I just wanted to say that I think post deletion its getting well out of hand :( You can no longer write true factual comments about companies becuase they are negative.

Is it true that the original Scoobynet had to close because P.E were threatening court action? I think this is a rumour which should be stopped if it is not true.

Did I post something wrong in the Dealer Survey thread? Guess I must have.

As that beautiful female Ann Robinson says

Goodbye!

Anyone who thinks Anne Robinson is beautiful deserves to have their posts deleted IMHO.

It seemed odd to me but Simon did say that "xyz is crap" type posts would be deleted whereas "abc are crap because they couldn't be bothered to return calls and they broke my wing mirror" would not be. If that is the case then that seems reasonable.

'beautiful' and 'Anne Robinson' should not be used in the same sentence!

Anyone who thinks Anne Robinson is beautiful deserves to have their posts deleted IMHO.

Sorry, I obviously feel so strongly about this I need to post twice

[This message has been edited by SWOLL (edited 10 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by SWOLL (edited 10 October 2000).]

Ann Robinson is a minger!

I can't answer your question about PE, I can only tell you what I have heard also, which is pretty useless.

But my stance is to believe the rumor and I have my own reasons for that.

For goodness sake!!!

PE had NOTHING to do with the end of scoobynet 1.

Scoobynet 1 closed because Phil Daws (he who should be honoured for his service!) was (among other things) sick and tired of this kind of thread and time it takes to explain. I can now TOTALLY sympathise with him.

The posts that were removed, were removed because they were potentially libellous. If there is anyone with formal legal knowledge who would like to write a FAQ on this subject I would be incredibly grateful as it would save us all having to go through it again and again.

To say that post deletion is out of hand is an incredible stretch of the facts.

Mr Leigh
You CAN "write true factual comment about companies" EVEN if they are Negative. It just needs to be done in a way that does not cause scoobynet to be sued for libel.

Take a look at this:-

Simon,

Am I wrong in thinking that if you start your text (e.g. a letter) Without Predudice, then you can pretty much write what you want without fear of libel action? Or is that yet another wives tale I've belived all my life http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/wink.gif

All without prejudice means is that you are saying something without moving from your legally stated position.
E.g You owe me a 1000 quid.

I write to you and say without prejudice you can pay me in 10 monthly payments. The without prejudice bit does'nt negate you owing me the money or my right to have it in one lump sum it just allows us to reach an agreement.

It's not some kind of magic spell that will prevent you from libel(alas)

Now some legal eagle will prove me wrong. Oh well.

Without Predudice, Ann Robinson is a minger.

I put 'Without predudice' to be on the safe side.

I tend to agree 'bout Anne Robinson being a minger. Bet she drives an Audi!

[This message has been edited by Paul Habgood (edited 10 October 2000).]

"Without prejudice" won't help you if you've libelled someone. What you need then is George Carman QC. Neil Smalley is right on what it means.

Give Webbie a break on the post deletion. He has a right to be ultra cautious on this.

BTW, what's a minger? http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/confused.gif Is it good or bad? If I want to show how up I am with teen slang and call someone a "minger" (once I've found out what it means...) do I pronounce it with a silent "g" or not? Should I get my coat now?

davidw - LOL!!!

Thank you for all the constructive comments all.

The reason I pointed out Paul's post, was not due to the "without predjudice" comment but the fact that his entire post is portayed as simple facts, and stated as HIS opinion.

If you say that company X is "CRAP" you are not telling the truth, unless they really are a company made of solely out of excriment.

Cheers

Simon

Oi!

I am NOT a minger!

A.R.

Welcome aboard Ann...do you want to come to the Aylesbury meet?

Tim

A.r- Sad mate.. very sad.

Webmaster

I sympathise. I really cannot believe the attitude of some people (and i'm largely talking about previous posts here). They think they have the right to say what they want without thinking of the consequences then leave someone else to pick up the pieces. Perhaps they would like to swap with you......or start "ScoobyNut" a BBS of their own and invite anybody to say what they want about who they want then they can suffer the consequences. There might be a different attitude when they get nailed to the mainmast.

There are quite clear rules regarding the use of this BBS. If I come on and post something offensive/libellious etc then I expect to have it deleted etc. No different to if someone came into my house and started being offensive/violent/urinating on the carpet etc - I would chuck them out of my house - and it's my choice same as you have to make the judgement on what you think is or is not accepteble on this BBS.

As a dealer, I welcome comments both ways. If we do wrong I want to hear about it and sort it out. IMHO, we are all human and as such make mistakes. (Check my spelling for example) As a company we love good words on this bbs, and if we go wrong, welcome comments so we don't make the same mistake again.

Use common sence, if someone gets your goat, be factual, not abusive, and give them a chance to sort it out. If it dosen't get sorted then as long as the facts are down and documented there should be no problem.

A year or so ago a thread started about my dealership, sure we messed up, we all do at some stage - NOBODY is perfect, but I sorted it and all concerned where happy.

Anyway, I just watched 'The Mummy' on dvd and thought of AR http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/biggrin.gif

David

Sorry for my last post, but i think it is extremely sad that people will go to the extent of creating a new user name and use up bandwidth for the name/post - just for one little thread. It happened on the Richard Burns post aswell- can these people not just get a life? http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/smile.gif

- lol ignore this... it is meant for the posting by Dave Richards on the Richard Burns thread.

