Get the truth on MSE

Trebor16

HO87 wrote: »

CAG by contrast I find completely inconsistent both in its moderation and offering to newbies. Occasionally the moderating borders on the petulant. I've sometimes come away from threads with the sound of temporarily airborne rattles and dummies hitting the deck and the stamping of feet still ringing in my ears - as I'm sure others have too. Quite why they are so averse to a collaborative approach I completely fail to understand. At least there is overt communication between MSE and ppp.

I would agree with that about the CAG mods. One in particular (Jonni2bad, not sure if he is still a mod) was appalling. Rude, hostile and obnoxious. I rarely go there now. At least they got their come uppance over the way they treated their admin officer a couple of years back.

Trebor16

bargepole wrote: »

Southpaw82 (ex-copper) was appointed to moderate the Parking forum, and will delete or modify any post which uses these words, unfortunately.

I thought he was ex police civilian staff?

Trebor16

There must be alternatives to "scam" and "con" that can be used that would be acceptable. Is it ok to say something like "the business model of the PPC's would appear to be unethical"?

Sirdan

Trebor16 wrote: »

There must be alternatives to "scam" and "con" that can be used that would be acceptable. Is it ok to say something like "the business model of the PPC's would appear to be unethical"?

Apparently "fake" is permissible. For clarity the poster said "ignore this ticket it is fake " not the familiar "it is a fake PCN".

So by describing the ticket as fake without any qualifying statement this implies it is pretending to be something it isn't.

Now to any reasonable person any document that is "fake" which seeks to obtain a payment by exploiting the receivers lack of knowledge that it is indeed "fake" must surely fit the wholly accurate description of a "con".

For absolute clarity I did not say "PPC tickets are cons" ..I said THIS ticket is a con.

I stand by that .
A ticket for not correctly displaying a blue badge on private land when the LAW provides that ANY disabled person can use the reasonable adjustment regardless of having said blue badge or not is clearly a CON.

I would happily argue same in court.

I venture the PPC concerned would have great difficulty persuading any right minded person that this particular ticket is not a con.

It strikes me that we are creeping slowly into a situation where anyone who dares to say anything that a rich/powerful company or person does not like (regardless of it's veracity) can be made to retract same by the simple issue of a threat of legal proceedings ...this is IMO utterly intolerable.

It is ironic indeed that a site that exhorts visitors to totally ignore threats of proceedings from PPC's seems reluctant itself to practice what they preach !!!

(Perhaps the Pepipoo admins should have had more regard of the Arkell vs Pressdram case ...)

bargepole

Sirdan wrote: »

....
It is ironic indeed that a site that exhorts visitors to totally ignore threats of proceedings from PPC's seems reluctant itself to practice what they preach !!!

(Perhaps the Pepipoo admins should have had more regard of the Arkell vs Pressdram case ...)

This is pretty much what I advised them. But nobody listens to me.

Orford

Sirdan wrote: »

It strikes me that we are creeping slowly into a situation where anyone who dares to say anything that a rich/powerful company or person does not like (regardless of it's veracity) can be made to retract same by the simple issue of a threat of legal proceedings ...this is IMO utterly intolerable.

It is, but current libel law makes it relatively cheap and easy to issue a libel action, and very expensive to defend one, even if it is without foundation. So just the mere threat of a libel action can force you to spend an inordinate of time to deal with, let alone possibly hundreds/thousands of pounds on legal advice.

So it's hardly surprising that forums, the majority of which are run on a shoe-string using volunteers, wish to avoid that situation rising, even if we users think they are being unnecessarily over-cautious or cowardly.

Trebor16

Sirdan wrote: »

It strikes me that we are creeping slowly into a situation where anyone who dares to say anything that a rich/powerful company or person does not like (regardless of it's veracity) can be made to retract same by the simple issue of a threat of legal proceedings ...this is IMO utterly intolerable.

The exact way that that crook Robert Maxwell would operate. He would threaten legal action if anyone was about to publish a story about him that was not to his liking. Of course the truth came out after his death.

Sirdan wrote:

It is ironic indeed that a site that exhorts visitors to totally ignore threats of proceedings from PPC's seems reluctant itself to practice what they preach !!!

(Perhaps the Pepipoo admins should have had more regard of the Arkell vs Pressdram case ...)

I think that wlould be an appropriate response. It deserves wider usage in my humble opinion:D

ripped_off_driver

I know that the renowned and very expensive defamation lawyers that were hired by a certain PPC (that has had a lot of coverage on here recently about a certain court defeat) did not land a glove on Pepipoo. In my experience the site will defend the right of contributors to express their honest opinions regarding PPCs and their business model.BUT ... and it is a big but this cannot extend to allegations of dishonesty. The court have ruled that insults, even gross insults, abuse and saloon bar moaning are fine but allegations of criminal wrongdoing are not. As a result Pepipoo ban the use of "scam", "con merchant", "crook" etc. The word "scam" may carry connotations of dishonesty, although it is not at all clearcut, and therefore the site has erred on the side of caution by banning it. There are many other more neutral expressions that can be used - "fast one", "begging letter", "take for a ride" etc. Regards Arkell v Pressdram it is alll very well to have a laugh about the case but any judge having such a response come before him would be likely to throw the book at the party using it. We can say that the sites should take a more robust approach but if it was our money on the line perhaps we too would take a more cautious approach.

Sirdan

The court have ruled that insults, even gross insults, abuse and saloon bar moaning are fine but allegations of criminal wrongdoing are not.

I'm sure you are right but it is clearly preposterous. The CPS lose cases alleging criminality all the time ,does each and every defendant found not guilty have a case for defamation then ? Somehow I doubt the courts would generally entertain such claims.

I acknowledge that in practical terms banning the use of certain terms is far less time consuming than considering each case on merit.

For clarity what irks me is not the initial deletion or even the warning it was the deletion of my apology. I said that "clearly issuing a ticket for breaching the rules of a scheme that does not apply on the land in question is not a con."
Whilst a reader may infer irony in that statement they can't ever prove it and I clearly stated that I retracted my earlier comment unconditionally and that this was NOT a con ....so what rule did that break ....presumably implied irony is also verboten by the Mod.

Not even the deletion of that prompted this thread. What prompted it was the wholly uneccessary "public ticking off" posted on the board for daring to use ironic humour to make a point.
All the points made here re litigation etc etc have merit but that could have been politely communicated to me by PM from the Mod ..rather than the petulant public chastisement I endured ...rattle , pram, pathetic over reaction springs to mind ....

HO87

As bargepole has alluded I believe the issue is as much to do with the overly cautious attitude of ISP's who will run a mile at the vaguest hint of them having "published" anything that might go legal as it is to do with any actual proceedings. There are few ISP's that will not go along with a takedown request well before any order is applied for, let alone obtained, and recovering from a takedown can be a costly exercise. For this reason I stand by what I said although I tend to the view that admonishment might better be done privately unless the transgression is seen as being particularly gross or perhaps much repeated.