Hi all,

This thread has been removed because quite a lot of information had been published in it that is the subject of a media banning order.

As we don't want to get hit by a writ for contempt of court this early in the New Year, we've pulled the thread.

Whilst I appreciate that the thread started with information published in the print media, it is always possible for such outlets to get sued, and by quoting such papers we too can catch it.

If someone wants to debate the rights and wrongs of hiding the ids of criminals, fine. But don't take us in to the territory of specific information that is retsricted by a Court.

Thanks,

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
As we don't want to get hit by a writ for contempt of court this early in the New Year, we've pulled the thread.

so we can write about it later in the year? :heyhey:

Let's arrange a time....you can write the post, I can pull it off the board. :D

Seriously - bear this sort of thing in mind because it can cause great problems.

Joe

again
why not just remove the bloody controversial bits than the whole bloody lot, it couldnt be more han 1 or 2 posts?

i didnt read that thread since about yesterday afternoon

Originally posted by melthebell
again
why not just remove the bloody controversial bits than the whole bloody lot, it couldnt be more han 1 or 2 posts?

i didnt read that thread since about yesterday afternoon
I think this part of Joe's post answers that....
Originally posted by JoeP
Whilst I appreciate that the thread started with information published in the print media, it is always possible for such outlets to get sued, and by quoting such papers we too can catch it.

If someone wants to debate the rights and wrongs of hiding the ids of criminals, fine. But don't take us in to the territory of specific information that is retsricted by a Court.

Thanks,

Joe

that doesnt explain anything

you delete the links to the newspaper reports
and a couple of posts that may say a little too much

the rest was fine? if not a bit emotional?
im not trying to be awkward i just think they use a pneumatic drill to crack a hazelnut
and i get fed up of joining in a debate only to find it gone the next day or 2 days later, makes me wonder why bother tbh

The title to the thread and the whole of the OP was specific in referring to the Bulger/Thompson case.

I think what Joe/Admin is trying to do is allow anything that is non-specific, so that there is less likelihood of action being taken against SF for contempt of court.

I can empathise with you about how frustrating it is, as I pointed out a similar scenario in another thread a few days ago. I don't always agree that particular threads should be pulled, but in the case of the Bulger/Thompson thread, I do.

hm i really dont get it

so you cant refer to the bulger/thompson case AT ALL? in any form?
i thought it just meant thompson as he is now, where he is, his name, looks etc

and this thread is named it : oops :

the only thing i can remeber that would be anywhere near his life now is having a child? which was mentioned a lot

*if thats the problem feel free to delete* sigh

as i said above tho

no matter the rights or wrongs on thread deletion i think they use a pneumatic drill to crack a nut......im sure the majority of threads could stay with little pruning

if this thread was removed because of what i thought above then yes i suppose itd take too much pruning

and i still aint found that bnp thread im sure i read it was backup

I think you'll find that the Sunday Mirror was probably guilty, or pretty close to being guilty, of contempt of Court, just because they revealed details of Thompson's life now, however vague. The story was enough to put doubt in the minds of people who may be close to him now, as well as others.

I definitely do not agree that Thompson should have anonymity, because what he did was.....I can't find the words to describe how I feel about it. However, the fact is that he is protected by the Courts, and as they say "the law is an ass"!

EDIT: The BNP thread is here! (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79111)

Originally posted by melthebell
as i said above tho

no matter the rights or wrongs on thread deletion i think they use a pneumatic drill to crack a nut......im sure the majority of threads could stay with little pruning

if this thread was removed because of what i thought above then yes i suppose itd take too much pruning

and i still aint found that bnp thread im sure i read it was backup i agree withmeltthebell,it was a good thread and imo could have been pruned:thumbsup:

ok so theres this bloke who murdered and mutilated a child who has police and court protection,he lives somewhere up north and works in an office,he is ,it is alleged allowed anoniimity under the law etc etc etc

hows that ? no names no pack drill............

Originally posted by Ann_x


[COLOR=purple]EDIT: The BNP thread is here! (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79111)

Ta Ann :)
still doesnt explain which page or forum its now in (was in general, but its not on the first page anymore) but at least i have a link if i need to find it

Originally posted by melthebell
Ta Ann :)
still doesnt explain which page or forum its now in (was in general, but its not on the first page anymore) but at least i have a link if i need to find it It's right at the bottom of Page 2 at the moment, but will probably be on Page 3 by the end of the day, as it's locked and can't be bumped (yes, I know bumping isn't allowed, but I mean that no-one can post on it now).

Joe P,

Just out of interest what is the situation with internet forums with regard to the laws concerning libel, cases that are under sub judice for the courts and other sorts of court and banning orders?

