be careful what you say on T'Internet

[RogerP]

Heard on the news this morning about someone being sued for making commnets on a website about a faulty product.

The seller is taking action against the individual saying its damaged his business.

 

[Damian]

This is the problem with making general complaints on the net.

A lot of people think that because a site provider makes a statement that the views expressed are not necessarily those of the site owner it is ok to post anything.

It is not, and the original poster as well as the site provider can be held liable in a resulting court action.

Although slightly different, a motorcycle rider was recently fined and banned from driving for posting a video of his antics on his bike, the UTube video being the main prosecution evidence.

As with anything bought, the contract exists between the seller and buyer, not the entire world, and any complaints must follow the complaints procedure in force by the seller organisation, and it is a private matter, not a general free for all.

 

[rayc]

I think the original post refers to negative feedback left on e bay by a buyer who received a "scratched and chipped" mobile phone. He was threatened by the seller that unless he signed a written retraction he would be taken to court. He has refused to do this so let's see if the seller has got the will to go to court knowing he could loose if what the buyer says is correct. Thhe seller has refunded the money, would he have done so if he believed he was in te right? E bay provide the feedback system as a service and laugh at claims that they could be taken to court for comments left by members using the service.

 

[rayc]

I think the original post refers to negative feedback left on e bay by a buyer who received a "scratched and chipped" mobile phone. He was threatened by the seller that unless he signed a written retraction he would be taken to court. He has refused to do this so let's see if the seller has got the will to go to court knowing he could loose if what the buyer says is correct. Thhe seller has refunded the money, would he have done so if he believed he was in te right? E bay provide the feedback system as a service and laugh at claims that they could be taken to court for comments left by members using the service.

Anybody know if Watchdog has ever been sued? Good job they don't follow Damien's advise, we would never hear of these rogues and criminals. Amazon provide a feedback service on items they sell. There are thousands of negative reviews on everything from the selection of tracks on a CD to DVD players that don't.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

I had a similar problem in eBay Ray only I was the seller. A music dealer in rare CDs won a CD I put up for sale. After a long time I put negative feedback for him. He did likewise for me and reported me to eBay, threatening to sue me, for calling him a liar, cheat and plonker but not neccessarily in that order.

A dispute was opened with eBay with more threats off him saying he was going to sue me for defamation of character. Although he was a Private Seller on eBay, where you can't see the comment about him I could see that he had lots of negatives. He was thrown off of eBay after I pointed out this to them.

After 4 years I'm still awaiting his solicitors letter.

Regarding this forum and negative comments it all boils down to if the company advertises with PC Mag and the revenue Haymarket receives. They surely wouldn't want to bite the hand that feeds them ;O)

 

[Parksy]

Lord Braykewynde wrote :

'Regarding this forum and negative comments it all boils down to if the company advertises with PC Mag and the revenue Haymarket receives. They surely wouldn't want to bite the hand that feeds them ;O)'

So Swift and Bailey don't advertise with Practical Caravan then?

There are plenty of negative comments on this forum about their (and others) products.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

Yes Parksy, I do see the occasional one before it gets deleted ;O)

 

[Auvergne]

You'll never get to heaven LB..........

 

[Parksy]

You're either telling porkies, using poetic license or going senile Lord B

 

[g_374369443]

You're either telling porkies, using poetic license or going senile Lord B

Could it not be all three......LOL.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

Somehow I don't think either Parksy. Why the endless complaints about deleted posts if someone complains about a product. The topic of deleted posts regarding complaints has always been a bone of contention on this forum and you should know that by now.

I say it like it is, you know me Parksy. I wont suck up like g for example just because someone has Moderator after their name ;O)

 

[Parksy]

You raise an interesting point Lord B.

The topic of deleted posts has indeed often been a bone of contention on this particular forum.

It's seems odd to me that some members think that the can name companies in posts based on conjecture and not proven fact.

It's against the rules of this forum, it's written down in the rules but these posts continue to appear from time to time. They don't attempt it on other forums (I have links to a recent topic elsewhere which highlights this fact) and if they do and their post is deleted they don't immediately launch a barrage of complaint about the forum or it's moderators in the same way that happens on here.

I take no pleasure in deleting posts that break the rules of this forum, it would be easier to leave them on.

The same old chestnut about advertisers and their revenue gets rolled out time after time regardless of the facts.

I'm of the opinion that in some cases the complaints and personal invective against the moderators happens because of the antiquated system where we have great difficulty in enforcing suspensions or bans on troublemakers who re appear in various guises time after time.

