Why is naming and shaming banned?

[StottyZr]

As above. I would guess its to stop people simply making up nonsense to give companies bad reputations?

[Marf]

It's not blanket banned. Seems you can slag off certain companies to your hearts content, like kwik fit.

[dazren]

At the top of the forum:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Snowboy]

Isn't it in the FAQ somewhere.

In short, Pistonheads can be sued for things that are written by members on the forums.

The whole legality of who can be sued and who's to blame for hosting such comments is a big messy grey area, and Pistonheads just don't want the hassle of dealing with it… and quite right too.

[StottyZr]

just posted, then noticed the explanation above. I don't frequent "website feedback".

Although I don't agree with the explanation.

[Marf]

I do wonder why PH has

"You understand and acknowledge that information posted or transmitted by other users are the sole responsibility of the person from which such material originated. PistonHeads.com takes no responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or truth of the information posted on this website."

in their terms and conditions if naming and shaming is "banned".

[Snowboy]

Marf said:

I do wonder why PH has

"You understand and acknowledge that information posted or transmitted by other users are the sole responsibility of the person from which such material originated. PistonHeads.com takes no responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or truth of the information posted on this website."

in their terms and conditions if naming and shaming is "banned".

Because PH does everything they possible can to avoid themselves getting sued because someone posted an angry rant.

Some are legally binding in some areas, courts and countries, others aren't, so they just cover their arses everywhere they can.

It's a sensible thing to do.
I wouldn't want to see PH taken offline just because few people had a bad experience somewhere and wanted to rant about it.

[broker1]

Seems odd. As others have said 'certain' companies can be slagged off to high heaven but not others.

Why not send a generic message to the poster giving the opportunity to edit the post?

Something is lost by this 'rule'.

[StottyZr]

On babybmw recently, somebody started a topic asking if they could have any information on a company. Thread turned nasty and the company responded (and made a dick of thereselves). Naming and shaming from this angle was allowed! (as they hadn't ranted about the company, other people provided negative feedback though)

This is probably why naming and shaming some companies is ok. About the recent Kwik fit threads, I noticed a lot of replies defended Kwik fit. This is how I would expect inaccurate naming and shaming threads to go. I don't see a problem with them!

Saying "Its too much hassle " isn't a good arguement IMO.

[Hughesie]

StottyZr said:

Saying "Its too much hassle " isn't a good arguement IMO.

So you're happy footing the legal costs of leaving them running when they go wrong then?

[StottyZr]

Hughesie said:

StottyZr said:

Saying "Its too much hassle " isn't a good arguement IMO.

So you're happy footing the legal costs of leaving them running when they go wrong then?

Who's legal costs?

[Hughesie]

StottyZr said:

Who's legal costs?

Haymarket, the owners of PH and who have to defend the naming and shaming of companies if negative commenst are left up.

[Du1point8]

If I remember rightly wasn't there a thread a long time ago and Ted at the time had solicitors ringing him up threatening to take legal action on some of the comments that had been said and as such a complete blanket ban was a plied to make sure it never happened again.

[StottyZr]

Hughesie said:

StottyZr said:

Who's legal costs?

Haymarket, the owners of PH and who have to defend the naming and shaming of companies if negative commenst are left up.

Yes then

[Hughesie]

More recently Haymarket have had to defend a case thats cost them a five figure sum...

Hence no naming and shaming.

[Marf]

"Hence" implies the court case led to the no naming and shaming. That's not accurate, is it?

[Hughesie]

Marf said:

"Hence" implies the court case led to the no naming and shaming. That's not accurate, is it?

No, you are right, the no nanming and shamning has been in place since Ted's days.

My hence comment was implied at the 000's of pounds it costs the website owners and validation of why its a blanket ban.

[Marf]

But it's clearly not a blanket ban

[Hughesie]

Marf said:

But it's clearly not a blanket ban

It is if we're notified of it.

Take Kwik fit for example, where they are named quite often they like to comment on the threads, so kind of like a perverse 360 feedback session for them...

In the case of a smaller company they have far more to lose and are far more inclinded to instruct a solicitors to take a case on.

Bottom line from our perspective (moderators) upon advice from Haymarket legal team is if its naming and shaming, remove it.

[TotalControl]

Hughesie said:

It is if we're notified of it.

Take Kwik fit for example, where they are named quite often they like to comment on the threads, so kind of like a perverse 360 feedback session for them...

In the case of a smaller company they have far more to lose and are far more inclinded to instruct a solicitors to take a case on.

Bottom line from our perspective (moderators) upon advice from Haymarket legal team is if its naming and shaming, remove it.

Coincidently, I started a thread on them not very long ago and it got closed. I then had to start a different one with the name changed. How can that be explained?