I’ve noticed in the past that certain topics here have been closed or removed because of the forum’s belief it may be contravening such laws, but have noticed other forums freely continuing to debate such issues. Some of these other forums, I know to be registered overseas. Does this give them greater freedom to discuss all issues? Would it benefit Sheffield Forum’s ability to discuss topics unhampered by restrictions if it was registered overseas rather than in the UK, which after all is fast developing a reputation as a country that pays only lip-service to the notion of free speech?

Oh and a Happy New Year to everybody
:thumbsup:

Originally posted by roughy101
i agree withmeltthebell,it was a good thread and imo could have been pruned:thumbsup:

Yes, Abdul raised some very good points regarding the quality of Sunday tabloids.

I did have concerns, however, with the poster who was allegedly a relative of a social worker involved in the case.

There were some very interesting points raised in that thread, along with some potentially contentious material.

Prune out the latter, leaving a message in its place along the lines of "this message has been removed as it contravenes xxxxx".

I know that mods are volunteers and do work hard, but it's damn annoying to have potentially thought-provoking, interesting threads vanish because of a few ill-thought out posts.

Thompson and Venables are under something called a "Mary Bell Order" which protects the identities of them and their close relatives.

This order will include their children, as with Mary Bell's case. The identity of her daughter is to be kept hidden. this is mostly for the protection of the child, as the child is innocent, and did not choose to be born of the parents it has.

The child must be protected, as there are some sicko's who would try to "visit the sins of the father upon the child".

PT

Originally posted by melthebell
again
why not just remove the bloody controversial bits than the whole bloody lot, it couldnt be more han 1 or 2 posts?

i didnt read that thread since about yesterday afternoon

I'll send you some bank details and you send me 10 grand.

That should sort us out for a brief if we need one. I have no intention of attracting teh attention of the law - even if we prune the thread there is still the chance that we could get into grief, and I am not running the risk.

Some details posted on the thread were NOT just those in the press, but were actually quite gruesome bits that are covered by banning orders. To be frank, those parts of the thread were pure titilation - they added nothing to the debate except to provide some vicarious horror.

And the BNP thread has been returned, as I said it would be. Use the Search option before shouting.

Joe

Originally posted by daverity
Joe P,

Just out of interest what is the situation with internet forums with regard to the laws concerning libel, cases that are under sub judice for the courts and other sorts of court and banning orders?



To repeat a libel is to prolong that libel, and you can be sued. The 'Allegedly' defence so loved by smart-arses on TV is no defence whatsoever.

If a crime is sub-judice, then to discuss it will lead to one of two things. The first is that the defebce counsel can try to get a mistrial verdict, if they can convince a judge that the possibility of a fair trial has been denied the accused by public discussion. The second is that a rather ****** off judge can sue us for contempt of court.

A media banning order is again imposed by a court and to breach it would lead to a possible contempt hearing. If the banning order is a 'D' (Defence of the Realm' notice then it can lead to a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.

As for basing the Forum abroad - it is still run from the UK and Geoff, Tony, the Mods and I have no intention of living abroad. Geoff would cop for it, as well as the individuals concerned. So, putting it abroad (btw, the server IS abroad) makes no difference. There have been a number of cases in recent years when servers in the UK have been closed down by the UK police because of a request originating from abroad, and the reverse is also true.

In other words, we play safe.

We're not a pioneering, crusading newspaper willing to go to the wall.

If people want to build a site like that - do so. But SF isn't it, and doesn't pretend to be one.

I'm sorry, but to be honest it's possible to debate such issues without going into the realms of grand-guignol horror and specifics that could get us in to legal hot water.

Some of the posts on that thread were, frankly, as bad as the tabloid reporting that was being complained about.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
...Some details posted on the thread were NOT just those in the press, but were actually quite gruesome bits that are covered by banning orders. To be frank, those parts of the thread were pure titilation - they added nothing to the debate except to provide some vicarious horror...
That must have appeared after I logged off, and you're absolutely right; it's just the sort of information we don't need. I was refering to the points made about the nature of evil, the role of mental illness etc.

Yes, another thread could be started to discuss such points, but some people may not want to reiterate points they feel they've made elsewhere.

Originally posted by alchresearch
Yes, Abdul raised some very good points regarding the quality of Sunday tabloids.

I did have concerns, however, with the poster who was allegedly a relative of a social worker involved in the case.

And that's another reason why it was pulled - I have no idea whether that social worker wishes his involvement to be publicised publically like this! It puts him and his privacy in public.

If you want to raise points about tabloid press reporting, I believe punk kicked a thread off last night.

Joe

FYI, the forum ticker is still refering to the original Bulger thread.