[This message has been edited by Hos (edited 11 October 2000).]

Dave T-S / Shark

Well said both! (thank you)

There are benefits to both companies and consumers to hearing about the good and the bad (as you have highlighted).

So if we all do it properly, we can all benefit.

Scoobynet is a powerful resource for companies to gauge opinion about their products / services. It is important that this is not abused.

Thanks for your support.

Regards

Simon

I'm a solicitor by profession but haven't practised for a few years as got bored with it and wandered off to do something else - so, don't take this as gospel but basically :

1. "Without Prejudice" is used as a bargaining tool in litigation - it allows you to suggest remedies/solutions without compromising your position/rights. Correspondence marked in this way can actually be excluded from evidence in Court. However it is not relevant to this situation.

2. Libel/Defamation is the making of an untrue or unfounded remark about someone (person or business) which is likely to damage their reputation in the mind of a "right thinking member of society" (not us lot then http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/wink.gif). If you want to post a potentially defamatory comment, I suggest you do also back it up with a FACT, otherwise ......

3. The webmaster is absolutely right to delete threads which are potentially defamatory to be on the safe side. Scoobynet could be classed as the "publisher" of the defamatory statement and potential damages in libel/defamation cases are huge. It's a new area of law but ISP's (or webmasters!) could be liable for information posted on their servers (Godfrey v. Demon ISP - Defamatory post on news server - Demon settled out of court for a sum which would buy you Richard's car..). The US is leading the way with an "innocent dissemination" defence for ISPs which aims to relieve the burden of being responsible for the behavior of the unruly masses but no such principle is proven in the UK !!

Hope this helps..

That'll be £100 quid please.

Nick

On a web site we did for a b-i-i-i-g drinks company their lawyers created a disclaimer for the site's BBS that said although they reserved the right to delete stuff it was not their duty, nor did the failure to delete a post constitute their endorsement of the opinion. If anyone had a beef about a message then they could email the lawyers and they would act accordingly.

But then I'm only an e-commerce consultant.

So that'll be 350 quid please ;-)

Good point.

£100 was far too cheap.

Disclaimers are great but are not conclusive, many are ineffective and do not change the basic applicability of the law. Ask Demon's lawyers, either that or they were c..(oops can't say that).

Does scoobynet have lawyers ?

That'll be another £100

Nick

For the vocal minority who have a problem with webby deleting posts, I would recomend going to a bookshop and looking in the computer section for a book on computer law - try basic Computer law by Bainbridge i think...

Go to the index....thats the bit at the back and look for the internet law section and after reading oh...all of a paragraph you'll see why webbys job is so hard.

As nick states, the webmaster of a web site containing defamatory material is seen as the publisher as they have provided the medium for this material to be published. So when...if the **** hits the fan, they are held responsible.

So give Webby a break and go buy some Scoobynet merchandise.

laters

stu

Someone call? I definitely recall someone saying they had a beef.... http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/wink.gif

If you've got a complaint about Anne Robinson I would call Watchdog.

You should be directing your abuse at Anne Widdecombe.

Well I'd like to say first of all that webbie is doing a top job, for those who don't like post deletion then try posting more responsibly in the first place, I'm not digging at anyone in particular here just the principles behind this thread!

As for the persons who registered Dave Richards and Colin McRae and indeed Anne robinson, I think they have all been very amusing and I don't think anyone in their right mind would have considered them real for a minute and taken them in anything other than jest. But again, obviously they can be open to abuse in the wrong hands but nice to see that they haven't been.

Just my 2p,
Nito

Hos

I'm the guilty one.

Just having a laugh mate, sorry you don't appreciate my humour.

I agree, it's a bit silly to go to the extent of setting up a new user name for the sake of "one little thread", but it tickled me at the time.

I might point out that I was simply responding with tongue firmly in cheek to those posters claiming that A.R. was a "minger" and I didn't actually make any offensive remarks myself.

I was not intentionally lowering the tone of an otherwise serious thread - it had humorous undertones long before I added my silly 2p worth.

Having read some of the legal eagle's posts on this thread however, I see that perhaps I'm not helping the webmaster by impersonating another individual.

Consequently I will refrain from repeating it - not because you don't like it Hos - but because it's best not to put Scoobynet at any risk.

Okay, I've said my bit, now I'm off to get a life. http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/wink.gif

Rich http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/smile.gif

Personally I thought it was funny...

I am not sure of the legalities of it? Anyone care to comment.

RichS
I am really grateful for your support.

Regards

webbie

Surely any "right-minded memeber of society" wouldn't think you were the real Ann "Watchdog" Robinson?

When I was at University I was sharing a house with 4 guys and 1 girl. The girl was indeed an "Anne Robinson" and weird with it too. We treated her bad because we didn't get on with her or her gothic friends. In the end she left having sent us all a letter detailing the mental and physical abuse that she had gone through living with us. It was a load of rubbish > but it got her out of the contact with the landlord.

At the end of the letter it said without prejudice. I thought that it meant that she wasn't blaming us or something like that. Damn, if it doesn't mean that- then I'm pissed off.

Q