It's not a matter of sucking up Lord B, you implied that the level of moderation that a post receives is dependent on whether or not a company who was named in any given post advertises with PCv magazine.

I reiterate, both Swift and Bailey and others are major advertisers with PCv magazine so a cursory glance through the technical section or the buyers guide on this forum will show that this is not true.

 

[g_374369443]

Somehow I don't think either Parksy. Why the endless complaints about deleted posts if someone complains about a product. The topic of deleted posts regarding complaints has always been a bone of contention on this forum and you should know that by now.

I say it like it is, you know me Parksy. I wont suck up like g for example just because someone has Moderator after their name ;O)

There is a big difference between sucking up, and actually agreeing with someone in a light hearted way.

There is also a difference in believing you "tell it as it is" and actually "telling it as it is"

There is enough evidence within the forum post/threads, to show, its not always so.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

Ahhhh, so now we are getting somewhere, you do admit that posts get deleted when a complaint is made and I don't just mean manufacturers, sites, their owners and accessory firms also get complaints on here which have been deleted. I was beginning to think that it was a coincidence and deletions only happened on Friday nights ;O)

At no time in my post did I say it was right or wrong to delete the post, infact I've posted in the past that the person posting could have some hidden agenda against the person/company they are complaining about and I could understand Haymarkets position on the matter but nothing will convince me regarding Haymarket being sued for the reason of the deletions. If this was true I think UKCampsite would have been closed years ago due to their reviews as would many other sites covering many interests. As ray(c) said, eBay is a major one for complaints within the feedback and there are business's selling on there, not just the little man. I was once called a liar and a cheat on eBay, I wonder if I can sue and get enough for a new caravan. I might start looking in the Buyers Guide section then ;O)

I agree regarding the nic changes etc. I've known a few hiders but theres only ever been one Braykewynde and you know I'm on my way even before I reach the forum door.

BTW, who is g? Surely not a hider. What I do know is they are a wasted talent with one liners like that, I'm still laffing my head off (rollingonfloorwettingmyself icon thingy). They should be on TV with wit like that ... as interference .... heh! heh! heh!

 

[g_374369443]

Ahhhh, so now we are getting somewhere, you do admit that posts get deleted when a complaint is made and I don't just mean manufacturers, sites, their owners and accessory firms also get complaints on here which have been deleted. I was beginning to think that it was a coincidence and deletions only happened on Friday nights ;O)

At no time in my post did I say it was right or wrong to delete the post, infact I've posted in the past that the person posting could have some hidden agenda against the person/company they are complaining about and I could understand Haymarkets position on the matter but nothing will convince me regarding Haymarket being sued for the reason of the deletions. If this was true I think UKCampsite would have been closed years ago due to their reviews as would many other sites covering many interests. As ray(c) said, eBay is a major one for complaints within the feedback and there are business's selling on there, not just the little man. I was once called a liar and a cheat on eBay, I wonder if I can sue and get enough for a new caravan. I might start looking in the Buyers Guide section then ;O)

I agree regarding the nic changes etc. I've known a few hiders but theres only ever been one Braykewynde and you know I'm on my way even before I reach the forum door.

BTW, who is g? Surely not a hider. What I do know is they are a wasted talent with one liners like that, I'm still laffing my head off (rollingonfloorwettingmyself icon thingy). They should be on TV with wit like that ... as interference .... heh! heh! heh!

Considering you "tell it as it is" Then how come I am a hider all of a sudden?

I have always admired how you can spin things around and indeed I believe you have missed your vocation. LOL

I am also quite happy to form part of your continued education, by pointing out that when registering on here it seems to take whatever you put down as you name,with no way of changing it.

[I am happy to be corrected on this issue]

So when you change provider,you have no way of re changing it back, and i got stuck with G, my initial.

Although I would venture to say on this occasion,one would be foolish to even think you do not know who I am. You are merely playing devils advocate,although there is nothing to be playing devils advocate at,in the first place.

Merely you think "you tell it as it is" When in reality, "half cocked" would seem more appropriate . [laughing out loud, but still admiring the effort]

 

[Parksy]

Of course posts sometimes get deleted when a complaint is made Lord B.

Your earlier comment about ' someone having moderator after their name' is interesting because it sort of confers on us moderators a status that we don't actually enjoy.[To hark back to our distant schooldays I tend to think of us as milk monitors ;o ]

On this forum the moderators are forum members who have volunteered to undertake the role of moderator. First and foremost we're members of the forum and the moderator role is an additional voluntary task for which as yet we have recieved no training.

