Motorhub/Keighley Trade Centre thread (take two!)

[jeremyc]

MDMA . said:

Did you manage to find the court case links yet for when Haymarket was in court? Tried a search but can't find any. Wouldn't mind a read of them.

They weren't. It was settled out of court I believe.

[MDMA .]

jeremyc said:

MDMA . said:

Did you manage to find the court case links yet for when Haymarket was in court? Tried a search but can't find any. Wouldn't mind a read of them.

They weren't. It was settled out of court I believe.

Just with 14 stating Haymarket defending court cases, you know.

[jeremyc]

MDMA . said:

Just with 14 stating Haymarket defending court cases, you know.

He didn't say that at all. He was just pointing out that it is the publisher that usually ends up fighting the defamation cases resulting from naming and shaming on the forums (which indeed has happened in the past).

What people are forgetting are the many allegations that get banded about on threads such as those discussing Motorhub that have no grounds. Most people also (obviously) miss all the posts and threads that have to be deleted because of naming & shaming ...

[MDMA .]

jeremyc said:

MDMA . said:

Just with 14 stating Haymarket defending court cases, you know.

He didn't say that at all. He was just pointing out that it is the publisher that usually ends up fighting the defamation cases resulting from naming and shaming on the forums (which indeed has happened in the past).

What people are forgetting are the many allegations that get banded about on threads such as those discussing Motorhub that have no grounds. Most people also (obviously) miss all the posts and threads that have to be deleted because of naming & shaming ...

Come again -

14 said:

I think both of you should pay PH’s legal fees from defending court cases because members have been naming and shaming companies on the forum. And no PH doesn’t delete threads because members post negative stuff about companies advertising on PH due to not wanting to affect potential advertising revenue.

[PorkInsider]

jeremyc said:

He didn't say that at all.

He did though, didn't he?

[jeremyc]

MDMA . said:

Come again -

14 said:

I think both of you should pay PH’s legal fees from defending court cases because members have been naming and shaming companies on the forum. And no PH doesn’t delete threads because members post negative stuff about companies advertising on PH due to not wanting to affect potential advertising revenue.

This doesn't automatically imply past legal fees - it could equally as well refer to future legal fees.

Regardless, PH has had to pay legal fees addressing defamation cases. As far as I'm aware none have come to court.

[MDMA .]

So again, what were the court cases that PH/Haymarket have had to defend? Just a link will do so we can all have a read.

[MDMA .]

jeremyc said:

his doesn't automatically imply past legal fees - it could equally as well refer to future legal fees.

Regardless, PH has had to pay legal fees addressing defamation cases. As far as I'm aware none have come to court.

So no court cases? Ok.

[14]

I never said Haymarket went to court, though a publisher did get taken to court and lost about 20 years ago. I meant future court cases were PH to decide to defend itself. I know Petrol Ted and Haymarket had to pay out due to naming and shaming. The no naming and shaming rule has been in place since before Haymarket bought PH, so no it has nothing to do with upsetting advertisers.

[MDMA .]

14 said:

I never said Haymarket went to court, though a publisher did get taken to court and lost about 20 years ago. I meant future court cases were PH to decide to defend itself. I know Petrol Ted and Haymarket had to pay out due to naming and shaming. The no naming and shaming rule has been in place since before Haymarket bought PH, so no it has nothing to do with upsetting advertisers.

So you were talking about theoretical court cases that haven't happened yet but might do in the future?

Riiiight.

[14]

MDMA . said:

So you were talking about theoretical court cases that haven't happened yet but might do in the future?

Riiiight.

Yes as that might happen if PH didn’t have the no naming and shaming rule.

[Condi]

Facebook isn't responsible for all the deformation, or outright lies posted on there.


I understand PH needing advertising money, and i understand advertisers not wanting pages of st written about them, but the balance between free speech and protecting the advertisers has been wrong for a long time. The naming and shaming rules were obviously not written by anyone with any legal training.

[FWIW]

I think someone needs to read up on defamation/libel law and case law. Then show us one single case where a publisher has lost...

[andymc]

so are you going to allow a company who was found guilty by a court to continue to advertise?

[saaby93]

Done the crime, paid the time?
Rehabilitation

[andymc]

saaby93 said:

Done the crime, paid the time?
Rehabilitation

Kenny Noye?

[Unexpected Item In The Bagging Area]

Still working on this one, Jack?

[andymc]

yes, I wondered that or are you ok taking money from advertisers with a track record of clocking etc etc

[anonymous-user]

If Pistonheads is aware that MH have been fined for repeated breaches of consumer law, it would be sensible to distance themselves from them. By continuing a commercial relationship with them it tends to suggest they don't much care about the consumer.

[Driver101]

How many people would be reading the Pistonheads classifieds that hasn't read about them on the forum before?

I don't even like using the Pistonheads classifieds.