Don't mention libel FGS!!!

Dear Sev.

I am sorry but I have no alternative but to warn you about the comment you posted on the Open/Closed Forum.

You were basically saying that people were open to more serious libel actions. You a hold an important postion as a moderator and as I own the domain and have the responsibility for what happens to the domain and its legal situation, I think that is my duty to decide and do not want moderators/admins posting statements like that trying to influence the members. I have taken this action because I think the members have had enough libel/legal threats thrown at them on the DM and they shouldn't have to have them stated here.

If you had serious concerns you should have posted them in the moderators forum, which was designed specifically for this purpose, and not on the public forum. Or they could have been PM'd to me directly for me to discuss with Admin if necessary.

In future please could you use the moderators forum for your concerns and not place them on the public forum for them to view.

Bren

Laffin, a friendly sort.

"Calm down, if I lived closer to rothly i'd be round there with a Mr mol... it ...ov c0ck.. apperative.

If you comprende."

That was sound advice, Bren. Isn't it awful when people post crap about your family? Bet the Paynes feel just the same

Subject: Who wrote this and WHY ? 01 May 2008 13:59:31 (merged)

quote=properdad: "Bren,

Maybe you need to register a complaint with the Police.

It will have to be investigated and I think the personal attacks on you are not acceptable.

Mike Hitchen had this nonsense and he seems to have resolved it through legal recourse."

Hi

I have reported this time and time again, I gave the police 2 whole reams of paper, full of screen shots, nasty emails from Nbrado, stuff for the database and I have reported this harassment and nothing. One copper even told me to switch off the PC.

Nothing gets done as soon as I mention we discuss the Madeleine McCann case. As for libel, I have spoken to a solicitor he said as these people are posting anonymously it is hard to send solicitors letters, also the names and addresses you have, well they will just ignore them and carry on, libel court cases for the ordinary UK family is an action that they can't afford to take, because of the costs.

At times it seems like you are banging your head against a wall, I can deal with the abuse most of the time but people that post up not knowing what abuse we go through just make my blood boil.

Take care.

Bren

Fear of libel, scared sources

Hello BJR, good morning.

I have received information that i feel you should know:

A prominent member of HTFM is in contact with Michael Wright and has been asked to monitor 3As for libel against him or the family.
I assure you my source is SOUND. My source is also scared.
I promised not to reveal its name. Perhaps you could remind your members to all put in a sort of IMO in their tagline etc.
Sorry to be a worrypants, but I could not NOT let you know, iykwim. Cheers, Kazlux.

PS: obviously very very confidential.

The most dangerous theory so far

Photon to Bren

I just want to draw your attention to this, because although there are lots of wild theories out there, this one could cause a lot of trouble.

It really is too much that half the T**** are implied to be "in on" sexually abusing M*****. I feel there are questions to be answered but regardless of that I feel this is an attack too far on individuals who have been charged with nothing.

Just wanted to say that for the record rather kick off on a forum. By far the most "dangerous" theory so far.

The mods are scared of Tony Bennett

Sorry - in simple English - Tony Bennett has caused problems before.

He wants only certain subjects discussed. When members discuss his past and other views he threatens the forum with legal action.

So discussion about him is not allowed now.

jjp

What, me worry?!?!

Hi **** Here's the other link I was looking for: ...... Liability of hosts Website hosts may be liable for defamatory material created by someone else but which they host. However, there are special defences available to hosts under the Defamation Act 1996 and the E-commerce Regulations. Under the Defamation Act 1996, a website host will have a defence to a claim for libel if he can show that (i) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of, (ii) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and (iii) he did not know and had no reason to believe that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of the defamatory statement. The defence under the E-commerce Regulations is expressed in similar terms. In order to have the best chance of taking advantage of these defences, a host should not as a matter of course monitor/edit the content of websites that it hosts; however as soon as the host becomes aware of potentially defamatory content, that content should be quickly removed. You'll notice the phrase reasonable care in relation to ... publication. This is a very vague description of care, and thus is a very tricky thing to maintain you did in court because it's open to much interpretation.... D*****