crt and the courts

[dmr]

That's all very well, gaggle, but this country has really strict laws about libel. It isn't fair for Mr Moore to put Daniel (as site owner) potentially in the firing line of a lawsuit.

 

As suggested here, if Mr Moore really wants total freedom to say what he wants about CaRT, then he should set up his own website, write the material there and then give us all a link to it.

 

I don't really see the logic in your suggestion.

Which forum members will be allowed to post here and on which topics?, and which forum members will be required to post elsewhere on their own websites? and who will decide?, Nigels posts are always very canal related, much more so than many others.

 

Nigel is obviously a clever man, he writes very well and in a generally clear and educational way. I am learning a lot of history and law from him. I think Nigel Should start his own website in ADDITION to posting here, and I think he should write a book. I will buy one!

 

............Dave

[Guest]

 

I don't really see the logic in your suggestion.

Which forum members will be allowed to post here and on which topics?, and which forum members will be required to post elsewhere on their own websites? and who will decide?, Nigels posts are always very canal related, much more so than many others.

 

Nigel is obviously a clever man, he writes very well and in a generally clear and educational way. I am learning a lot of history and law from him. I think Nigel Should start his own website in ADDITION to posting here, and I think he should write a book. I will buy one!

 

............Dave

 

Thats what we have moderators for, precisely that.

[mayalld]

 

I don't really see the logic in your suggestion.

Which forum members will be allowed to post here and on which topics?, and which forum members will be required to post elsewhere on their own websites? and who will decide?,

 

 

Dan will decide.

 

He owns the site, and no matter how much of a light touch he normally chooses to apply to his site, he can decide.

[johnthebridge]

I was under the impression that a site owner was only required to remove potentially libellous remarks should the "libellee" request, through legal channels, to do so. I also thought that it was only if the proprietor then chose to ignore this request could he/she be found to be in breach of regulations and thereby personally liable to prosecution?

Have I got this wrong?

My own thoughts are with Mr. Moore. If, as it appears, skulduggery in a public body has taken place, then who would gainsay anybody's right to challenge that?

Not me.

[Guest]

But why wait for that - if the mods are concerned enough to remove stuff in order that the owner can review it - so be it.

 

There is no god given right to post what you like on this or indeed most other forums, we all should post with the understanding that any of it can be removed at any time' The mods are not even obliged to say why something has gone (but they normally do).

Edited December 9, 2013 by The Dog House

[Fu Manchu]

A very interesting thread but I quite understand why the moderators would wish to protect themselves and Daniel and the forum from any possibility of action. I honestly don't think anyone should be permitted to air their personal views, in the way Nigel has, on a website which he doesn't own - it is all too easy to publish (and for someone to copy and assert the source as CWDF) something that anyone reading the thread (known member or not) might object to. There has to be a balance struck as to what is just 'banter' and innocuous personal opinion and what can be seen as a soapbox for some fairly far ranging and interesting views whether they interest us or not and that's a difficult balancing act I am sure.

 

I believe the Moderators and Daniel need to err on the side of caution - if the forum owner were taken to court there is, to the best of my knowledge, no money to defend a claim or pay damages. We have access to this huge amount of useful information which, we can if we wish, donate to to help with the running costs.

 

If I have any criticism at all it is that those that agreed to hide and/or delete the thread should ideally have been more proactive in advising the forum members of their action rather than those who were following the thread to have to ask what had happened to it.

 

If people like Nigel have a view they wish to promote in the way that has happened I believe that it should be hosted externally to the forum with perhaps, a link to that information.

 

I'd be interested in what others may think bearing in mind it is a topic of great importance and interest.

 

Since the original thread has been removed I'm not 100% certain, but I think it started when someone posted a press release from CaRT which appeared to give a very one-sided account of what had happened. Nigel responded with an alternative view. To my mind that is what a discussion forum is for. Why should he have to set up his own web site in order to respond?

[mayalld]

 

Since the original thread has been removed I'm not 100% certain, but I think it started when someone posted a press release from CaRT which appeared to give a very one-sided account of what had happened. Nigel responded with an alternative view. To my mind that is what a discussion forum is for. Why should he have to set up his own web site in order to respond?

 

The press release quoted from a court judgement, and made no defamatory statements.

 

Nigel offered a view that the judgement was wrong and made potentially defamatory statements.

 

Whilst saying that the court ruled against DeVere may well be one sided, it is also factual. If n igel feels that the report is one sided due to being selective with what was mentioned, he can factually report the missing content.

 

That isn't what he did.

[gaggle]

False documents have been produced it seems and cart have admitted to it , we are being given an insight into the story and attempts to put right wrongs , libel blah blah is just that blah blah , this is a waterways community site and the thread very much concerned what is going on at the top of the community , like i said cart know every comma and full stop of what Mr Moore has posted on here and kept thier heads down , why do you suppose no response has been forthcoming , they have a presence on the site and are free to reply but have not done so.

I cant understand why some on here have such a hard time accepting the thread.

[Guest]

 

Since the original thread has been removed I'm not 100% certain, but I think it started when someone posted a press release from CaRT which appeared to give a very one-sided account of what had happened. Nigel responded with an alternative view. To my mind that is what a discussion forum is for. Why should he have to set up his own web site in order to respond?

 

Because the owner of this one may not be happy for his to be used as a platform for somebody else to use to wage some sort of campaign against CRT. Whether Nigel is in the right or in the wrong is immaterial in a lot of respects.

 

The reason he should set his own site up is that it is the only way he will be able to guarantee to be able to publish his views, as others may not be happy for their medium to be used for his purposes, they may not wish to be associated with his views or they may not wish to carry the risk of any libellous comments being published on it.

I cant understand why some on here have such a hard time accepting the thread.

 

and I can't understand why some can't accept the moderators and the site owner can do exactly what they see fit with it.

[Jambo]

On what grounds could the forum be taken to court in this instance can you elaborate.?

 

Sadly thanks to the disgraceful state of UK libel laws there is plenty of precedent for websites / hosts being sued over content posted by others on the site (see e.g. here or here). They rarely get to court as the websites typically don't have the resources to fight it but it's highly effective intimidation.

 

Much better to be safe than sorry imo.

[Guest]

 

Sadly thanks to the disgraceful state of UK libel laws there is plenty of precedent for websites / hosts being sued over content posted by others on the site (see e.g. here or here). They rarely get to court as the websites typically don't have the resources to fight it but it's highly effective intimidation.

 

Much better to be safe than sorry imo.

 

Precisely - the problem is that there is a risk that the site gets taken down first and questions get asked later. Then it won't only be Nigel who could not express an opinion on here it will be everybody.

 

 

 

.

Edited December 9, 2013 by The Dog House

[mayalld]

I was under the impression that a site owner was only required to remove potentially libellous remarks should the "libellee" request, through legal channels, to do so.

 

 

1) "through legal channels" - nonsense, a request doesn't have to ba made through legal channels.

2) "libellee" - nope, anybody can make a request to take down material.

3) The consequences of doing nothing aren't just legal. They can include your web host pulling the plug.

4) It doesn't matter whether Dan is OBLIGED to do something. He can choose to do something earlier, so as to avoid any risk.

[gaggle]

 

Because the owner of this one may not be happy for his to be used as a platform for somebody else to use to wage some sort of campaign against CRT. Whether Nigel is in the right or in the wrong is immaterial in a lot of respects.

 

The reason he should set his own site up is that it is the only way he will be able to guarantee to be able to publish his views, as others may not be happy for their medium to be used for his purposes, they may not wish to be associated with his views or they may not wish to carry the risk of any libellous comments being published on it.

 

 

 

 

and I can't understand why some can't accept the moderators and the site owner can do exactly what they see fit with it.

Where have i said i cant or wont accept the moderators or the site owners decisions .

[Tesla]

Daniel runs this site on a not for profit basis and as sole owner he has to make some tough decisions from time to time. He certainly doesn't have the time, the money or the hotshot legal team to risk going to court, and nor does he want the site taken down, hopefully no one wants that?

 

The moderators, unpaid and in their spare time, do a fine job of supporting Daniel. Occasionally they, and Daniel, will make decisions that not everyone agrees with, that is unavoidable.

 

I doubt you will find another forum that is less "controlled" than CWDF. And don't forget it is all for free.

[Guest]

 

 

Where have i said i cant or wont accept the moderators or the site owners decisions .

 

Where did I say you did?

 

- I was responding to you saying you couldn't accept something, I responded with what I couldn't accept

 

- there are plenty in the thread who seen to fail to grasp the moderators decisions are final

[gaggle]

 

Where did I say you did?

