FunsterJohn Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 Is there any evidence that saying that someone supports the IRA is libellous? Millions of people support the IRA. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Let's see some case law. You've nothing to worry about Birdbrain. It would be laughed out of court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted January 16, 2020 Author Share Posted January 16, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-16 1:14 PM Birdbrain - 2020-01-15 12:41 PM John52 - 2020-01-15 11:51 AM Birdbrain - 2020-01-13 2:24 PM The one where Dave asked FlyPast if he supported the IRA Since you are changing the facts perhaps even you realise he crossed the line? What are you babbling on about You changing the facts from a libellous statement to a non libellous one I'm missing your Mad Hatter and would like to see him back - just for the sport. (lol) But posting libellous statements is crossing the line - which Warners cannot allow because they could be held responsible. They could be doing him a favour by banning him though. He was spending too much time in his van posting codswallop. Probably do him more good to go out and get a bit of Spanish sun B-) Like I said what are you babbling on about ... If you know so much about libel show why anything that was said is indeed open to such a claim ... Bet you cant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 Birdbrain - 2020-01-16 2:08 PM John52 - 2020-01-16 1:14 PM Birdbrain - 2020-01-15 12:41 PM John52 - 2020-01-15 11:51 AM Birdbrain - 2020-01-13 2:24 PM The one where Dave asked FlyPast if he supported the IRA Since you are changing the facts perhaps even you realise he crossed the line? What are you babbling on about You changing the facts from a libellous statement to a non libellous one I'm missing your Mad Hatter and would like to see him back - just for the sport. (lol) But posting libellous statements is crossing the line - which Warners cannot allow because they could be held responsible. They could be doing him a favour by banning him though. He was spending too much time in his van posting codswallop. Probably do him more good to go out and get a bit of Spanish sun B-) Like I said what are you babbling on about ... If you know so much about libel show why anything that was said is indeed open to such a claim ... Bet you cant Of course not because the thread has gone - as you said yourself in the first post on this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted January 16, 2020 Author Share Posted January 16, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-16 2:16 PM Birdbrain - 2020-01-16 2:08 PM John52 - 2020-01-16 1:14 PM Birdbrain - 2020-01-15 12:41 PM John52 - 2020-01-15 11:51 AM Birdbrain - 2020-01-13 2:24 PM The one where Dave asked FlyPast if he supported the IRA Since you are changing the facts perhaps even you realise he crossed the line? What are you babbling on about You changing the facts from a libellous statement to a non libellous one I'm missing your Mad Hatter and would like to see him back - just for the sport. (lol) But posting libellous statements is crossing the line - which Warners cannot allow because they could be held responsible. They could be doing him a favour by banning him though. He was spending too much time in his van posting codswallop. Probably do him more good to go out and get a bit of Spanish sun B-) Like I said what are you babbling on about ... If you know so much about libel show why anything that was said is indeed open to such a claim ... Bet you cant Of course not because the thread has gone - as you said yourself in the first post on this thread Didn't Dave accuse FlyPast of supporting the IRA ??? ... Cant say I remember word for word what went on but that was pretty much it ... Why is it libellous to say such a thing ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 Why dont we just draw a line under it and forget about it all? It's all a bit daft really. This forum needs an injection of humour and / or decent debate IMO. This stuff is just crackers. Apart from that dangerous Dave is now spouting sh1te about Brexit bing Ben bongs and other crap on Fruitcakes now! 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-01-16 3:18 PM Why dont we just draw a line under it and forget about it all? Continual baiting and trolling didn't help and there was certainly no need to dredge it back up by creating another thread.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted January 16, 2020 Author Share Posted January 16, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-01-16 3:18 PM Why dont we just draw a line under it and forget about it all? It's all a bit daft really. This forum needs an injection of humour and / or decent debate IMO. This stuff is just crackers. Apart from that dangerous Dave is now spouting sh1te about Brexit bing Ben bongs and other crap on Fruitcakes now! 8-) Humour on here with Bullet , FastSnitch and Brian ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Birdbrain - 2020-01-16 2:20 PM...………………………….. Didn't Dave accuse FlyPast of supporting the IRA ??? ... Cant say I remember word for word what went on but that was pretty much it ... Why is it libellous to say such a thing ??? From the legal dictionary (my underlining): Libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libellous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement. And that, to answer your question, is why. No-one on here actually knows anyone else on here (save in a very few cases) so no-one knows whether anyone else has a reputation in some field that might be damaged as a result of an allegation that is made. Everyone is traceable if the alleged libel is considered sufficiently grave to warrant court action. Warner's have to judge whether that line is being crossed by what someone writes of someone else, because they are deemed the publisher, so become equally guilty if they do not act quickly to remove the libellous material. I'm surprised you found it necessary to ask that question. I would have thought it was obvious. Time to stop playing the innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 I didn't ask for the dictionary meaning of the word libel though Brian ... I asked why it was libellous to say someone supported the IRA ... Now I suppose we wont truly know the answer to that for