SIXFOOTSTEVE
Well-known member
:casstet:
Whats going on?
- Thread starter Davyred
- Start date
- Status
T
TC
Guest
What some may see as \"moving on\", others could claim as \"devaluing\", \"weakening\", \"corrupting\", \"copping out\" and yes, \"sacriligeous\".
I\'m certainly no \"expert\" - I know buggerall about Islam / Muslims (or Christianity, come to that), other than what I\'ve seen & read, recently - but from what I can gather, it does seem to be more of a culture, a way of life - rather than \"just\" a religion.
Many of US claim to be \"Christioan\", but how many actually follow Christianity and adopt a Christian way of life? Certainly not me - I\'\'m a devout athiest
As for the time span...... I know what you mean, Davy, buta few hundred years isn\'t a long time considering how long both faiths have been around (particularly Islam).
[Edited on 11/2/2006 by TC]
I\'m certainly no \"expert\" - I know buggerall about Islam / Muslims (or Christianity, come to that), other than what I\'ve seen & read, recently - but from what I can gather, it does seem to be more of a culture, a way of life - rather than \"just\" a religion.
Many of US claim to be \"Christioan\", but how many actually follow Christianity and adopt a Christian way of life? Certainly not me - I\'\'m a devout athiest
As for the time span...... I know what you mean, Davy, buta few hundred years isn\'t a long time considering how long both faiths have been around (particularly Islam).
[Edited on 11/2/2006 by TC]
T
TC
Guest
\"a march tomorrow 100,000 muslims in london just watch what happens ?\" ???????
4,000 apparently.
And whilst one of the objectives of the protest was to condem the now infamous cartoons, the other was, \"to dissociate the mainstream Muslim community from a \"minority of extremists\".\"
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
4,000 apparently.
And whilst one of the objectives of the protest was to condem the now infamous cartoons, the other was, \"to dissociate the mainstream Muslim community from a \"minority of extremists\".\"
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
SIXFOOTSTEVE
Well-known member
:casstet:
[Edited on 11/2/2006 by SIXFOOTSTEVE]
[Edited on 11/2/2006 by SIXFOOTSTEVE]
T
TC
Guest
Hardly brought a mention on the main national news tonight - because it all went so peacefully.
\"just watch what happens ?\"..........I watched...........nothing happened!
.......well nothing that I suppose many were hoping \"would\" happen.
Can\'t help thinkin\' that there must be some REALLY disapointed people who were hoping that they\'d have something else to kick off about.
[Edited on 11/2/2006 by TC]
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
\"just watch what happens ?\"..........I watched...........nothing happened!
.......well nothing that I suppose many were hoping \"would\" happen.
Can\'t help thinkin\' that there must be some REALLY disapointed people who were hoping that they\'d have something else to kick off about.
[Edited on 11/2/2006 by TC]
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
T
TC
Guest
Just to clear one thing up.......avatars aren\'t \"vetted\".
The simple truth is, the current NESA set-up doesn\'t have the facility for individual members to upload their avatars......it\'s done through a sepparate piece of software.
If somebody wants an avatar uploaded, I\'m happy to spend time doing that......not that I \"vet\" them.....just as \"admin\" I have the necessary software to do so - there\'s also the fact that many photos I get to upload as avatars are WAY to big for the purpose, so I have to re-size them
If you have any \"issues\" with any of the current avatars, Mike - let me know and I\'ll look at your concerns.
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
The simple truth is, the current NESA set-up doesn\'t have the facility for individual members to upload their avatars......it\'s done through a sepparate piece of software.
If somebody wants an avatar uploaded, I\'m happy to spend time doing that......not that I \"vet\" them.....just as \"admin\" I have the necessary software to do so - there\'s also the fact that many photos I get to upload as avatars are WAY to big for the purpose, so I have to re-size them
If you have any \"issues\" with any of the current avatars, Mike - let me know and I\'ll look at your concerns.
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
T
TC
Guest
btw.........You may have guessed....I\'ve got me pi-sed-off head on tonight
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
T
TC
Guest
Apologies....meant to post this reply to Marc eatlier...................
Quote from me:-
\"....there is NO \"free speech\" on the \'net.......there are always consequences which go with what is posted.
As I\'ve again said, many times, it\'s Elton and me who would face those consequences
Marcs\' comment:-
I take on board what Tony says though, I might not agree with it......\"
Marc........there\'s NOTHING to disagree with, m8 - it\'s a FACT.........would YOU like to carry the can for something somebody else says?..........especially when you DON\'T agree with what they\'ve said????
