Just thought I would update you on why the site was offline last night, although you probably can guess.
The comments on the “two jobsworths out” thread were getting unpleasant and personal, resulting in legal threats against myself from History Hunter of the Thornton Through Time website. I had no access to a computer at the time, so took the site offline via my phone.
People are of course allowed to say what they think of a website, and if they think it’s a big pile of steaming excrement they are entitled to say so either in those words or other words of choice that might be less polite.
Further to this they are allowed to call people names of choice too, although comparing people with paedophiles/Myra Hindley is going too far and after hearing it the millionth time not really amusing either.
I have already said I wont be happy with personal contact information being posted on here and as a result I have had to remove references to (apparently) the home address of History Hunter. The comment about her site being shite stands, because I think sites based on those freebie forums always are.
I run this site for my own amusement more than anything else, and I feel the fact that I don’t have to censor people is an asset both to myself as administrator and readers as it allows people to be open in their views.
If it gets to the point where I have to keep reading comments and wondering whether it’s legal for them to be there then I’ll just close the site, legal threats or not.
This site is not a shroud for people to fire abuse at others.
That is all. I will of course be seeking legal advice on Monday in relation to the threats made and I’m going to have to post some rules on here if we can’t be civil.
loading…
Its a shame you have had to take this route but I agree with you 100% Phil. There is a time and a place for expletives but its not big or clever to use them just for using thems sake.
loading...
You are right to control this thread it got clearly out of order. With someone wanting to get back at being thrown of a board which has nothing to do with this one. I don’t know who this History Hunter is but she is a female and posting her address after the comments he made about her gives an implied threat of “I know where you live”. Imagine you are a female and a man rung you on your home phone and said this how worried would you be.
My family resonantly went to a photo studio to gets a series of fun portrait of my wife and children. To break the ice they had us doing some silly things like pretending to strangle my wife. When we came back a few days latter to view the photos we never saw that imagine (which we asked to see as we thought it was very funny) we were told that if at any point in the future I did strangle my wife then the police would ask questions (and possibly take the photographer to court) why they didn’t inform the police about my strangling wife plans. So what I am saying is posting people names and/or address on the blog and if something happens to them then the person who runs the site could be held partially responsible. So it is up to people who post comments to behave responsibly or don’t post comments or start the own and take that responsibility on their own shoulders.
loading...
Whilst agreeing with your comments about the implied threats, tour analogy about the photographs is bollox! We are all respnsible for our own actions.
loading...
Yes I agree with you but it was said to us. And the company werent joking. Its sad but true.
loading...
TrooBloo you are right we are responsible for our own actions but if I tell you I am going to kill my wife the law would take the view that you should have informed the police. That’s the analogy I was driving at.
loading...
I know what you mean. There is a line and it only takes a little restraint & common sense to avoid stepping over it.
loading...
I was in a panic your site had gone the same way as BTNL (RIP), but thankfully not. This site is great beats the Gazette anyday, no malicious deleting, no abuse (other than a few isolated incidences) and some fantastic articles with intelligent debate on local, national and international issues. I try to keep a level of restraint with my posts. I am always very careful not to write anything that could land me in hot water. Its like there are certain things I would like to say about Hamish Howitt and Gordon Marsden but they are things that would not be suitable for this site (not homicidal thoughts, I’m not that mad) just things I think, know or have heard that could cause trouble if posted on here, so I best keep them to myself. I definitely agree with Phil posting personal details and addresses is going too far.
loading...
I feel it’s a great shame that Phil has been put in this position, it’s a great blog and he deserves better from us.
I would urge everyone to cut down on their swearing and use some common sense in the way they speak about other people regardless of how they agree with them or not.
This site is too good to lose because of our anger getting in the way of our judgement.
loading...
I agree with you zim this is an interesting blog (which I don’t always agree with but does make interesting reading) however most people on it don’t cross the line. One does often and for once he doesn’t seem to be posting today. We all make mistakes but when you do you stand up and own up or justify yourself or not as the case may be.
loading...
The fact that we don’t agree is the beauty of it though John, don’t you think?
I am fully aware I talk crap a lot of the time, and I love it when people disagree and/or correct me; its entertaining and enlightening (for me at least!)
I have not banned Harold nor do I intend to, he is free to continue posting provided the personal attacks and swearing can be controlled.
I don’t particularly think there was a legal case here anyway but since I am a nice guy and responsible webmaster I have removed what I believe to have been the offending comments and I believe the complainant is happy with it.
Hopefully this draws a line under it.
loading...
I agree phil if people who disagree don’t talk then hatred develops how can you have a opinion on something if you don’t understand what that subject is. I don’t think you should ban HEG he should be old enough to control his own postings (this is not to say that Thornton Through Time did anything wrong it’s a different web site then this one Horses for courses).
As for the law I think we all know how silly the law can be early this week a man was prosecuted for blowing his nose in a car which was in stationary traffic with his handbrake on because “he wasn’t in full control of his car” beggars belief.
loading...
