A discussion on the rules.

K-9

Villain wrote: »

So if someone says something is true in a court room then it's true and can never be libelous ? You or anyone else that I know has proven he was a member of the IRA.

It's a fact that a politician has denied something and people here are free to post that he is lying yet when the same happened and happens for other politicians posts are deleted and people banned.

It is blatant double standards and I thought no longer existed here?

Mod:

We've been through this with you countless times on this very thread, admins and even the owner of the site explained it to you. There is no point going over and over and over it again, you aren't willing to budge on your perception whatsoever..

Do not post in this thread again, thank you.

I'll address the point raised yesterday in my next post.

alastair

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Also while the IRA membership claims can at least be slightly substantiated this forum does tolerate allegations about involvement in the McConville case which AFAIK only rests on one persons testimony.

Two people's testimony, and keep in mind that the 'she had a transmitter' claim - equally referenced on Boards - is also only based on one of those testimonies.

Villain

alastair wrote: »

It's not a double standard, based on the information available.

Really? like say someones evidence at a tribunal clearly showing they were lying?

The fact remains it has not been proven and just because he hasn't won a libel case doesn't change that. This forum has treated Sinn Fein leaders differently to Fianna Fail leaders which is wrong.

Edit* I had already posted this before I saw the mod warning, are you saying discussion of double standards are not allowed in a discussion on rules thread?

alastair

Villain wrote: »

Really? like say someones evidence at a tribunal clearly showing they were lying?

Once again:

The claims made against Adams are based on first-person witness statements, and other photographic and legal evidence, as well as a healthy dose of common sense about the realities of how SF operated throughout the troubles.

K-9

Villain wrote: »

Edit* I had already posted this before I saw the mod warning, are you saying discussion of double standards are not allowed in a discussion on rules thread?

No, I am saying soap boxing is specifically prohibited in the charter, other posters are free to discuss it. Many people involved in Boards have taken a great deal of time dealing with your complaint over the years, they've been more than courteous and polite with you. You've 53 posts in this very thread discussing your gripe and IIRC Site Feedback threads.

We had this same discussion with you in December and previous to that on this thread. I'm sorry we just can't agree with you, but you've been given more than enough time and leeway on it.

As Scofflaw put it in the last warning:

OK, we've heard from Dav, we've heard from DeVore, and we've heard from people who were Politics mods at the time. Villain is quite clearly going to present no more evidence than he has done so far, which is basically none, and the discussion has covered all the constructive ground it's ever going to (about 1mm), and people who care can make up their minds on what's been presented.

This discussion is now over. I don't particularly want to have to infract a load of mods, ex-mods, and Admins, but frankly if this discussion continues, that's what's going to happen. Since I literally can't infract or ban DeVore or Dav, their further posts will just be deleted - but if I could, I would. And, to be honest, if I could have done, I already would have done. Take it to PM.

last warning,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Once again:

The claims made against Adams are based on first-person witness statements, and other photographic and legal evidence, as well as a healthy dose of common sense about the realities of how SF operated throughout the troubles.

So would I be able to claim on here that 'X is a pedophile,' because somebody else had made an untested statement to that effect?

Villain

K-9 wrote: »

No, I am saying soap boxing is specifically prohibited in the charter, other posters are free to discuss it. Many people involved in Boards have taken a great deal of time dealing with your complaint over the years, they've been more than courteous and polite with you. You've 53 posts in this very thread discussing your gripe and IIRC Site Feedback threads.

We had this same discussion with you in December and previous to that on this thread. I'm sorry we just can't agree with you, but you've been given more than enough time and leeway on it.

As Scofflaw put it in the last warning:

OK, we've heard from Dav, we've heard from DeVore, and we've heard from people who were Politics mods at the time. Villain is quite clearly going to present no more evidence than he has done so far, which is basically none, and the discussion has covered all the constructive ground it's ever going to (about 1mm), and people who care can make up their minds on what's been presented.

This discussion is now over. I don't particularly want to have to infract a load of mods, ex-mods, and Admins, but frankly if this discussion continues, that's what's going to happen. Since I literally can't infract or ban DeVore or Dav, their further posts will just be deleted - but if I could, I would. And, to be honest, if I could have done, I already would have done. Take it to PM.

last warning,
Scofflaw

Well to be fair that discussion was more around the why and not the what and as you say can't go any further.

Leaving aside my issues in the past, and dealing solely with the now, are Mods saying that people can still accuse Gerry Adams of being a member of the IRA without issue? and if so where is the line when talking about other current politicians?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

So would I be able to claim on here that 'X is a pedophile,' because somebody else had made an untested statement to that effect?