\"Internet Libel and incitement
The same rules apply for the internet as most other areas of the press. If the words published on-line are defamatory, the publisher can be sued.\".............
\"...........In this instance, \"the publisher\" is not \"the author\", but the owner of the website and those responsible for the administration of the site.\"
Would YOU want to pay a fine or serve time in prison for something somebody else said?......I think not !
I don\'t make the \"rules\", but like the rest of us, I have to abide by them........in this case, as site admin, I have more to lose than somebody who makes either a \"libelous\" or \"incitement\" post.
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
Quote from me:-
\"....there is NO \"free speech\" on the \'net.......there are always consequences which go with what is posted.
As I\'ve again said, many times, it\'s Elton and me who would face those consequences
Marcs\' comment:-
I take on board what Tony says though, I might not agree with it......\"
Marc........there\'s NOTHING to disagree with, m8 - it\'s a FACT.........would YOU like to carry the can for something somebody else says?..........especially when you DON\'T agree with what they\'ve said????
\"Internet Libel and incitement
The same rules apply for the internet as most other areas of the press. If the words published on-line are defamatory, the publisher can be sued.\".............
\"...........In this instance, \"the publisher\" is not \"the author\", but the owner of the website and those responsible for the administration of the site.\"
Would YOU want to pay a fine or serve time in prison for something somebody else said?......I think not !
I don\'t make the \"rules\", but like the rest of us, I have to abide by them........in this case, as site admin, I have more to lose than somebody who makes either a \"libelous\" or \"incitement\" post.
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
SIXFOOTSTEVE
Well-known member
\" Let\'s see what happens \" , I\'m glad nothing did happen although to be honest I did half expect trouble ,it seems that very few protests go off quietly these days due to a minority bent on aggitation and disorder.
Tony
My comment was made as in \'I will abide by the rules as you are held liable for what I think/post in this forum, I was disagreeing that you should be held liable for them.\'
Hope this makes sense
Sunday lunchtime drinking eh
Do you know how the admin/owner of the domain is responsible for what is posted on sites/forums and is it the admin/owner or host of the site. How do some of the \'other\' sites get away with it.
Any idea on who polices it and how?
My comment was made as in \'I will abide by the rules as you are held liable for what I think/post in this forum, I was disagreeing that you should be held liable for them.\'
Hope this makes sense
Sunday lunchtime drinking eh
Do you know how the admin/owner of the domain is responsible for what is posted on sites/forums and is it the admin/owner or host of the site. How do some of the \'other\' sites get away with it.
Any idea on who polices it and how?
T
TC
Guest
Sorry for the misinterpretation there, Marc.
Mark,
You can put whatever you like into a disclaimer on a sites\' terms & conditions, but it has no legal force.
The upshot is if a post is made which contains libelous, defamatory or remarks contrary to law and either the site owner or the site administrator are aware of such comments and take no action to remove them, it is THEY who are held accountable.
They must take action to remove the remarks / posts.
Mark,
You can put whatever you like into a disclaimer on a sites\' terms & conditions, but it has no legal force.
The upshot is if a post is made which contains libelous, defamatory or remarks contrary to law and either the site owner or the site administrator are aware of such comments and take no action to remove them, it is THEY who are held accountable.
They must take action to remove the remarks / posts.
Topfly
Well-known member
hi lads & lasses, this thread is going nowhere everyone seems to have had their say if anymore has to be said get some placards made and head off to speakers corner at hyde park T C is dead right this is not a platform to vent our anger it\'s only for discussion hooray for democracy jim
mark
Well-known member
Sorry tony, but I\'ve got T\'s&C\'s which have been legalled for some of my clients including the BBC, Dyson and Kelloggs, the disclaimer protects them directly from any stement made by a thrid party. the finer points of the data protection act direct any litigation, to submission of facts from the sites owners and the legal requirement that any adminstrator or owner of any web site MUST keep a full record of every data connection and details of all data transfered in and out and from wherever for a period of 7 years.
In the case of litigation or at the request of the data protection registrar this information is to be given up to them
the onlycases I am aware of where a site owner has been pursued directly is where they failed to comply with the DPA, refused to give up information when a legal request had been made under the DPA, or had failed to register in the first (or a combination of any of the 3)
Been there and done all that, 7 years ago National Wind Power tried it on with me, claiming I was promoting defamatory staements had was guilty of dissemination of misinformation. I was/am registered with the DPA.
