Trace driver details

DiddyDavies

AdrianC said:

DiddyDavies said:

Homer_home said:

Shame on you mse its not the first time I have heard complaints about this , this is not how free speech works 

What makes you think you are entitled to free speech on a privately run forum?

You are. Subject to caveats.

But if there are any form of caveats then by definition there isn't free speech as however mild, there are restrictions on what can be posted. (something that is a necessity on just about all forums).
If there was free speech, there wouldn't be any restrictions at all. 
Policing benefit bashing in the forum: valid debate or hate crime? - Martin Lewis' Blog... (moneysavingexpert.com)

Should we allow these types of posts? Should we ban them? The forum isn’t a free speech forum, so we could press delete for any post like this, but is that pushing the censorship button too far?

AdrianC

DiddyDavies said:

AdrianC said:

DiddyDavies said:

Homer_home said:

Shame on you mse its not the first time I have heard complaints about this , this is not how free speech works 

What makes you think you are entitled to free speech on a privately run forum?

You are. Subject to caveats.

But if there are any form of caveats then by definition there isn't free speech as however mild, there are restrictions on what can be posted. (something that is a necessity on just about all forums).
If there was free speech, there wouldn't be any restrictions at all. 
Policing benefit bashing in the forum: valid debate or hate crime? - Martin Lewis' Blog... (moneysavingexpert.com)

Should we allow these types of posts? Should we ban them? The forum isn’t a free speech forum, so we could press delete for any post like this, but is that pushing the censorship button too far?

If the only free speech is free-without-caveats, then you do not even have it in law under the ECHR or HRA98.
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1
ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

The text is the same between ECHR and HRA98, because HRA98 merely allows the ECHR to be enforced in British courts.

ontheroad1970

DiddyDavies said:

Homer_home said:

Shame on you mse its not the first time I have heard complaints about this , this is not how free speech works 

What makes you think you are entitled to free speech on a privately run forum?

Homer must be DJTrump

DiddyDavies

AdrianC said:

DiddyDavies said:

AdrianC said:

DiddyDavies said:

Homer_home said:

Shame on you mse its not the first time I have heard complaints about this , this is not how free speech works 

What makes you think you are entitled to free speech on a privately run forum?

You are. Subject to caveats.

But if there are any form of caveats then by definition there isn't free speech as however mild, there are restrictions on what can be posted. (something that is a necessity on just about all forums).
If there was free speech, there wouldn't be any restrictions at all. 
Policing benefit bashing in the forum: valid debate or hate crime? - Martin Lewis' Blog... (moneysavingexpert.com)

Should we allow these types of posts? Should we ban them? The forum isn’t a free speech forum, so we could press delete for any post like this, but is that pushing the censorship button too far?

If the only free speech is free-without-caveats, then you do not even have it in law under the ECHR or HRA98.
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1
ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

The text is the same between ECHR and HRA98, because HRA98 merely allows the ECHR to be enforced in British courts.

Did you actually read what you posted:

ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers

I didn't know that the forum administrators were a public authority.
 
Provided that the MSE team reserve the right to delete any posts that infringe their forum rules, it can't be free speech which is why they themselves state as much:

The forum isn’t a free speech forum

Any forum has the right to allow or disallow whatever or whomever they wish provided that by doing so they are not basing their restrictions on any of the protected characteristics.
Freedom of expression doesn't mean that you can post whatever you like on privately run forums.

AdrianC

DiddyDavies said:

AdrianC said:
If the only free speech is free-without-caveats, then you do not even have it in law under the ECHR or HRA98.

Did you actually read what you posted:

I did, thank you.

The question is more of whether you read what I wrote, since I explained that I was talking more widely.

DiddyDavies

AdrianC said:

DiddyDavies said:

AdrianC said:
If the only free speech is free-without-caveats, then you do not even have it in law under the ECHR or HRA98.

Did you actually read what you posted:

I did, thank you.

The question is more of whether you read what I wrote, since I explained that I was talking more widely.

I can't see anything in your earlier post that states you were "talking more widely" and even if you were, why then post the text from the Human rights act if the section referring to freedom of expression being infringed only applies if it's being carried out by public authorities?

Freedom of speech (or freedom of expression) simply means that the government or other public authority shouldn't interfere with what you say or write provided that what you say or write isn't breaking any laws.
It does not apply to privately run forums.

Biggus_Dickus

Homer_home said:

Homer_home said:

Seems that mse have been wielding the axe to some of my posts, lovely dictatorship by them , you call someone out on what they post and if mse don't like it they censor you

Shame on you mse its not the first time I have heard complaints about this , this is not how free speech works 

This is also bound to get deleted 

“The purpose of this site is to help people save money, so please keep Moneysaving discussions on topic. Non-Moneysaving threads and posts will be deleted without warning.”

