[text deleted by forum team]

gordikin

You can find out the Company concerned using Google cache...I'm on a yellow card so I'm sitting on my hands!

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi guys

I've removed some off topic posts.

Just to remind you, where you see our lawyer has written [text deleted] it means we've done what we can to leave as much of the info as possible. Copies of the original have been kept.

Outpost

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Hi guys

I've removed some off topic posts.

You're doing nothing to strengthen your position by deleting all posts raising valid questions about MSE policy I'm afraid. Silencing people in this way because you have the ability to delete posts is not a good idea.

hartcjhart

Outpost wrote: »

You're doing nothing to strengthen your position by deleting all posts raising valid questions about MSE policy I'm afraid. Silencing people in this way because you have the ability to delete posts is not a good idea.

byeeeeee:wave::wave:

Lokolo

Outpost wrote: »

You're doing nothing to strengthen your position by deleting all posts raising valid questions about MSE policy I'm afraid. Silencing people in this way because you have the ability to delete posts is not a good idea.

They can do what they want, they own the forum, you don't.

Don't like it? Go elsewhere and make your own forum, where you can set the rules.

Outpost

hartcjhart wrote: »

byeeeeee:wave::wave:

Lokolo wrote: »

They can do what they want, they own the forum, you don't.

Don't like it? Go elsewhere and make your own forum, where you can set the rules.

What a curious point of view you both have. At least the second post contains some content but the silly smilies add nothing.

You seem to hold the view that one can not or should not offer their opinions on how the site is run and if one disagrees with any aspect then they should 'go elsewhere' and so on?

I'm afraid I will not be going anywhere, silly waving smilies aside, and I will continue to offer feedback and opinions where I wish to do so.

I've mentioned that I don't feel that simply deleting posts that raise perfectly valid questions about important aspects of the forum's policies is not a good idea, and I stand by that.

All the silly smilies in the world won't change that.

GraceCourt

Dear Mods,

This is a genuine enquiry, the answer to which really is an issue in which I'm keenly interested. Given that the sole trader/partnership/limited company behind (ahem!) "the subject of the deleted data" appears to be breaking the criminal law by trading anonymously behind a trading style...

... how on Earth can you be 100% sure that the sole trader/partnership/limited company that lodged the censorship request is really the trader behind the site?

The whole point of my post was to warn all those consumers who might choose to buy from this site, but subsequently be unable to enforce their legal rights because the complainant is breaking the law!

I know that not all English/British legislation applies to Northern ireland, but the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 come about because of an EC Directive with which all Web sites in the EU must comply (i.e. by identifying the legal entity behind the site) and the last time I looked, Northern Ireland was in the EU as part of the UK.

Seems kinda strange that MSE is helping to maintain the anonymity of the trader behind the site, when there wouldn't be any anonymity if he/she/it complied with the criminal law...?

gordikin

GraceCourt wrote: »

Dear Mods,

This is a genuine enquiry, the answer to which really is an issue in which I'm keenly interested. Given that the sole trader/partnership/limited company behind (ahem!) "the subject of the deleted data" appears to be breaking the criminal law by trading anonymously behind a trading style...

... how on Earth can you be 100% sure that the sole trader/partnership/limited company that lodged the censorship request is really the trader behind the site?

The whole point of my post was to warn all those consumers who might choose to buy from this site, but subsequently be unable to enforce their legal rights because the complainant is breaking the law!

I know that not all English/British legislation applies to Northern ireland, but the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 come about because of an EC Directive with which all Web sites in the EU must comply (i.e. by identifying the legal entity behind the site) and the last time I looked, Northern Ireland was in the EU as part of the UK.

Seems kinda strange that MSE is helping to maintain the anonymity of the trader behind the site, when there wouldn't be any anonymity if he/she/it complied with the criminal law...?

Sorry I suspect you'll get no good answer...given past history as an example:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/44302144#Comment_44302144

asbokid

GraceCourt wrote: »

a check today of the seller's web site and Companies House reveals that the company/partnership/sole trader concerned is still trading anonymously..

I've never before heard of the business in question, but today its homepage certainly displays the business name and the business address in a banner at the bottom of the page.

The business is listed as being part of a group with two others. Without wishing to inflame you, they are quite nice websites, as well!

As such, the business is not "trading anonymously"..

which in England and Wales would be a criminal offence under

Regulations 6 and 7 of the Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008:

Part 41 of the Companies Act 2006 and

the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002:

Whether it is or isn't in Northern Ireland is a moot point.

I'm not really sure what your grievance is here, but you got me curious over the Irish question...

The 2008 Regulations have scope to businesses in all countries of the United Kingdom: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/495/introduction/made

Northern Ireland has its own companies registrar, but otherwise the Regulations apply identically.

Similarly, the provisions in Part 41, Chapter 2 of the Companies Act 2006 (ss.1200-1206) equally apply to businesses registered in Northern Ireland: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/41/chapter/2

And the E-Commerce Regulations of 2002, again, apply to the whole of the United Kingdom..
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2013/made

asbokid

GraceCourt wrote: »

And the other fallback - County Court proceedings using Part 27 Civil Procedure Rules - isn't available because although Belfast is in the UK, it is outside the jurisdiction of the Court in England and Wales.

Part 27 of the CPR.. is the Small Claims Track...
http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/procedure-rules/civil/contents/parts/part27.htm

How do these rules differ in any significant way to the Small Claims procedures in the Courts of Northern Ireland?

http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Services/Online_Services/#smallclaims

The NI Court Service also has its own Money Claim Online system for filing a small claim over the internet.

http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Publications/Services/OnlineServices/Small-Claims-Online-User-Guide.htm