Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

The establishment and historic child sex abuse











Soulman

New member
Oct 22, 2012
10,966
Sompting
Did you do it again?

Yes Martyn, i posted a link that is freely available on You Tube, it was not something that i stated, just the clip. Oh well.
I did not realise that what other people say, that is clearly available to all and sundry was a no no.
No worries eh, got my warning and points.....will lose my posting license soon eh.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:


Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Apr 30, 2013
13,789
Herts
Yes Martyn, i posted a link that is freely available on You Tube, it was not something that i stated, just the clip. Oh well.
I did not realise that what other people say, that is clearly available to all and sundry was a no no.
No worries eh.

It is - there is loads of case law on the issue. If you post links to stuff that contains libellous assertions, you are deemed to have aggravated the libel. If NSC sees it and allows it stay on the Board, NSC can be deemed to have further aggravated the libel. There's loads of stuff out there - it doesn't even have to be explicit - innuendo is more than enough to get you/NSC into big trouble - have a look at the Sally Bercow/Lord McAlpine libel case as one example...

:thumbsup:
 




Soulman

New member
Oct 22, 2012
10,966
Sompting
It is - there is loads of case law on the issue. If you post links to stuff that contains libellous assertions, you are deemed to have aggravated the libel. If NSC sees it and allows it stay on the Board, NSC can be deemed to have further aggravated the libel. There's loads of stuff out there - it doesn't even have to be explicit - innuendo is more than enough to get you/NSC into big trouble - have a look at the Sally Bercow/Lord McAlpine libel case as one example...

:thumbsup:

Fair enough, i realise now that NSC is very stringent, i suppose other boards are not so, as iv'e never been modded before for posting things off the internet. Thanks for letting me know, i think i'll have to withdraw from some debates eh, which is a shame.
 


Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Apr 30, 2013
13,789
Herts
Fair enough, i realise now that NSC is very stringent, i suppose other boards are not so, as iv'e never been modded before for posting things off the internet. Thanks for letting me know, i think i'll have to withdraw from some debates eh, which is a shame.

NSC has been closed down temporarily in the past due to potentially libellous posts; it has also been threatened with proceedings unless certain posts were removed. NSC has very high viewing rates (typically over 1000 viewers at any one time, with 75% of those "guests") - that is way more than most forums.

It would be a real shame if you felt you had to withdraw from any debates. Surely it's possible to debate the issues without libelling individuals?
 


Soulman

New member
Oct 22, 2012
10,966
Sompting
NSC has been closed down temporarily in the past due to potentially libellous posts; it has also been threatened with proceedings unless certain posts were removed. NSC has very high viewing rates (typically over 1000 viewers at any one time, with 75% of those "guests") - that is way more than most forums.

It would be a real shame if you felt you had to withdraw from any debates. Surely it's possible to debate the issues without libelling individuals?

It's ok, i think i'll just stick to the sport on here, do the more serious stuff elsewhere, no worries.
 




Husty

Mooderator
Oct 18, 2008
11,994
I really don't see how linking to YouTube videos is going to see anyone in court on libel charges.
 


Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Apr 30, 2013
13,789
Herts
I really don't see how linking to YouTube videos is going to see anyone in court on libel charges.

Sally Bercow did WAY less (than the explicit claims in the particular video in question) and ended up in Court. And lost. Have a read...
 


8ace

Banned
Jul 21, 2003
23,811
Brighton
Bs75cRzIIAAKPRZ.jpg
 




Husty

Mooderator
Oct 18, 2008
11,994
I can't decide whether the star doing what appears to be some actual journalism is a good thing or a bad thing, I wouldn't want any of these stories to lose any weight because of the paper that reported them.
 


martyn20

Unwell but still smiling
Aug 4, 2012
3,080
Burgess Hill
I can't decide whether the star doing what appears to be some actual journalism is a good thing or a bad thing, I wouldn't want any of these stories to lose any weight because of the paper that reported them.

Least they had the balls, I reckon a few others will have the story by Monday. Having said that they already had it for years but have not had the bottle to publish it.
 






Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Apr 30, 2013
13,789
Herts
I can't decide whether the star doing what appears to be some actual journalism is a good thing or a bad thing, I wouldn't want any of these stories to lose any weight because of the paper that reported them.

Least they had the balls, I reckon a few others will have the story by Monday. Having said that they already had it for years but have not had the bottle to publish it.

Yes, quite. The problem is that people will connect a story (presumably unproven at this stage, but maybe true) that Jill Dando was investigating a paedophilia ring at the BBC with the fact that she was murdered and conclude that she must have been murdered to prevent any story she may have had about a paedophilia ring from being published.

It's a conspiracy theorists wet dream. Of course, that may just be true, but the press will somehow need to firstly prove that Jill Dando was indeed working on exposing a paedophilia ring and then (pretty much impossible. surely?) prove that her murder was due to that...

I fear that such sensationalist reporting, while undoubtedly selling copy in greater volumes, will do massive damage to the detailed, thorough investigation the whole thing needs...
 


martyn20

Unwell but still smiling
Aug 4, 2012
3,080
Burgess Hill
Yes, quite. The problem is that people will connect a story (presumably unproven at this stage, but maybe true) that Jill Dando was investigating a paedophilia ring at the BBC with the fact that she was murdered and conclude that she must have been murdered to prevent any story she may have had about a paedophilia ring from being published.

It's a conspiracy theorists wet dream. Of course, that may just be true, but the press will somehow need to firstly prove that Jill Dando was indeed working on exposing a paedophilia ring and then (pretty much impossible. surely?) prove that her murder was due to that...

I fear that such sensationalist reporting, while undoubtedly selling copy in greater volumes, will do massive damage to the detailed, thorough investigation the whole thing needs...

I have a feeling this story will grow and grow, I would take a bet that by this time next week the whole Jill Dando story including the links to her death will have a lot more meat to it and will not be a conspiracy theory anymore
 


8ace

Banned
Jul 21, 2003
23,811
Brighton
I can't decide whether the star doing what appears to be some actual journalism is a good thing or a bad thing, I wouldn't want any of these stories to lose any weight because of the paper that reported them.

They are just spreading what is on youtube to wider audience - can't hurt I don't think.
 










Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here