing them from starting a new thread about it.
b) who are you to determine that posts can only be made if they are "going to make some kind of difference"?
If it follows other thread patterns on this subject, we're due firstly a McCann supporter or two telling us we are free to do our hating on other sites, secondly breadvan (he may do the first point too) pointing out that the site is free and he was just doing PH a favour by pointing out the hate-filled, bile-infested, rumour and libel filled (as you can tell, he has no agenda) thread in order to avoid the possibility of legal action (as has failed to be taken by the McCanns against any single site in nearly 6 years now) and finally a locked thread with a mod post saying "we're working on it" with no further details.
Face it guys, it isn't coming back. As breadvan has demonstrated, it would only take one a
hole to report it to Team McCann and Haymarket are in a world of pain.
The Pope's Child Neglect hotline number will have to remain a matter for speculation only on sites happy to be labelled 'loony'.
hole to report it to Team McCann and Haymarket are in a world of pain.The Pope's Child Neglect hotline number will have to remain a matter for speculation only on sites happy to be labelled 'loony'.
grumbledoak said:
Face it guys, it isn't coming back. As breadvan has demonstrated, it would only take one ahole to report it to Team McCann and Haymarket are in a world of pain.
The Pope's Child Neglect hotline number will have to remain a matter for speculation only on sites happy to be labelled 'loony'.
The McCanns have never taken legal action against a website. Why would they choose to start with one where the matter is being discussed relatively sensibly? And without warning in advance? I think it's unheard of for a website owner to be prosecuted without warning for content on their website. They are advised to remove it first. This hasn't happened as far as I'm aware, or it would have already been mentioned.hole to report it to Team McCann and Haymarket are in a world of pain.The Pope's Child Neglect hotline number will have to remain a matter for speculation only on sites happy to be labelled 'loony'.
frobisher said:
The McCanns have never taken legal action against a website. Why would they choose to start with one where the matter is being discussed relatively sensibly? And without warning in advance? I think it's unheard of for a website owner to be prosecuted without warning for content on their website. They are advised to remove it first. This hasn't happened as far as I'm aware, or it would have already been mentioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_Internet_ServiceRead up.... They are advised to remove, but being the "host" does not remove risk of libel action.
Whether it would be successful is another matter. But libel lawyers are expensive.
grumbledoak said:
Face it guys, it isn't coming back. As breadvan has demonstrated, it would only take one ahole to report it to Team McCann and Haymarket are in a world of pain.
I disagree. hole to report it to Team McCann and Haymarket are in a world of pain.The McCanns are known to take a *very* close interest in internet discussions about them - Kate railed at length against "online haters" in her book, and only yesterday their PR spokesman Clarence Mitchell was thundering on about "constant activity by these ghouls". Gerry has repeatedly articulated his rage at "vile internet lies" and expressed frustration that online "theorising" has been allowed to continue.
It's a certainty that the McCanns and their lawyers have been trying to do everything in their powers to put a lid on related internet discussions - and also, by the fact that such discussions still exist - that they've failed. As stated above, no McCann-related legal action of any sort has ever been successfully pursued against any internet site owner. You can bet your sweet little A that's not through want of trying.
The fact that the PH McCann debate survived while that on other mainstream forums died has nothing to do with legal fears, but the tremendous amount of trouble these discussions have dependably generated for mods to deal with. An awful lot of the rows seemed rather hollow and bogus: I always felt I was watching sock puppets stir up trouble by abusing each other. Anyway, there's much less of that on this site, and the mods here have always seemed much more willing to take the time to sort things out.
I'm confident they're pruning the thread, not cutting the whole thing down and burning it.
FarnstonDrells said:
As stated above, no McCann-related legal action of any sort has ever been successfully pursued against any internet site owner.
Let alone "successfully pursued", they've never actually launched any legal action apart from against the Express group! (and Tony Bennett and Goncalo Amaral of course) but they're another kettle of fish.The Godfrey vs. Demon is a classic case in point. "Demon Internet declined to remove the message" after being told about it. They're idiots. If someone (reasonably) contacted PH about a comment, I'm sure they'd remove it.
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff