Luke

It was there yesterday.... It started of fine and balanced!! So what happened to get it removed????

All I said was..... If he didnt do it,Then I feel sorry for all the krap coming his way.If he did do it???? Then I hope he does get sorted out.

Not out of order.Its got us all thinking...Its a top story in the papers(?????)


So what happend,,Moderators???? .I have asked Simon,he know nothing!

jonny32

i cant find the "wheel of forture" picture ,the wife wanted to see it..has that been removed?

Luke

Jonny, I never saw one reply!!Must have been very quickly removed

Clare

Perhaps for "legal" reasons. However, I think if there is going to be any "legal" comeback from this, the papers will get it first and not Scooby Net!

IMHO of course!

jonny32

luke.it was very funny.

Luke

Jonny..What was funny??!!I missed it..(Had to do the Cooking!!)

Chris L

Because if it goes to court for lible - any medium that repeats the allegation can be sued aswell!!!!! This the reason that Capital Radio would not repeat the name of the guy involved this morning despite the fact that it was in several newspapers. The threads are removed just as a precautionary measure.

Chris

Luke

Chris..Then,you missed a few other posts as well..

MarkO

Anyone who quotes the allegation made by somebody else cannot be sued. If I refer to the Daily Star's headline today, which in turn refers to the accidental release of Leslie's name yesterday by the Evening Standard, I hardly think I'm liable for prosecution.

The allegation is in the public domain now - it's a matter for Ulrika and Leslie to sort out between themselves.

I don't think it was necessary to delete my post, in which I pointed out to people that it was just an allegation and gossip, and should not be construed as evidence of Leslie's guilt.

Neil Smalley

The posts were removed last night, when nobody was naming anyone.
Quote Joshua Rosenburg, Daily Telegraph's Legal Editor
"If we were to name this man and to get it wrong, we would be in a lot of trouble"

If the DT won't name him for fear of legal action, then I think SN should'nt.

Personally i'm not sure where we stand now the cat is out of the bag so to speak. BUT until we know for sure, its probably best not to make accusations or jokes about it.

We all know the drill, and the reasons why so please don't go into a censorship debate about it.

Tiggs

if Joshua Rosenburg works in the media and didnt know who it was he must live under a rock.

on monday there were cleaning ladies at ITV that knew, maybe cause he hit on them

it was very public knowledge.

T

jasey

I might be being incredibly stupid here - but I've read things on here like "Barrymore is a murdering ******* and should be locked up for life", "Estelle Morris is a useless ***** that should have been sacked ages ago" etc......

Surely this is libel that is STARTING on Scoobynet - Isn't this more dangerous

bros2

The BBC aren't reporting it, as libel/slander is about the defamation of an individual. Although they wouldn't be the first organisation to mention the person's name, they would nevertheless be guilty of perpetuating and amplifying it, thus increasing the injury to the said individual.

Not that I think we have anything to worry about if we mention the person's name - I suspect The Evening Standard will be deep in the legal mire however, as they were the people who first ran the story as fact (after the inadvertant naming on c5).

And let's be honest here, whether the guy is guilty as sin or as pure as the driven snow, his career is over. Clearly he won't be convicted, let alone charged; the alleged offences occurred a very long time ago, no complaints were ever made, and nothing can be proven either way. Mud sticks, however, and he might as well sign on the dole now, 'cos he won't be earning ever again.



bros

[Edited by bros2 - 10/24/2002 8:40:17 AM]

Neil Smalley

It may well be public knowledge, but legally its not until someone actually publishes it.

I have'nt got time today to spend arguing semantics or taking part in 'wind ups' Last night every news organisation in the country was being very cagey about allowing the person to be named.

Even capital radio today would not give the name out, for fear of being sued for repeating the allegation.

If there was'nt a good reason for it, you think they'd have waited until someone else did it first? No, thought not.

If you are a legal expert, esp in the field of libel and defamation of character please get in touch with Simon, i'm sure he'd love the help.

Tiggs

"Not that I think we have anything to worry about if we mention the person's name "

errr, i should think not as hes all over Sky News and the sun have about 5 pages on him including the accounts of his "victims"

T

edit to add he is also on the front of the mirror, mail, express and star papers

[Edited by Tiggs - 10/24/2002 8:46:24 AM]

MarkO

Neil, don't be so daft. Why take this action now, when no censorship was performed over the various threads about Barrymore, Maxine Carr and the (horrendous) rantings on this BBS over Ian Huntley?

Neil Smalley

The threads were removed last night, when nobody was publishing anynames.

Last night
Media in paranoid mode, they want to publish the names but their lawyers are telling them no way.
SN(along with other BBS's) remove any threads naming the person
Today
Name is all over the papers
SN Not removed any threads naming the person(but willing to if advised otherwise).

Just be careful what you say and how you say it, It's not difficult is it?

MarkO

Fair enough.

Although actually, the Evening Standard had published the names by early yesterday afternoon.

dsmith

Actually Evening Standard had it yesterday and I posted at 5pm to point out it was on their web-site. It was published yesterday afternoon.

Its all over the website now Evening Standard

I presume we are now allowed to discuss published articles ???

Deano

[Edited by dsmith - 10/24/2002 9:40:15 AM]

RaZe-=Buzz=-

No Deano. You arent.

Everyone else is, but not you.Goodbye

Just practicing to be a moderator :evil:

Neil Smalley

Dsmith

It was pulled from their website yesterday(altough put back in after it had been published by other people). The ES are now apparently facing legal action over them publishing it first.

The whole thing is storm in a tea cup if you ask me.

[Edited by Neil Smalley - 10/24/2002 9:46:44 AM]

dsmith

Well you're not wrong there