Missed the whole saga! Why would you criticise Thornton Through Time? It’s obviously a site on local history that does what you’d expect from it. You might not personally find it interesting but the world would be a very boring place if we all liked the same things and thought the same. And why would historyhunter have a go at you Phil? Surely they of all people know what it’s like to run a site unpaid!
loading...
It’s surprising how often people message site admins with cries of “OMFGZ I R CALL POLICE!!!1″ in general.
Luckily though a privately owned domain/host/site such as this can do what it likes in terms of opinion. UK laws don’t apply to say, a site hosted in Iceland for starters. Plus having kerry katona around is bound to put off the coppers as she fuels up on coke.
loading...
if you read it in the UK, then UK law applies.
loading...
No. If the site was owned and hosted in Iceland for instance UK law does not apply. Icelandic law would apply.
If say Donkey porn was legal in North Korea and ya viewed the website in the UK that does not mean the UK has ANY jurisdiction for closing down that site just because it’s illegal here. It can be blocked on UK ISP’s with an injunction but that’s it .
It’s the same for copyright infringement etc. although in that case there are cross border laws and treaties. Even then it’s VERY hard to sue someone cross border with success.
This is not to say a member of the UK can’t sue another member of the UK that had posted on the Icelandic site but you can not sue the HOST/OWNER of the site using UK law unless he was resident of the UK.
loading...
well ya could try but would fail.
loading...
Of no less importance in the digital age is an understanding of the ways in which existing laws are applied to current modes of communication in different jurisdictions. Under English law, information published on the internet is deemed to be published in England (and so subject to English law) if an internet user accesses it from this country, even if the publisher and servers are located overseas. Under English law each communication of a libel is a separate publication in respect of which an action may be brought. Therefore the English law does allow complaints over internet articles and blogs read in England or foreign newspapers sold here that have resulted in damage to a reputation. By contrast, in the US there is no comparable rule of ‘primary publication’. Instead, the law only allows one claim for the primary publication.
While internet publication (particularly on blogs) can present challenges to bringing a libel claim, the English law has adapted to meet these challenges. For example, an internet service provider may be compelled to disclose the identity of a person at a specified internet protocol (IP) address, thereby unmasking an anonymous blogger against whom action can be taken (as in The Author of A Blog v Times Newspapers Ltd [2009]). HatTip inhouselawyer.co.uk
loading...
That can’t be right, because if it was, The Pirate Bay would have been closed down years ago with court action in the USA.
Instead they were defiant in the face of legal threats from just about every major software and media house you can think of because they were protected by Swedish law.
You’re basically saying that you could pick and choose a country with the most favourable laws in which to go and view a web site so you could exploit the law there.
So if libel brought the death penalty in Outer Mongolia, you could go there, view the site with libellous content, press charges and then have the author executed even if you were both English, the site was hosted in England and the article written and published from an English ISP.
In the case of the comments on here, Harold didn’t say anything as fact that wasn’t true, and therefore I don’t think he can be held accountable for anything. You are allowed to have opinions.
loading...
Hence ‘libel tourism’, due to the favourable nature of our legal system for those keen on stifling freedom of opinion and information.
Even without foreigners exploiting our legal system, we have enough people willing to use it to their own ends – look up Simon Singh and have a look at the sort of batshittery he’s up against in the courts.
TPB was targeted on many, many occasions with DMCA take-down notices – all of which were ignored, rightly, because US jurisdiction stops at its own borders, regardless of what its court officers believe otherwise.
loading...
Aye like i said, it’s a fail. Even if u sued someone from the UK in Iceland they can simply ignore it. That “inhouselawyer.co.uk” stuff is a bit mad as the UK can’t compel any ISP in another country unless using channels of the back of international treaties in relation to serious crime. Defamation of character is a civil lawsuit so basically coppers don’t give a fook.
loading...
I think they mean you can sue someone in the UK under UK law, not iceland or wherever.
loading...
yeah i had to wonder at why repeat what i had said already but n/m
loading...
miss that google boney.
loading...
Boom john!
loading...
I Say shame on all those who are abusing Phils kind hospitality by hosting this great blog.
There is no need for bad language or offensive comments, if you truly believe something to be true, and say, you believe it to be so, it is not liable/slander. Just a statement of your personal belief.
loading...
To clarify the situation, Harold was on another site discussing very serious local political issues ( no swearing) and the thread was locked.He protested at this, questioning why and he was then deleted.The site owner came on here after he criticised the site and gave him grief, he retaliated with abuse.All of this was provoked.He guessed the street of the site owner since the person in question mentioned that they lived in a certain area of Thornton, which predominantly has 4 streets; it was a 25% chance.The area in question is home to druggies and other low lifes etc, and he used this as a form of abuse.He does not know nor did he publish the address of the site owner.
He has apologised to Phil and assured him he will no longer swear ever again on this site.He will in due course set up his own site where abuse will be in hyper-abundant amounts given his intense antipathy towards MPS, celebs etc.
The question remains, which is morally worse, someone who neglects their public duty after being elected as such;making decisions out of self/party interest that impact peoples lives in an adverse way, thus ignorimng their constituents concerns etc
or simply writing obscene abuse about that person?
I know the answer to that question.
loading...