Just in for money

[Rusty Tub]

Because it is a completely one sided account of a petty squabble - and therefor not very informative.

 

That is only the opinion of you. It doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you does it ?

 

Because it is a completely one sided account of a petty squabble - and therefor not very informative.

 

That is only the opinion of you. It doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you does it ?

[carlt]

That the site admin don't understand libel law, so censor things enthusiastically to be on the safe side.

Hurrah! You got there in the end.

 

A sensible approach don't you think.

 

Think how much this forum would cost to run if lawyers had to be employed to vet every potentially defamatory statement.

 

Hells bells carlt,how did you stumble on cake central.I think I might join that,loads of ladies baking sweety cakes,yum.

...and having fights too!

 

Some websites charge a fortune for such depravity.

[RLWP]

That the site admin don't understand libel law, so censor things enthusiastically to be on the safe side.

 

I would say that is pretty accurate

 

The site admin are volunteers who are interested in canals. Contesting at law requires expertise, is time consuming and expensive. As we have no paid legal team, we operate a set of cursory rules and guidelines

 

Now, if you are a libel lawyer prepared to act as legal advisor to this forum pro bono, maybe we could allow potentially defamatory posts. Are you up for that?

 

Richard

[carlt]

That is only the opinion of you. It doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you does it ?

but there is only one opinion that counts and that is Daniels, because it is his playground and he lets us play in it as long as we don't wee in the sandpit.

[WJM]

That is only the opinion of you. It doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you does it ?

 

 

 

That is only the opinion of you. It doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you does it ?

 

 

We have here one side only of a petty squabble - do try and keep up!

[RLWP]

but there is only one opinion that counts and that is Daniels, because it is his playground and he lets us play in it as long as we don't wee in the sandpit.

 

Oh... Erm

 

Richard

[Delta9]

Hurrah! You got there in the end.

 

A sensible approach don't you think.

 

Think how much this forum would cost to run if lawyers had to be employed to vet every potentially defamatory statement.

 

 

...and having fights too!

 

Some websites charge a fortune for such depravity.

 

It would have been easier if the admin had of just said that in the first place instead of implying that the OP's post was slander, an allegation that could be considered libelous in itself.

 

 

 

 

(I'm joking)

[Guest]

Oh... Erm

 

Richard

 

Damn - I thought you simply spilled your squash...

[Delta9]

You got several simple answers based on several people's different opinions, experience and knowledge.

 

If it was that simple why didn't you know the answer and how do you know one of the many answers offered wasn't the correct one?

Because I had nothing better to do this afternoon and people that know nothing about the subject decided to offer their comments.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Delta9

[Rusty Tub]

We have here one side only of a petty squabble - do try and keep up!

 

 

Why put my comment up twice. Did you like it that much ?

[Ex- Member]

Because it is a completely one sided account of a petty squabble - and therefor not very informative.

 

Agreed

 

 

The OP could have related his issues much more clearly and without the need to hint to or name the company. He could have asked for advice and offered to name the company to other members privately by e-mail. Had a concise and succinct story of events been relayed then many more members would have taken an interest and the OP might as a result get more sympathy if his plight was indeed of merit.

 

Just slagging the company off really doesn't inspire debate about the issue but promotes debate about what could be perceived as an attempt to damage a company you have a personal issue with.

 

ETA Which of course it has

Edited February 27, 2013 by Julynian

[Guest]

Why put my comment up twice. Did you like it that much ?

 

He simply quoted you...your post actually appeared twice which sometimes happens on here especially if you are posting on a dodgy connection or when the forum is having server problems which it is presently.

[carlt]

Because I had nothing better to do this afternoon and people that know nothing about the subject decided to offer their comments.

As you seem unaware of the "Internet defamation...slander or libel?" debate or that take down notices are used just as often because of defamation issues as copyright infringement, do you number yourself amongst "the people that know nothing about the subject"?

[Athy]

Going back, oh, 15 pages or so, if the fitter was, as stated, a "cretin", how did he manage to perform a "full renovation" on something as complex as a diesel engine? They must breed bluddy bright cretins round those parts.

[bowten]

He simply quoted you...your post actually appeared twice which sometimes happens on here especially if you are posting on a dodgy connection or when the forum is having server problems which it is presently.

By the way where have you been the last few days?You have missed so much.

[carlt]

Going back, oh, 15 pages or so, if the fitter was, as stated, a "cretin", how did he manage to perform a "full renovation" on something as complex as a diesel engine? They must breed bluddy bright cretins round those parts.

I know a few gifted boat builders who are also complete cretins but won't name them.

 

Someone once said to me that if you pick your boat builder based on personality you may well end up with a great friend but a rubbish boat.

