The search for Maddy

[Alien52]

You'd be surprised how many cases there are.

 

Yes you have the right to your opinions, as we all do, but when those opinions are defamatory and then air them it causes problems. My opinion may be that celebrity x is a drunk. Doesn't mean it's right to share it though.

 

As for the forum, unlike the press and media it's a privately owned entity. Were the forum sued it would be the owners personally. They probably aren't insured for such things, unlike the media, and don't have the money that the media owners have.

 

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

 

I think this should appear at the top of all SF pages.

[ronthenekred]

I think this should appear at the top of all SF pages.

 

You'd still get those that feel terribly hurt by not being able to express what has been made clear that can't be expressed. I think for some they feel as if SF is somehow a part of them, a part of owning something simply because they contribute. Reality and legalities play no part in their thought process. It's simply "I must be listened to at all cost".

[PeteMorris]

Moderator Message:

 

The rights and wrongs of threads being pulled or not has been adequately covered in posts on here already. The thread is still here! However, could we please get back on topic and leave the modding of threads issue aside.

 

You are all aware I'm mostly very reasonable, and as someone earlier said, sometimes it's a fine line to walk when deciding what course of action to take in a thread. it ain't easy! It's very much a judgement call.

 

So....Back on topic please guys!....And do think about your posts before posting them.

[mumkin]

Spot on. 'Detectives are now monitoring the Internet for vile messages about the McCanns.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460017/Madeleine-McCann-Crimewatch-appeal-Twitter-trolls-attack-Kate-Gerry.html#ixzz2hxeYxlm2

 

And rightly so.........however, the idea that a web/chat site owner can be prosecuted is very unlikely particularly if the site (which this does) has a "report post" facility and of course is moderated.

There have been many cases lately where sites such as twitter/facebook members have been prosecuted...not the site owners. Members of the Sheffield Wednesday forum "Owlstalk" were brought to court by the Directors of SWFC for defamatory comments. The owner of Owlstalk was forced to disclose the identities of the posters, the owner did not get prosecuted because it was shown that the site had report facilities and was moderated. (All the cases were laughed out of court by the way)

To sum up, It is very unlikely that the forum owners would be prosecuted, they would if requested/directed disclose information (ip addresses etc) regarding the member posting any alleged "nasty" comments.

 

Sorry to butt-in to this thread but being an ex assistant manager on an MSN web/chat site, I thought this needed clearing up.

 

Cheers

 

---------- Post added 17-10-2013 at 09:36 ----------

 

Moderator Message:

 

The rights and wrongs of threads being pulled or not has been adequately covered in posts on here already. The thread is still here! However, could we please get back on topic and leave the modding of threads issue aside.

 

You are all aware I'm mostly very reasonable, and as someone earlier said, sometimes it's a fine line to walk when deciding what course of action to take in a thread. it ain't easy! It's very much a judgement call.

 

So....Back on topic please guys!....And do think about your posts before posting them.

 

Sorry, you posted this before I finished writing my post...........so, back on topic.

[boyfriday]

And rightly so.........however, the idea that a web/chat site owner can be prosecuted is very unlikely particularly if the site (which this does) has a "report post" facility and of course is moderated.

 

Frankly why would you risk it? Potentially libellous accusations do nothing for anyone, as all we can do is speculate on their veracity. Even if a counter claim is without substance it still involves the site owner in litigation responding to it.

[PeteMorris]

Moderator Message:

 

SIGH.....Please get back on topic!....I won't ask again!

 

Thanks

Pete

[PeteMorris]

Closing for review, as despite my moderator messages, some posters still insist on posting in regard to threads being removed....can you not read???

[mort]

Yet more posts removed - this is your final chance to discuss this within the forum rules and the guidelines laid down by Pete and Medusa. Any further discussion of the moderating of this thread, accusations about the McCanns or any of the usual childish off topic and bickering nonsense that usually appears and the thread will be removed and bans issued.

[geared]

the e fit looks like her dad.

 

The e-fit is pretty generic tbh, but I don't think it can be her dad - it doesn't fit the timeline does it??

 

why have the Needhams not had the help and publicity that the Mcannes have had

 

Ben went missing over 20 years ago, any new police investigation is unlikely to turn up any leads as there is little physical evidence to re-examine and it's simply too long to jog peoples memories and get any useful information.

 

Add to that the fact there was much more internet publicity of McCann which made the story larger, along with the horrendous bungling of the case by the Portuguese which attracted further media attention.

 

Although I truely hope both cases are resolved, I also understand there is much more chance of solving the McCann case now as people might still remember something.