Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Closing Threads

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    pc11
    Registered Users Posts: 975 ✭✭✭pc11


    Oryx wrote: »
    I wish there werent the need for hints and references. But that in itself is the problem. All the answers to whats wrong and why there is a no fly list, is in this thread. But it cannot be put any more directly than this.

    I'm gobsmacked by this. I think I've done one of the events referred to. What bothers me more is that we're accepting it. Surely if we stick to facts and fair opinion, we are immune to any legal action? This individual can threaten all they like but it would be an empty threat, and probably a malicious threat in fact, which would expose him to legal action himself?


  • Options
    #33
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    pc11 wrote: »
    Surely if we stick to facts and fair opinion, we are immune to any legal action?

    Do you remember the McLibel case from a few years back? A couple of activists were giving out leaflets talking about how McDonalds were unhealthy, bad employers, things like that. McDonalds threatened to sue. McDonalds didn't make that threat because they knew the claims were false and were really libellous. They made the threat because they figured that the activists would back down rather than get into a time-consuming and expensive legal battle.

    (as it turned out the McLibel defendants won. Yay! But it did take up years of their lives)


  • Options
    #34
    tunney
    Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    pc11 wrote: »
    I'm gobsmacked by this. I think I've done one of the events referred to. What bothers me more is that we're accepting it. Surely if we stick to facts and fair opinion, we are immune to any legal action? This individual can threaten all they like but it would be an empty threat, and probably a malicious threat in fact, which would expose him to legal action himself?

    I have a two and a half year old daughter. Sometimes, despite it being bed time, she will refuse to go. It is her bed time, we stick to the facts of the situation but trying to use logic and discussion with her just doesn't work. She will not entertain it and will sometimes throw a huge tantrum.

    Now imagine a 6 foot version of her.
    Now replace tantrum with "late night threatening calls to your home place and your employer".

    Doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong, doesn't matter if legally you will win or not. You still have the fight and its not fun.


  • Options
    #35
    Oryx
    Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    pc11 wrote: »
    I'm gobsmacked by this. I think I've done one of the events referred to. What bothers me more is that we're accepting it. Surely if we stick to facts and fair opinion, we are immune to any legal action? This individual can threaten all they like but it would be an empty threat, and probably a malicious threat in fact, which would expose him to legal action himself?
    Maybe this hypothetical person does not care, who knows. The nub of the thing is this: boards, and any of the posters here, do not need this kind of hassle and venom aimed their way. This is the easiest way to deal with the whole issue.


  • Options
    #36
    rom
    Registered Users Posts: 5,137 ✭✭✭rom


    Personally I would read word for word this to both my boss and this guy when he rings me and I think the problem would soon be solved.

    Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/sec0010.html# PS: this is NOT legal advise but just a method to put a line under it all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Oryx
    Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Back in the day, there was a sitewide ban on discussing a certain music promoter or any acts associated with them. There were legal reasons behind it. This is not a first.


  • Options
    #38
    sconhome
    Registered Users Posts: 5,468 ✭✭✭sconhome


    Its ironic that this thread hasn't been locked yet. Vicarious discussion through non-discussion of topic.


  • Options
    #39
    peter kern
    Registered Users Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭peter kern


    tunney wrote: »
    I have a two and a half year old daughter. Sometimes, despite it being bed time, she will refuse to go. It is her bed time, we stick to the facts of the situation but trying to use logic and discussion with her just doesn't work. She will not entertain it and will sometimes throw a huge tantrum.

    Now imagine a 6 foot version of her.
    Now replace tantrum with "late night threatening calls to your home place and your employer".

    Doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong, doesn't matter if legally you will win or not. You still have the fight and its not fun.

    you are not 6 foot tall dont lie ;-)


  • Options
    #40
    hardCopy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    Oryx wrote: »
    Back in the day, there was a sitewide ban on discussing a certain music promoter or any acts associated with them. There were legal reasons behind it. This is not a first.

    The difference is that the name of said Music Promoter was mentioned in a sticky on every single forum.

    Couldn't we have a paragraph in the charter to say, "The following events must not be discussed:...." or "Races organised by this promoter must not be discussed"?


  • Options
    #41
    tunney
    Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    hardCopy wrote: »
    The difference is that the name of said Music Promoter was mentioned in a sticky on every single forum.

    Couldn't we have a paragraph in the charter to say, "The following events must not be discussed:...." or "Races organised by this promoter must not be discussed"?

    This has been eluded to if you can read between the lines. But yes there is an organiser, whose company, and an associated club whose events he runs cannot be discussed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    pc11
    Registered Users Posts: 975 ✭✭✭pc11


    Ok, let me get this straight for I am slow.

    Someone, who may be a race organiser, has been known to ring people at home late at night and berate them for having the temerity to criticise an event?

    And our response is to just accept this? He's been bullying people, very possibly harassing them or worse, and our response is this is it's too much hassle?

    I just don't know what to say, I really don't.


  • Options
    #43
    RacoonQueen
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,364 Mod ✭✭✭✭RacoonQueen


    pc11 wrote: »
    Ok, let me get this straight for I am slow.

    Someone, who may be a race organiser, has been known to ring people at home late at night and berate them for having the temerity to criticise an event?

    And our response is to just accept this? He's been bullying people, very possibly harassing them or worse, and our response is this is it's too much hassle?

    I just don't know what to say, I really don't.

    They've also threatened to sue the people who have written negative comments about them, sue boards and have tried to destroy careers over comments posted on boards.


  • Options
    #44
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    pc11 wrote: »
    our response is this is it's too much hassle?

    No, the response of Boards is to ban discussion of those events - and the situation, so I'm closing this thread now. We won't be giving the events any publicity, and we don't want people (or boards.ie) getting in trouble for comments posted here.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement