Oh , not again
Comments
-
Another none story jumped on and turned into another Sky are doping thread by people with little else in there head.
Yawn. Change the record. :roll:
And RayJay, I think the mod is trying to protect the forum from the Boring Farts Club.
0 -
You are wrong.rayjay wrote:[Again Rich I am not trying to cause a problem but I am a bit concerned over censorship and not letting people express their views. I think as long as the person is not offensive and makes it clear that those opinions are his or hers then surly BR cannot be held accountable. I could be wrong on that last bit though as I am not a lawyer.Twitter: @RichN950 -
mike6 wrote:Another none story jumped on and turned into another Sky are doping thread by people with little else in there head.
Yawn. Change the record. :roll:
And RayJay, I think the mod is trying to protect the forum from the Boring Farts Club.
You really are the life and soul of the party. You really do not like anyone who as a different opinion other than yours. You should set up your own forum because I don't recall you actually making a contribution to a thread.
All you do his make childish and offensive comments to those who's opinion and views you don't share.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
You are wrong.rayjay wrote:[Again Rich I am not trying to cause a problem but I am a bit concerned over censorship and not letting people express their views. I think as long as the person is not offensive and makes it clear that those opinions are his or hers then surly BR cannot be held accountable. I could be wrong on that last bit though as I am not a lawyer.
I don't think the person is wrong. They just happen to see it differently than you.
In saying that I don't think this thread is a "Sky is doping" thread nor a place to even discuss it.
Pinot's comments I find are interesting. Much better to discuss that.0 -
No he is wrong. Bike Radar can be held accountable for his, and anyone else's, comments. They are the publisher of our words.whiteboytrash wrote:RichN95 wrote:
You are wrong.rayjay wrote:[Again Rich I am not trying to cause a problem but I am a bit concerned over censorship and not letting people express their views. I think as long as the person is not offensive and makes it clear that those opinions are his or hers then surly BR cannot be held accountable. I could be wrong on that last bit though as I am not a lawyer.
I don't think the person is wrong. They just happen to see it differently than you.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:RichN95 wrote:
You are wrong.rayjay wrote:[Again Rich I am not trying to cause a problem but I am a bit concerned over censorship and not letting people express their views. I think as long as the person is not offensive and makes it clear that those opinions are his or hers then surly BR cannot be held accountable. I could be wrong on that last bit though as I am not a lawyer.
I don't think the person is wrong. They just happen to see it differently than you.
No he is wrong. Bike Radar can be held accountable for his, and anyone else's, comments. They are the publisher of our words.
He's wrong because someone might come along and sue BikeRadar?
That doesn't make him wrong. BikeRadar are largely off the hook in this instance. Those who write the words are much more at risk for their comments on a open forum.
Nevertheless one can certainly hold the opinion that Sky are doping. That is their right and one wouldn't have much problem in defending that position in court.
There is nothing false in that statement.
Sky are public figures and open to comment.
We can't do a Jimmy Saville and shut this one down.
No. That wouldn't be right.
One must be open to the possibility that Sky might just be doping. It wouldn't be considered unusual if they were.
But only on the appropriate thread.0 -
rayjay wrote:Looks to me that its turned into the conservative old farts club.
Its a forum open to debate and people should be allowed the views.
if you don't like a thread then don't read it.
You can't control what people think.
Simple.
Of course we can't control what other people think. However on your point of not reading posts that you don't like, similarly if you don't like the way the (majority) of posters respond to your posts you are entirely at liberty to comment on some alternative forum. Don't expect people to moderate their behaviour based on what you are posting. In fact if anything it appears to be having the opposite affect.
It might seem contradictory to you but I don't think too many people who respond to your comments on this and various other threads that have a similar theme have a particular fondness for Sky and indeed many have stated as much. However it does appear that they have issues with your line(s) of reasoning. I'd like to think that the last comment is stating the bleedin' obvious.
With regard to the legalities of publishing all this, it is certainly a somewhat grey area I guess and I am not a law professional. Nevertheless if I were to go onto public forums stating my opinion was that so-and-so was a paedophile without providing any evidence, I wouldn't like to be the lawyer trying to defend my position regarding potentially libelous activity.
It's even more complex regarding the hosting of the forum regarding defamation but the best I can come up with is Bunt vs Tilley & other and the comment: "if a person knowingly permits another to communicate information which is defamatory, when there would be an opportunity to prevent the publication, there would seem to be no reason in principle why liability should not accrue". http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/407.html0 -
The counter to this is you cannot inhibit or prohibit free speech by the threat of libel.
Public interest will generally prevail.
Armstrong's proceedings against the Sunday Times was interesting. The Sunday Times attested that they were not accusing Armstrong of taking drugs but "suspecting" him of doing so.
They then argued over a judge or jury trial for a long period of time. Once it was seen Armstrong was in the for the long haul, they cut their losses and settled.
PR wise for Armstrong his case against the Sunday Times was a winner. Smart move.0 -
dsoutar wrote:rayjay wrote:Looks to me that its turned into the conservative old farts club.
Its a forum open to debate and people should be allowed the views.
if you don't like a thread then don't read it.
You can't control what people think.
Simple.
Of course we can't control what other people think. However on your point of not reading posts that you don't like, similarly if you don't like the way the (majority) of posters respond to your posts you are entirely at liberty to comment on some alternative forum. Don't expect people to moderate their behaviour based on what you are posting. In fact if anything it appears to be having the opposite affect.
It might seem contradictory to you but I don't think too many people who respond to your comments on this and various other threads that have a similar theme have a particular fondness for Sky and indeed many have stated as much. However it does appear that they have issues with your line(s) of reasoning. I'd like to think that the last comment is stating the bleedin' obvious.