Edited February 27, 2013 by carlt

[Delta9]

As you seem unaware of the "Internet defamation...slander or libel?" debate or that take down notices are used just as often because of defamation issues as copyright infringement, do you number yourself amongst "the people that know nothing about the subject"?

 

I'm not familiar with British libel law at all as I went to school elsewhere. Once people started using copyright infringement as examples of takedowns it became clear that they know even less about the subject than I do so I felt compelled to continue.

[Guest]

By the way where have you been the last few days?You have missed so much.

 

I could tell you but if I do I will have to kill you.....

 

If you had been in chat last night you would know....

[carlt]

I'm not familiar with British libel law at all as I went to school elsewhere. Once people started using copyright infringement as examples of takedowns it became clear that they know even less about the subject than I do so I felt compelled to continue.

But I think Richard was using it as an example of the fragile nature of the relationship between site owner and paranoid host, not a definitive legal argument.

[MtB]

After reading this thread there is no way I'll be having Delta9 Boat Services do any work for me....

 

MtB

[Rusty Tub]

As you seem unaware of the "Internet defamation...slander or libel?" debate or that take down notices are used just as often because of defamation issues as copyright infringement, do you number yourself amongst "the people that know nothing about the subject"?

 

 

Slander is something SPOKEN that is untrue. Libel is something WRITTEN that is untrue.... how does slander come into an argument about text on a webpage ?

 

Explain how defamation is connection with copyright issues ? Unless the person chooses to accept what has been said about them and uses it as a factually correct way to describe themselves , maybe even patent it ?

[RLWP]

I'm not familiar with British libel law at all as I went to school elsewhere. Once people started using copyright infringement as examples of takedowns it became clear that they know even less about the subject than I do so I felt compelled to continue.

 

I am that people. What I was trying to point out is that it is allegations that cause takedowns, not facts

 

Richard

[Rusty Tub]

A certain ------ from ----- Marina from an adjacent business, he was commissioned to take an engine out to be sent away to be reconditioned. It was reconditioned to a new standard, and when he put it back in around 3-4 weeks after he told us it was running too fast and thought it was the govener. Pump and injectors were sent back to the people who reconditioned the engine. They arrived back and we delivered them down to the marina on the 12th August, advertised boat for sale with just pump and injectors needed fitting. Someone came to look at the boat in the middle of October with a view to buying it. The next day ------- was going to fit the pump and injectors and he told us there was a hole in the sump and the engine would need to come out again and he wanted nothing more to do with the boat. It has taken 7 1/2 months to realise there was a hole in the sump and blaming it on the people who reconditioned the engine. He craned it out with a tractor using chains on a floating pontoon and have original email to prove this. We later found out from a professional this should not have been attempted on a floating pontoon. He kept harassing for mooring fees and threatening to cut boat loose onto the canal, very unprofessional and disgusting attitude. Why the need to act suspicious like this??

 

He knew someone in August someone that wanted to buy the boat, The man was supposed to be working on a boat at the marina when he rang up he was saying it was a 'friend' that had put him in touch and offered half the price it was worth, which we declined.

 

He was also telling prospective buyers it would never run again and needs a new engine.

 

 

Im struggling to see where the defamatory remark is. Maybe a little bias, but obviously the op feels strongly enough about this to post it in the first place

[carlt]

Slander is something SPOKEN that is untrue. Libel is something WRITTEN that is untrue.... how does slander come into an argument about text on a webpage ?

 

You misunderstand the term "slander". It isn't spoken, rather it is stated using a non-permanent medium.

 

If, for example, I post here on the forum that RLWP wears ladies underwear then it is recorded, therefore libel.

 

If, however, I go into the chatroom and make the same claim then even though I typed the same words it becomes slanderous because the chatroom interaction isn't recorded.

 

I would add that Richard would fail in any action, libel or slander, because I saw his knickers while he was weeing in the sandpit

Explain how defamation is connection with copyright issues ? Unless the person chooses to accept what has been said about them and uses it as a factually correct way to describe themselves , maybe even patent it ?

The connection is that a complainant could use a takedown notice to close a website whether it be for copyright or libel reasons.

Edited February 27, 2013 by carlt

[Guest]

Slander is something SPOKEN that is untrue. Libel is something WRITTEN that is untrue.... how does slander come into an argument about text on a webpage ?

 

Explain how defamation is connection with copyright issues ? Unless the person chooses to accept what has been said about them and uses it as a factually correct way to describe themselves , maybe even patent it ?

 

Posted earlier in the thread....twice..

 

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2008/august/bulletin-board-postings-more-likely-slander-than-libel-says-high-court/