 MSE just want thread starters and subsequent replies to be solely concerned with ‘money-saving’ per se,... on this forum and all their other sub-forums. They’re probably too busy atm to deal with ‘reports’ individually so they’re just blanket-bombing some threads almost to a standstill. They terminated the DT forum in its entirety last summer.

But, it’s MSE’s ethos and they can moderate their forums in any way they wish. However, overly-moderated forums with a very narrow agenda can quickly become quite dull, sterile and unappealing places. I’ve seen it happen countless times over the last few decades on myriad forums, and it’s usually a pity.

williamgriffin

DiddyDavies said:

AdrianC said:

Meaning of Damage

Damage is not defined by the Act. It should be widely interpreted to include not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness - Morphitis v. Salmon [1990] Crim.L.R 48.

Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell.

Apart from the acknowledgement that this is a liberal, wide interpretation, there is a big difference between the deliberate smearing of mud on the walls of a police cell, and a minor transfer or paint through contact between two cars that could be inadvertant. The process of cleaning one off is considerably more onerous than the other, and the continued use of the object "damaged" is far more possible in one situation than the other.

If you can't see what I'm saying here, just pause and ask where somebody was going to get MUD from in a police cell. And then consider what may be used as a substitute in wall-smearing.

I fully understand everything that you've posted but my point was only that under some legislation, damage doesn't have to be permanent for it to class as damage so even though the paint on the OP's car was removable at little or no cost, it may well still have classed as damage under the RTA.

Personally however, I think it's all semantics (my posts included) and it's a pointless waste of time the OP pursuing the matter if there was no lasting damage to their vehicle. If it happened to my car and I witnessed it then yes, I would certainly speak to the driver concerned but if I only saw the damage afterwards and the paint could be cleaned off easily, I would just let it go.

Are you back tracking a bit here? It maybe damage under their RTA, I asked sometime ago if it is damage and you went off on one. Now you think it's possibly damage having so far been unable to give any definition of what damage legally is. 

DiddyDavies

williamgriffin said:

DiddyDavies said:

AdrianC said:

Meaning of Damage

Damage is not defined by the Act. It should be widely interpreted to include not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness - Morphitis v. Salmon [1990] Crim.L.R 48.

Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell.

Apart from the acknowledgement that this is a liberal, wide interpretation, there is a big difference between the deliberate smearing of mud on the walls of a police cell, and a minor transfer or paint through contact between two cars that could be inadvertant. The process of cleaning one off is considerably more onerous than the other, and the continued use of the object "damaged" is far more possible in one situation than the other.

If you can't see what I'm saying here, just pause and ask where somebody was going to get MUD from in a police cell. And then consider what may be used as a substitute in wall-smearing.

I fully understand everything that you've posted but my point was only that under some legislation, damage doesn't have to be permanent for it to class as damage so even though the paint on the OP's car was removable at little or no cost, it may well still have classed as damage under the RTA.

Personally however, I think it's all semantics (my posts included) and it's a pointless waste of time the OP pursuing the matter if there was no lasting damage to their vehicle. If it happened to my car and I witnessed it then yes, I would certainly speak to the driver concerned but if I only saw the damage afterwards and the paint could be cleaned off easily, I would just let it go.

Are you back tracking a bit here? It maybe damage under their RTA, I asked sometime ago if it is damage and you went off on one. Now you think it's possibly damage having so far been unable to give any definition of what damage legally is. 

Accusing someone of writing things that they didn't write does you no favours at all.
Where did I state that it was "possibly damage"? I didn't. What I did state was that it might not have been permanent damage.
No, I've not given a RTA definition of damage (then again, neither have you), which is why I clearly stated that it may have been classed as damage under the legislation.
If there is no interpretation of the word damage in the RTA then wouldn't it be left to a judge to use their common sense in interpreting what it means? 

williamgriffin

DiddyDavies said:

williamgriffin said:

DiddyDavies said:

williamgriffin said:

Without damage or injury there is no accident to stop for or report.

But there was damage. Just because this was cleaned up doesn't mean that no damage occurred.

neilmcl said:

Fortunately it looked far worse than it was and turned out just to be paint transfer, I managed to polish it out.

Don't mean his paint work was damaged. 

Of course it was damaged. If paint from another vehicle went onto the OP's car, damage occurred.
I would have thought that someone such as yourself who keeps posting about the law would know the legal definition of damage.

 I stand corrected you were certain it was damage. Then you changed to it may well be, sound like you possibly not so certain anymore.