With regard to the legalities of publishing all this, it is certainly a somewhat grey area I guess and I am not a law professional. Nevertheless if I were to go onto public forums stating my opinion was that so-and-so was a paedophile without providing any evidence, I wouldn't like to be the lawyer trying to defend my position regarding potentially libelous activity.
It's even more complex regarding the hosting of the forum regarding defamation but the best I can come up with is Bunt vs Tilley & other and the comment: "if a person knowingly permits another to communicate information which is defamatory, when there would be an opportunity to prevent the publication, there would seem to be no reason in principle why liability should not accrue". http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/407.html
Like I said I enjoy peoples views and I don't expect people to behave in any sort of way. I cannot predict how somebody will reply. I have no preconceptions of a reply when I make a post.
I don't personally know anyone on this sight, so what someone posts might not actually be what they really think.
Some times people post to get a reaction or to take a thread in a direction.
I agree with what WBT has just posted about freedom of speech.
For all anyone knows, I could be a Sky fanboy and know one this sight could prove I am not 0 -
rayjay wrote:dsoutar wrote:rayjay wrote:Looks to me that its turned into the conservative old farts club.
Its a forum open to debate and people should be allowed the views.
if you don't like a thread then don't read it.
You can't control what people think.
Simple.
Of course we can't control what other people think. However on your point of not reading posts that you don't like, similarly if you don't like the way the (majority) of posters respond to your posts you are entirely at liberty to comment on some alternative forum. Don't expect people to moderate their behaviour based on what you are posting. In fact if anything it appears to be having the opposite affect.
It might seem contradictory to you but I don't think too many people who respond to your comments on this and various other threads that have a similar theme have a particular fondness for Sky and indeed many have stated as much. However it does appear that they have issues with your line(s) of reasoning. I'd like to think that the last comment is stating the bleedin' obvious.
With regard to the legalities of publishing all this, it is certainly a somewhat grey area I guess and I am not a law professional. Nevertheless if I were to go onto public forums stating my opinion was that so-and-so was a paedophile without providing any evidence, I wouldn't like to be the lawyer trying to defend my position regarding potentially libelous activity.
It's even more complex regarding the hosting of the forum regarding defamation but the best I can come up with is Bunt vs Tilley & other and the comment: "if a person knowingly permits another to communicate information which is defamatory, when there would be an opportunity to prevent the publication, there would seem to be no reason in principle why liability should not accrue". http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/407.html
Like I said I enjoy peoples views and I don't expect people to behave in any sort of way. I cannot predict how somebody will reply. I have no preconceptions of a reply when I make a post.
I don't personally know anyone on this sight, so what someone posts might not actually be what they really think.
Some times people post to get a reaction or to take a thread in a direction.
I agree with what WBT has just posted about freedom of speech.
For all anyone knows, I could be a Sky fanboy and know one this sight could prove I am not
There is a lot of BS on this front. People keep using words like "slander", "libel", "I'm a lawyer".
Fooey! Just hot air!
If someone has a particular problem with the statement made then put it on paper and lodge your dispute.
Pure and simple.
In my example I was asked for my opinion on Sky and if they were doping or not.
You think one might sue for libel when one was asked for their opinion?
Not likely. Well not at all.
Next up lawyers for Manchester United to go into pubs around England to put an end to the slanderous comments of their on field performances.
Give me a break.0 -
Here is a somewhat more understandable explanation of libel law and the internet
http://www.seqlegal.com/blog/10-things- ... bout-libel
It's not a challenging article to comprehend but one of the most salient points is:
Two of the most important defences to a libel claim are justification and fair comment.
The defence of "justification" arises where the defendant in a libel action claims that the statements are true. One might expect that in these circumstances a claimant would be obliged to demonstrate the untruth of the defamatory statements - but that is not so. It is for the defendant who relies upon a justification defence to prove the truth of the libel. This is often easier said than done.
The defence of "fair comment" may be available to a defendant who can show that the defamatory statement amounted to an opinion which was honestly held and based up facts which were true.
Note the key last phrase "...based up facts which were true". "up" in this case appears to be a typo which should be "on" in order to make any sense.
So just saying it's one's opinion appears to be legally questionable if it can't be backed up
EDIT: Whether one agrees with this as fair or not is another question, of course0 -
dsoutar wrote:
"The defence of "fair comment" may be available to a defendant who can show that the defamatory statement amounted to an opinion which was honestly held and based up facts which were true.[/color]"
This is just for example sake.
Fact Sky Hired Leinders . My opinion based on this fact, is that Sky have hired a Dr known to have doped and I am suspicious of why they hired him and if he has doped any of the Sky riders
I Cannot see any issue with that. It is just an opinion based on fact.
Just an example.0 -
I refer wbt to the case between Simon Singh and the British Chiropractic Association...
Singh even had actual proper scientific evidence (real stuff, not the stuff you call evidence) on his side unlike you and Rayjay...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Christ - in that case I can't imagine how bad Garmin must be. I mean, al those riders with a doping background and FFS the boss of the whole thing is a doper !0
-
ddraver wrote:I refer wbt to the case between Simon Singh and the British Chiropractic Association...
Singh even had actual proper scientific evidence (real stuff, not the stuff you call evidence) on his side unlike you and Rayjay...
Cool. What do I do with this information?
In any case. Please learn the difference between evidence and proof. Stop using the concept that evidence is some form of judgement or compelling information. It's not. Evidence comes in many forms and it's not necessarily compelling. Often it's a series of evidential facts that constitutes proof in totality. Often it's just one small element that's not enough to constitute proof in totality.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