You've obviously missed the various Jimmy Saville threads then?

K-9

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

I'm not for a second saying that we shouldnt be able to discuss things to do with Adams I'm just highlighting the double standard.

I understand concerns about boards being sued, Adams isnt litigious whatsoever(luckily for some), Mansfield was when he was alive but you cannot defame the dead.

The allegations about Mansfield have been around for donkeys years and he discussed them with the media before he died:

‘No drugs in my business’ – billionaire
Self-made billionaire Jim Mansfield hits out at the gossip about his son's friendship with Katy French and denies he made his fortune through the illegal drugs trade

If there is ever a proper tribunal investigation around the whole Boylan case I believe much more will come out about Mansfield and his connection to drugs trade besides drugs being found on his plane.

Mansfield obviously enjoyed a cosy relationship with politicians akin to that which Larry Goodman enjoyed. He was certainly fortuitous with his property speculation and land he owned getting rezoned.

Anyway, I'll ask why is there a clear double standard at play here?

Well you see, you didn't post any link in the deleted post, neither did anybody else in the posts I deleted IIRC.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Also while the IRA membership claims can at least be slightly substantiated this forum does tolerate allegations about involvement in the McConville case which AFAIK only rests on one persons testimony. This forum has always had double standards relating to SF upto the point back a few years ago that a certain mod (who no longer mods this forum) had to be reigned in on the main site feedback.

I was reading the water charges thread with many posts stating that the Government are lying, so where's the double standard? In my mind there is none, and it probably is more to do with their politician that they like getting questioned, and I suspect they'd have no problem saying Phil Hogan or [insert politician you don't like] is lying. Maybe that's where the double standard is?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

You've obviously missed the various Jimmy Saville threads then?

Are you going to clarify or not?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you going to clarify or not?

I already did.

RDM_83 again

K-9 wrote: »

I was reading the water charges thread with many posts stating that the Government are lying, so where's the double standard? In my mind there is none, and it probably is more to do with their politician that they like getting questioned, and I suspect they'd have no problem saying Phil Hogan or [insert politician you don't like] is lying. Maybe that's where the double standard is?

There is a big difference between stating that an individual is lying about policy implementation and saying an individual was involved in murder.

I do not personally think that the allegations against Adams should be banned but I can not understand the position that a living politician can be named here as an accessory to murder on the testimony of two persons while a dead business man with strong circumstantial evidence against him can not be named.
If he was living I would understand that these statements put distilled media at financial risk but since he is deceased this is not the case.

Tramps Like Us

K-9 wrote: »

Well you see, you didn't post any link in the deleted post, neither did anybody else in the posts I deleted IIRC.

I had assumed that people had heard of Jim Mansfield. So can you restore the posts and stick the link in?

And can you explain the double standard in that Jim Mansfield enjoys protection from allegations that other deceased people (and some who are alive!) do not? Or in hindsight was deleting my posts an error?

Nodin

It is rather a paradox that one can be allowed defame the living, but not the famously undefamable dead.

alastair

Nodin wrote: »

It is rather a paradox that one can be allowed defame the living, but not the famously undefamable dead.

Maybe not so undefamable:

A ruling by the European Court of Human Rights has raised the possibility of court actions for defamation even after the defamed party has died.

In a case against Ukraine, the Strasbourg court ruled that courts might sometimes be required to protect the reputation of the deceased in the interests of surviving relatives.


It accepted that the reputation of a deceased family member might affect a person’s private life and identity if there was a sufficiently close link between the person affected and the reputation of his or her family, thus bringing actions within the scope of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case, brought by Vladlen Putistin, alleged that an article written about the ‘Death Match’ in the second world war (and which inspired the film Escape to Victory) discredited his father, as it suggested he had been a Nazi collaborator.

The court rejected his claim, holding that the applicant was only remotely affected by the publication, but left open the possibility of successful claims in future.

Julia Varley, an associate at media firm David Price Solicitors & Advocates, said the decision is potentially a ‘radical new development’ as it goes against the fundamental principle that reputation is personal. It could, she predicted, open the way for claims for defamation of the dead.

‘Whether we will see a raft of potential claims as a result will seemingly depend on the specific facts of each case, but this decision does raise issues as to freedom of expression and will cause concern to those wishing to publish explosive stories about the deceased.’

However Razi Mireskandari, managing partner at London firm Simons Muirhead & Burton, suggested that the court had conflated defamation and privacy. The right to protect one’s reputation is a personal right which expires on death even if the claimant dies only after starting a claim, said Mireskandari, and he did not expect this case to change that principle.