a while in this instance because FastPat told the forum he was taking legal advice from his brother ... One can only assume if he does not take the legal action then my question will be answered wont it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Antony, without understanding we remain ignorant. You have your answer, your choice. Read, think, and understand it, or ignore it. It seems perfectly clear to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-01-14 9:48 PM Well I would like to make a complaint to the moderators. Dave Pelmethead (according to him) has been banned. Now I know Dave is totally off his rocker but he popped up on another forum saying he had been given the boot. This could be all a big wind up though and part of his January the 31st (sorry 31rd (lol) ) Surprise but I dont think so. I am going to assume its true and if it is I strongly disagree with this decision. The thread threatening legal action I took as a bit tongue in cheek. Lots of stuff gets thrown around on here but come on! FFS! Its a forum where a handful of people argue the toss, sometimes insult each other and very occasionally actually have a half sensible debate. Im all for free speech and banning people for the sh1t that was flung on here is a step too far IMO. I virtually never agree with Dave but his hearts in the right place even if he is clinically insane and a rabid right wing Brexiteer. Besides that all of us want to know what his surprise is for the 31st of January. FREE DAVE PELMET! Please. otherwise ill never get shot of him now on the other channel. (lol) I'm missing my sparring partner so I would like to see the Mad Hatter back too. :D But thats easy for us to say because we are not the ones who could be held responsible for his libellous posts :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-01-17 12:56 PM Antony, without understanding we remain ignorant. You have your answer, your choice. Read, think, and understand it, or ignore it. It seems perfectly clear to me. I have your answer to a question I didn't ask Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Birdbrain - 2020-01-17 2:52 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-01-17 12:56 PM Antony, without understanding we remain ignorant. You have your answer, your choice. Read, think, and understand it, or ignore it. It seems perfectly clear to me. I have your answer to a question I didn't ask Your question was "Why is it libellous to say such a thing ???" I gave you the legal definition of libel. Read, and apply little grey cells, and you will know why it might have been libellous to say such a thing. Just join the dots - it really isn't that hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-01-17 6:14 PM Birdbrain - 2020-01-17 2:52 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-01-17 12:56 PM Antony, without understanding we remain ignorant. You have your answer, your choice. Read, think, and understand it, or ignore it. It seems perfectly clear to me. I have your answer to a question I didn't ask Your question was "Why is it libellous to say such a thing ???" I gave you the legal definition of libel. Read, and apply little grey cells, and you will know why it might have been libellous to say such a thing. Just join the dots - it really isn't that hard. "why it might have been libellous" ... 'Might'... Small word big meaning , look it up ... Your good at that ... Like you say my question was "Why is it libellous to say such a thing" not why might it be libellous ... So I can only presume poor old Dave has been ejected over something that according to you "might" be libellous ... Dear oh dear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-17 1:05 PM...………………..I would like to see the Mad Hatter back too. :D But thats easy for us to say because we are not the ones who could be held responsible for his libellous posts :-S I agree, on both counts. I suspect Dave just took his provocations too far, and unintentionally strayed into dangerous territory. He seems to have forgotten that what he may think funny can carry completely different connotations for someone else. I don't think it was a loss of humour on anyone's part: if Dave said what I think he said it was an extremely foolish taunt to have used to someone who may have been personally affected by those he referenced, and could have caused huge offence. He was looking for a reaction, and he got one! He is not alone in that, and it does seem a bit rough that he alone gets the chop when there are others equally/more deserving - albeit they manage (just :-)) to flirt with libel without actually crossing the line. As I said above, we have to remember that none of us knows the personal circumstances of other members, so we should all treat soft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Birdbrain - 2020-01-17 6:23 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-01-17 6:14 PM Birdbrain - 2020-01-17 2:52 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-01-17 12:56 PM Antony, without understanding we remain ignorant. You have your answer, your choice. Read, think, and understand it, or ignore it. It seems perfectly clear to me. I have your answer to a question I didn't ask Your question was "Why is it libellous to say such a thing ???" I gave you the legal definition of libel. Read, and apply little grey cells, and you will know why it might have been libellous to say such a thing. Just join the dots - it really isn't that hard. "why it might have been libellous" ... 'Might'... Small word big meaning , look it up ... Your good at that ... Like you say my question was "Why is it libellous to say such a thing" not why might it be libellous ... So I can only presume poor old Dave has been ejected over something that according to you "might" be libellous ... Dear oh dear Forgive me, Antony, but you are being very slow with this. Why not just read, and then fully digest, that definition, and then think it over? Whether what was said is, or is not, libellous has nothing to do with me. I didn't write the definition, and it is/was not constructed just for your benefit. Libel, has to be proved in court. Until it is found libellous, it is alleged libel. That is why it might be libellous. Only the person who thinks the comment libels them can decide whether they feel sufficiently aggrieved to sue. Only the court can decide if the allegation is well founded. Surely you already know this? You are over 21 aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-01-17 6:32 PM John52 - 2020-01-17 1:05 PM...