 

- I was responding to you saying you couldn't accept something, I responded with what I couldn't accept

 

- there are plenty in the thread who seen to fail to grasp the moderators decisions are final

 

I said as you well know that i could not understand OTHERS NOT ACCEPTING THE THE THREAD , nothing about mods or site owner decisions , you never responded to me saying i could not accept anything because i never said it in the first place.

[Mike Todd]

That should be **alleged" shenanagins . . .

Mr Moore is providing this site with a great thread that is informing us of the shenanagins at the head of the waterways and if canal and river trust dont like what he is posting they will be in touch , pretty fast if they think what he says is untrue , for anyone to pretend they are not fully aware of what he is posting beggars belief , they monitor or pay people to monitor all media for anything that relates to them , they are aware and have not objected so please get the thread up again ,its not like the newspapers are going to keep us informed .

[FadeToScarlet]

We're not Private Eye, and Dan isn't Ian Hislop. We err on the side of caution.

[NigelMoore]

Nigel,

Do you know if BW "obtained" the parcel of land in contention with either Absolute Title or Possessory Title from the Land Registry?

 

Absolute.

 

For the record, I fully understand and accept the moderators’ actions; I know to my cost that being in the right does not grant immunity from the litigious.

[Guest]

 

 

 

I said as you well know that i could not understand OTHERS NOT ACCEPTING THE THE THREAD , nothing about mods or site owner decisions , you never responded to me saying i could not accept anything because i never said it in the first place.

 

My interpretation of this bit of your post-

 

I cant understand why some on here have such a hard time accepting the thread.

 

Is that you cannot understand why people cannot accept the original thread and it should be have been allowed to stay,

 

Particularly when it followed on from your earlier post which said -

 

Mr Moore is providing this site with a great thread that is informing us of the alleged "shenanagins", " acting the goat " at the head of the waterways and if canal and river trust dont like what he is posting they will be in touch , pretty fast if they think what he says is untrue , for anyone to pretend they are not fully aware of what he is posting beggars belief , they monitor or pay people to monitor all media for anything that relates to them , they are aware and have not objected so please get the thread up again ,its not like the newspapers are going to keep us informed .

 

edited .

 

are you now saying my understanding is incorrect?

Edited December 9, 2013 by The Dog House

[mayalld]

 

Absolute.

 

For the record, I fully understand and accept the moderators’ actions; I know to my cost that being in the right does not grant immunity from the litigious.

 

Your biggest downfall is that you are unable to accept that there are occasions when you are wrong.

 

Every minor victory is the result of the Judge finally seeing the obvious, every defeat the result of the Judge not understanding the arguments you advanced.

 

No defeat is ever as a result of your argument, no matter how finely crafted on the basis of many hours of research, simply not being valid/relevant.

[gaggle]

You were trying to attribute words to me i never said , your interpatration that i said people CANNOT understand the thread instead of they have a hard time accepting shows you are up to your usual flim flam and piffle.

[Guest]

You were trying to attribute words to me i never said , your interpatration that i said people CANNOT understand the thread instead of they have a hard time accepting shows you are up to your usual flim flam and piffle.

 

Again, no I wasn't - you are putting your own interpretation on it - it is you that is up to flim, flam and pifflle (I like that phrase BTW) not me I'm afraid.

 

Any way isn't all a bit academic now given Nigel himself has acknowledged it was correct for the original thread to be taken down?

[gaggle]

 

Your biggest downfall is that you are unable to accept that there are occasions when you are wrong.

 

Every minor victory is the result of the Judge finally seeing the obvious, every defeat the result of the Judge not understanding the arguments you advanced.

 

No defeat is ever as a result of your argument, no matter how finely crafted on the basis of many hours of research, simply not being valid/relevant.

Every MINOR victory , why is every victory MINOR ? if many victories have been won have they all been minor, defeats are just defeats ,why no MINOR defeats.

[NigelMoore]

 

Your biggest downfall is that you are unable to accept that there are occasions when you are wrong.

 

Every minor victory is the result of the Judge finally seeing the obvious, every defeat the result of the Judge not understanding the arguments you advanced.

 

No defeat is ever as a result of your argument, no matter how finely crafted on the basis of many hours of research, simply not being valid/relevant.

 

My latest defeat is the result of a court making a decision against me, despite the arguments that I had advanced and which were perfectly understood. It was a very fair and balanced judgment. I accept that on that occasion I was wrong.