Irish law, he noted, comes the closest to doing so, allowing an action that has been issued to continue after the death of the claimant.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/euro-ruling-to-protect-reputation-of-deceased/5039894.article

Tramps Like Us

It always annoys me when people dont read (or understand) links they give which they claim support their arguments when in fact they dont.

The bit you highlighted merely means that if I defame you and you try to sue me and start proceedings only to die before you get your case to court the action can continue (even then the case will probably fail)

Nodin

alastair wrote: »

Maybe not so undefamable:

In practice, I can say what I want about Charles J Haughey. I can have a fair go at Gerry Adams even though he is, as far as we can tell, still with us. Thus the mystery as to why this individual gets special treatment.

(And a search of my posts should reveal I've never had any comment to make on the man)

alastair

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

It always annoys me when people dont read (or understand) links they give which they claim support their arguments when in fact they dont.

The bit you highlighted merely means that if I defame you and you try to sue me and start proceedings only to die before you get your case to court the action can continue (even then the case will probably fail)

And the broader context - of the European Court of Human Rights finding?

alastair

Nodin wrote: »

In practice, I can say what I want about Charles J Haughey. I can have a fair go at Gerry Adams even though he is, as far as we can tell, still with us. Thus the mystery as to why this individual gets special treatment.

(And a search of my posts should reveal I've never had any comment to make on the man)

I don't recall anyone accusing Haughey of flying in weekly shipments of smack on Boards. I'm not so sure that anyone is getting special treatment.

Happyman42

Nodin wrote: »

In practice, I can say what I want about Charles J Haughey. I can have a fair go at Gerry Adams even though he is, as far as we can tell, still with us. Thus the mystery as to why this individual gets special treatment.

(And a search of my posts should reveal I've never had any comment to make on the man)

It seems, according to Alastair, that if somebody has made allegations elsewhere then you can express them on here as your own opinion. Which is quite a charter.
Except for this man.


Any ruling or opinion on that K9?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

It seems, according to Alastair, that if somebody has made allegations elsewhere then you can express them on here as your own opinion. Which is quite a charter.
Except for this man.


Any ruling or opinion on that K9?

I wouldn't hold much hope for anyone taking this particular twisted logic seriously.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I wouldn't hold much hope for anyone taking this particular twisted logic seriously.

The claims made against Adams are based on first-person witness statements, and other photographic and legal evidence, as well as a healthy dose of common sense about the realities of how SF operated throughout the troubles.

All the above are legally untested, therefore are allegations.
'A healthy dose of common sense' is that a legal term? :rolleyes:

K-9

Where did I mention defamation? some other poster mentioned it and ye all ran with it. I won't have much access tonight, I'l have more time to reply then.

Nodin

alastair wrote: »

I don't recall anyone accusing Haughey of flying in weekly shipments of smack on Boards. I'm not so sure that anyone is getting special treatment.

I don't recall seeing an infaction here for making a remark about a deceased person. I've seen some against those made against a living person. What I want to know is why this dead person is special.

K-9

Just a quick note, there was no infraction either.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

Just a quick note, there was no infraction either.

True. I was referring to the man being "off limits" as opposed to a card being handed out.

alastair

Nodin wrote: »

I don't recall seeing an infaction here for making a remark about a deceased person. I've seen some against those made against a living person. What I want to know is why this dead person is special.

I don't recall having seen a similar claim made against anyone - alive or dead, on such little evidence. Whether that's 'special', or there's been a bunch of similar mod removals in the past, I can certainly see why it warranted removal. I'm sure it comes down to the level of perniciousness of the posted claim, rather than any 'specialness' of this particular individual. If the suggestion is that he's somehow 'protected' on Boards because he was inside the FF high rollers clique, or something similar, I'd be very surprised.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

All the above are legally untested, therefore are allegations.

Legal evidence is. Legal evidence.

Happyman42 wrote: »

'A healthy dose of common sense' is that a legal term? :rolleyes:

No, but is it elementary punctuation you struggle with, or is this just another straw man argument? See below:

The claims made against Adams are based on first-person witness statements, and other photographic and legal evidence, as well as a healthy dose of common sense about the realities of how SF operated throughout the troubles.

What's most laughable is that we both know (along with everyone else) Adams was in the IRA, and yet you feel compelled to play silly games like this.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Legal evidence is. Legal evidence.


No, but is it elementary punctuation you struggle with, or is this just another straw man argument? See below:


What's most laughable is that we both know (along with everyone else) Adams was in the IRA, and yet you feel compelled to play silly games like this.

Still struggling with the inherent contradictions and hypocrisy I see.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Still struggling with the inherent contradictions and hypocrisy I see.

No struggle at this end. So, is your problem with punctuation or just a fondness for red herrings?