Of late we have been in fairly regular communication with the administrators of this forum and from time to time they give us guidelines which outline the legal framework in which they insist this forum must operate.

Moderators are not lawyers so we have no choice other than to accept that what forum administrators tell us is true and factual. Despite many comments by forum members which say otherwise the view of the administrators is the one that counts as far as the moderators are concerned.

We try to allow complaints about products, sites, caravans etc but we're walking a tightrope.They have to be solid gold fact with no hint of conjecture or hearsay from other forums as part of that complaint or observation.

If in the moderators opinion at the time, and that is the important point, the comment in question breaks the rules of the forum we delete or edit.

My very limited experience as a moderator has taught me to act first and have the inquest later but sometimes we get it completely wrong, I certainly have. It's an instant judgement call so we now often save the posts that we delete and run them past the administrators when these busy people are available. The ultimate decision is then theirs.

Good luck Lord B in your quest to sue Ebay. From what you say you know the iniquity of having an unfair and untrue comment (feedback) levelled at you with no real way of redressing the balance so perhaps you'll understand why we remove posts that , in our opinion at the time, could be seen as unfair.

As a more lightheated aside I would have thought that you'd be pleased to welcome back the second of your old sparring partners to stir your blood on these forthcoming long winter Sunday afternoons ;0) I can assure you that 'g' is posting on this forum legitimately and with the full knowledge and permission of admin )

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

Apologies for getting you to type about 24 lines of which I fully understand Parksy but I would have thought I had made that clear in my post above about my past posts supporting the stance.

Again you have misunderstood my eBay remark. If I had wanted to sue someone regarding the liar comment it would have been the perpetrator, not eBay. This never even crossed my mind because this is the internet and as far as I'm concerned they could have called me what they liked. It was only one negative comment so I wasn't going to lose sleep over it.

A sparring partner? I need more meat on the bones then not one liners to collect brownie points ... heh! heh!

 

[g_374369443]

Of course posts sometimes get deleted when a complaint is made Lord B.

Your earlier comment about ' someone having moderator after their name' is interesting because it sort of confers on us moderators a status that we don't actually enjoy.[To hark back to our distant schooldays I tend to think of us as milk monitors ;o ]

On this forum the moderators are forum members who have volunteered to undertake the role of moderator. First and foremost we're members of the forum and the moderator role is an additional voluntary task for which as yet we have recieved no training.

Of late we have been in fairly regular communication with the administrators of this forum and from time to time they give us guidelines which outline the legal framework in which they insist this forum must operate.

Moderators are not lawyers so we have no choice other than to accept that what forum administrators tell us is true and factual. Despite many comments by forum members which say otherwise the view of the administrators is the one that counts as far as the moderators are concerned.

We try to allow complaints about products, sites, caravans etc but we're walking a tightrope.They have to be solid gold fact with no hint of conjecture or hearsay from other forums as part of that complaint or observation.

If in the moderators opinion at the time, and that is the important point, the comment in question breaks the rules of the forum we delete or edit.

My very limited experience as a moderator has taught me to act first and have the inquest later but sometimes we get it completely wrong, I certainly have. It's an instant judgement call so we now often save the posts that we delete and run them past the administrators when these busy people are available. The ultimate decision is then theirs.

Good luck Lord B in your quest to sue Ebay. From what you say you know the iniquity of having an unfair and untrue comment (feedback) levelled at you with no real way of redressing the balance so perhaps you'll understand why we remove posts that , in our opinion at the time, could be seen as unfair.

As a more lightheated aside I would have thought that you'd be pleased to welcome back the second of your old sparring partners to stir your blood on these forthcoming long winter Sunday afternoons ;0) I can assure you that 'g' is posting on this forum legitimately and with the full knowledge and permission of admin )

I think the term light hearted is well used here.

No intentions of sparring with LB.

When it comes to wit, one liners, and indeed spin, then LB is a past master.

No,I will stick to facts and figures and proper reasoning,and accept different opinions are acceptable.......

 

[Parksy]

You have been very supportive of both this forum and the moderators of it in past posts Lord B.

Your comments did me the favour of providing the opportunity to state the position of the moderators so that those who feel aggrieved at deletion or alteration of their posts might see why we have acted at times in the way that we have.

Many members accept our actions with good grace but dissent is allowed and we try to address it where it arises. Things become a little difficult when a post is deleted and a large group of forum members who clearly haven't seen the deleted post gang up on the moderator in the manner of some footballers who try to influence the ref. We can't put the post back on in order to demonstrate that our actions were in order and so the situation often deteriorates rapidly.

I offer my apologies if I've misunderstood your post which wasn't intentional but I have siezed the chance to jump on my soapbox.

The Ebay mobile phone seller who has mentioned pursuing the guy who left the negative feedback through the courts as imo shot himself in the foot. Who would buy from him now?

It is reported that the phone supplied was allegedly the wrong model and damaged so if that's the case his lawsuit wouldn't succeed anyway.

Your adversary of yore from the days of the Sunday afternoon bloodletting won't be goaded at this stage Lord B. because (cue soppy background music..) he has vowed to follow a peaceful narrow path of righteousness and become a model citizen and upstanding (forum) member

 

[Stephen_374341239]

What happened to free speach. People have lost there lives in two world wars for the right to be free.

 

[Parksy]

I dunno, what has happened to free speech?

 

[Icemaker]

its only "free" if its true ! what parksy is trying to say is if a contributor post comments negative comments about a supplier then the poster "must" have complete and absolute proof that a wrong doing has taken place, much like my complaint a few years ago about a well known poor insurer, the thread had in excess of 300 replies but when the insurer challenged the thread contributers to give proof of theire concerns only one person did so, me.

I received a full appology and refund from the company and went away happy in the knowledge that most on here knew not to use the company and my complaint had been addressed. the thread has now been deleted as many had writen comments that they could not substantiate so it left haymarket and the contibuter in a liable position for defamatory remarks.

The same thing should and does happen when threads get heated, many on here dont know how to walk away and just keep arguing the point whether they are right or wrong so to avoid conflict it is better to just delete the thread and have a happy site, ive just had this on another forum where i am a moderator and ive had to delete what started out as a really good thread but turned in to slanging match between the east and west side of the pennines ! it allso resulted in 2 contributers being banned.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I do not know the legal niceties, but I believe it has always been the case that libel is if a written document in the public domain contains untrue statements that are defamatory or aim to devalue or damage a person (or organisations) then the author and the publisher can and may be held to account.

Look at the way that newspapers have been fined for carrying libellous content in the Madeline McCann case.

All web-based forums are owned and operated by someone, and they are therefore the publisher in the eyes of the law. Where a forum is unrestricted, (i.e. no registration is required, and any Tom, Dick or Harriette can post) the area of liability for a site owner is clouded, but as soon as a site owner places any form of registration system, and only allows registered people to post, the site owner is assumed to have taken on an editorial role, as they have the power to allow or disallow a person to post. And thus they are controlling the content of the pages.

It can be argued that as soon as a posting is removed, the site owner has expressed an opinion, and thus any posts that remain on the site must conform and represent the opinions and policies of the site owner. Thus if a posting is left on the forum, it can be construed that the site owner agrees with the content, If it is contentious then the site owner is as culpable as the author by allowing it to remain on public view.

In the area of complaints about a product or service, It is sadly a fact of life that on occasions even the best made products may sometimes have a fault. The first thing the user should do is to use the complaints procedure, either outlined in the contract, or to use the provisions in the Sale Of Goods act. Lambasting the product or manufacture in public should be the very last resort, when the there has been no response, or a wholly inappropriate response such as the seller has refused to even consider the complaint without justification.

The anonymity of forums where posters are registered is not a carte blanche to post libellous or inaccurate information. If an party believes it has been damaged by such postings it can through legal channels seek the identity of the poster.

 

[Parksy]

Many thanks to both Icemaker and John L who have summed up the situation and circumstance that this forum operates under far more succinctly than I can, you have both hit the nail on the head.

 

[RayS]

John L raises some good points. If you look at the TandCs of another site www.caravantalk.org.uk you will see that they state that posters take full responsibility for anything they post.This site appear to be a not-for-profit site which might operate under different rules than one operated by a commercial operation such as Haymarket.

Whether or not such a condition would stand up in law is not really the point - it would be a good discipline if posters on our site assumed that it did and hence posted only material that they were personally prepared to stand by, regardless of any possible consequences - i.e. as in normal public conversation. I'm sure this is so for the vast majority of contributors but clearly is not for others.

Please see my posting under Our Website on the Role of Moderators - it has been there for some weeks, and no-one has yet made any comment.