………………..I would like to see the Mad Hatter back too. :D But thats easy for us to say because we are not the ones who could be held responsible for his libellous posts :-S I agree, on both counts. I suspect Dave just took his provocations too far, and unintentionally strayed into dangerous territory. He seems to have forgotten that what he may think funny can carry completely different connotations for someone else. I don't think it was a loss of humour on anyone's part: if Dave said what I think he said it was an extremely foolish taunt to have used to someone who may have been personally affected by those he referenced, and could have caused huge offence. He was looking for a reaction, and he got one! He is not alone in that, and it does seem a bit rough that he alone gets the chop when there are others equally/more deserving - albeit they manage (just :-)) to flirt with libel without actually crossing the line. As I said above, we have to remember that none of us knows the personal circumstances of other members, so we should all treat soft. I agree ... Others far more deserving of the boot than Dave ... Those who puke out stuff like Racist , Islamaphobe , Extremist blah blah blah without ever once providing proof when asked to back up their guff ... Our forum fuzz need to take a look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-01-17 6:43 PM Birdbrain - 2020-01-17 6:23 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-01-17 6:14 PM Birdbrain - 2020-01-17 2:52 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-01-17 12:56 PM Antony, without understanding we remain ignorant. You have your answer, your choice. Read, think, and understand it, or ignore it. It seems perfectly clear to me. I have your answer to a question I didn't ask Your question was "Why is it libellous to say such a thing ???" I gave you the legal definition of libel. Read, and apply little grey cells, and you will know why it might have been libellous to say such a thing. Just join the dots - it really isn't that hard. "why it might have been libellous" ... 'Might'... Small word big meaning , look it up ... Your good at that ... Like you say my question was "Why is it libellous to say such a thing" not why might it be libellous ... So I can only presume poor old Dave has been ejected over something that according to you "might" be libellous ... Dear oh dear Forgive me, Antony, but you are being very slow with this. Why not just read, and then fully digest, that definition, and then think it over? Whether what was said is, or is not, libellous has nothing to do with me. I didn't write the definition, and it is/was not constructed just for your benefit. Libel, has to be proved in court. Until it is found libellous, it is alleged libel. That is why it might be libellous. Only the person who thinks the comment libels them can decide whether they feel sufficiently aggrieved to sue. Only the court can decide if the allegation is well founded. Surely you already know this? You are over 21 aren't you? Your right ... "Libel has to be proved in court" ... Has Dave been to court yet ??? ... More importantly will he go to court , well no of course he wont so the claim and his banning is absolute tosh ... Thankyou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Well for what its worth I didnt see anything that warranted anyone getting banned but its not my forum and none of us have been privy to what might have been said outside of the general threads. I have contacted a moderator though to pass on these thoughts. I dont know about anyone else but I am of the opinion that both members should be re-instated and just move on from it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teflon2 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-01-17 6:56 PM Well for what its worth I didnt see anything that warranted anyone getting banned but its not my forum and none of us have been privy to what might have been said outside of the general threads. I have contacted a moderator though to pass on these thoughts. I dont know about anyone else but I am of the opinion that both members should be re-instated and just move on from it all. I concur well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 The “Aylesbury Jail” thread was transferred to the Admin Quarantine forum. The last posting on that thread was by ‘Birdbrain’ on 13 January 2020 9:36 AM As I’ve explained to Barry, the Admin Quarantine forum cannot be accessed by ‘ordinary’ forum-members and is occasionally used by Moderators when they become concerned about the way a thread is progressing or its content. Moving a thread to Admin Quarantine allows a Moderator the opportunity (if he/she so wishes) to seek advice from the forum’s Administrator regarding the thread’s acceptability and whether or not the Administrator will permit the thread to be reinstated in the forum it was moved from. When the Out&AboutLive forums were created 15 or so years ago and anybody was free to join, the Motorhome Matters forum rapidly descended into chaos. The Chatterbox forum was set up to filter off the non-motorhome-related drivel that was being posted to Motorhome Matters and this approach has been generally successful. Personally I’m uninterested in Chatterbox postings and I don’t consider that my remit as a volunteer-Moderator means that I must wallow in the Chatterbox morass. I don’t ‘monitor’ Chatterbox but, as the Aylesbury Jail thread was removed (Not by me!) I assume some other Moderator(s) may do. A forum Moderator cannot ‘ban' a forum-member. So if Pelmetman and/or Fast Pat have now been banned (permanently or temporarily) the banning will have been carried out by the forum’s Administrator. At the head of the Chatterbox forum is a 2013 posting titled "Conditions of forum use and content standards”. Even though a good deal of latitude has been allowed regarding subjects discussed in Chatterbox and the content of Chatterbox entries, that doesn’t mean that anything goes. Perhaps it would now be worth Chatterbox aficionados familiarising themselves with the O&AL forum’s use and contents standards so that the potential for ‘banning’ is reduced in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.