Duly I supplied the courts/DPR with server logs for the period in question, the courts were fully satisfied that I\'d covered my arse and directed that NWP need to direct litagation at any individual responsible, and critically, that they had to show \"just cause\" in order to bring such an action ie they had to demonstrate what damage had been done first
so that got rid of part one and there\'s is no legal grounding for their second claim, if there was every single mention that there has ever been on any forum anywhere could be claimed to be dissemination of misinformation. e.g, someone says that shop X is great, someone else goes there and gets a bum deal then the claim would stand of this and also one of misrepresantation.
the case was recorded in hansard, and I know for a fact that the bbc have told several potential ligants to go boil there heads in respect of comments made on their forums
ok, there may currently be a grey area in respect of the new \'incitement\' bill, as to what constitutes racial or religious hatred, If someone wanted to there\'s probably dozens of \'jokes\' in the barmaids bosom forum that fall foul
In the summing up of the case the judge likened a Bulletin Board to a public house bar. If 2 people at the bar say something defamatory does that make the landlord legally responsible/liable for those remarks.
In the case of litigation or at the request of the data protection registrar this information is to be given up to them
the onlycases I am aware of where a site owner has been pursued directly is where they failed to comply with the DPA, refused to give up information when a legal request had been made under the DPA, or had failed to register in the first (or a combination of any of the 3)
Been there and done all that, 7 years ago National Wind Power tried it on with me, claiming I was promoting defamatory staements had was guilty of dissemination of misinformation. I was/am registered with the DPA.
Duly I supplied the courts/DPR with server logs for the period in question, the courts were fully satisfied that I\'d covered my arse and directed that NWP need to direct litagation at any individual responsible, and critically, that they had to show \"just cause\" in order to bring such an action ie they had to demonstrate what damage had been done first
so that got rid of part one and there\'s is no legal grounding for their second claim, if there was every single mention that there has ever been on any forum anywhere could be claimed to be dissemination of misinformation. e.g, someone says that shop X is great, someone else goes there and gets a bum deal then the claim would stand of this and also one of misrepresantation.
the case was recorded in hansard, and I know for a fact that the bbc have told several potential ligants to go boil there heads in respect of comments made on their forums
ok, there may currently be a grey area in respect of the new \'incitement\' bill, as to what constitutes racial or religious hatred, If someone wanted to there\'s probably dozens of \'jokes\' in the barmaids bosom forum that fall foul
In the summing up of the case the judge likened a Bulletin Board to a public house bar. If 2 people at the bar say something defamatory does that make the landlord legally responsible/liable for those remarks.
T
TC
Guest
Thanks for that, Mark - excellent information (I\'m gonna keep that somewhere) and I bow to your superior knowledge over such matters.
All the information I\'ve looked at regarding internet law has bascicaly said the same thing - that being to the effect of:- if a site owner or administrator is aware of something being posted which is defamatory, libelous, etc, etc, and takes no action to remove the offending article, then they can be held accountable. However, simply removing the comments is usually enough to avoid any legal consequences.
Consequently, I won\'t be taking any chances on that score and will continue (for the time being) to run the site in the same manner I have done for almost 6 years.
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
All the information I\'ve looked at regarding internet law has bascicaly said the same thing - that being to the effect of:- if a site owner or administrator is aware of something being posted which is defamatory, libelous, etc, etc, and takes no action to remove the offending article, then they can be held accountable. However, simply removing the comments is usually enough to avoid any legal consequences.
Consequently, I won\'t be taking any chances on that score and will continue (for the time being) to run the site in the same manner I have done for almost 6 years.
[Edited on 12/2/2006 by TC]
T
TC
Guest
Just as a footnote to the above post......
I\'ve gotta say that since this thread has been running, I\'ve not once even had to consider removing anything posted by anyone.
Right at the start of the thread I asked people not to \"spoil it\" as it was an important issue to discuss - Thankyou ALL who have contributed to this discussion and have done so without \"spoiling it\".
I\'ve gotta say that since this thread has been running, I\'ve not once even had to consider removing anything posted by anyone.
Right at the start of the thread I asked people not to \"spoil it\" as it was an important issue to discuss - Thankyou ALL who have contributed to this discussion and have done so without \"spoiling it\".
- Status