Originally posted by ppn_2204
That must have appeared after I logged off, and you're absolutely right; it's just the sort of information we don't need. I was refering to the points made about the nature of evil, the role of mental illness etc.



This is part of the problem. The Mods are watching the site 24/7, whereas most people here aren't.

As I keep saying, we don't take pleasure in deleting threads because it means that we spend the following day justifying what's been done.

Yes, I appreciate it's annoying for people, but it would be more annoying if we got sued. And for some of us it would be personally expensive. So it isn't going to happen, if we can avoid it.

Joe

" The killers of two-year-old James Bulger won an unprecedented court order yesterday granting them anonymity for the rest of their lives when they leave custody with new identities.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, England's most senior family judge, granted the order to protect Robert Thompson and Jon Venables from possible revenge attacks by James Bulger's relatives and the public.

The order, the first granted to protect the identity of an adult, bans the media from disclosing information about the new identities, addresses, appearance, and even the accents of the pair, who are expected to be freed within months.
In addition, no information may be published for 12 months about the eight years they have spent in local authority secure units in the north of England, including their rehabilitation and educational regimes."

Guardian,January 2001] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/bulger/article/0,2763,419756,00.html)

The injunction applies only to England & Wales.

Whilst I can understand gruesome details not being fit for this 'family friendly' Forum, I am not aware of any "banning order".

With regard to ISP's being sued, Demon won a legal challenge to the injunction. An ISP could not be expected to monitor every single post on a message board/forum. Had it been made aware and failed to remove posts breaking the Bulger injunction, it would have been guilty.

Guardian, July 2001 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/bulger/article/0,2763,519547,00.html)

Sheffield Forum, by nature of the constant Moderation, would find it very difficult to claim ignorance of an "injunction breaking" post.

Originally posted by alchresearch

I did have concerns, however, with the poster who was allegedly a relative of a social worker involved in the case.

I would agree with that, it did make me cringe a little.

Originally posted by cgksheff


The injunction applies only to England & Wales.

Whilst I can understand gruesome details not being fit for this 'family friendly' Forum, I am not aware of any "banning order".

With regard to ISP's being sued, Demon won a legal challenge to the injunction. An ISP could not be expected to monitor every single post on a message board/forum. Had it been made aware and failed to remove posts breaking the Bulger injunction, it would have been guilty.

Guardian, July 2001 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/bulger/article/0,2763,519547,00.html)

Sheffield Forum, by nature of the constant Moderation, would find it very difficult to claim ignorance of an "injunction breaking" post.

OK....apologies. Bnaning Order is the wrong phrase. Injunction is better. Even if we could get away with it, I say again - we don't have the time and resources to fight a court case.

ISPs are free from prosecution because they're like the Post Office - they deliver messages.

Forums and Website owners are like the newspapers and publishers.

So, what I've said as our understanding of the law is what we work to. Like I say, we play safe, and if soemone wants to take a risk it's a free Internet out there and it costs nowt to set up a Forum..... :)

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
This is part of the problem. The Mods are watching the site 24/7, whereas most people here aren't.
I know, but that's part of the moderators' responsibility.

Originally posted by JoeP
As I keep saying, we don't take pleasure in deleting threads because it means that we spend the following day justifying what's been done.

Yes, I appreciate it's annoying for people, but it would be more annoying if we got sued. And for some of us it would be personally expensive. So it isn't going to happen, if we can avoid it.

Joe
I absolutely agree with you that potentially libelous and otherwise legally actionable stuff should be removed. I simply question the need to remove entire threads, complete with their tangents, offshoots and stimulating debate, when alternative options exist.

Originally posted by ppn_2204
I know, but that's part of the moderators' responsibility.


I absolutely agree with you that potentially libelous and otherwise legally actionable stuff should be removed. I simply question the need to remove entire threads, complete with their tangents, offshoots and stimulating debate, when alternative options exist.

I am very aware that it's part of our responsibility. And it's because we're watching the Forum that we see the crap that a lot of people on here don't. And that's what we're there for. If soemone leaves a thread for several hours and in that time it gets to be a mess, sorry, but the thread will be edited or pulled.

However, we are volunteers and sometimes if a thread is very messy we will leave it. The BNP thread removed has been returned, for example, because it was possible to clean it up and put it back reasonably easily.

This thread is a different issue - to pick out stuff that wouldn't run any risk of getting us in to potentially hot water isn't easy. If we miss something, we're still in trouble.

None of us are lawyers - we don't have access to them at short notice - and so we do play safe.

I'm sorry if it causes problems for people, and we try and minimise the number of times we do this.

Thanks for noting the Ticker - dealt with

It's times like this when we wish we'd stuck to the old 'pull the threads, don't tell anyone, and pull every thread that refers to the pulled thread' approach..... :D

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP


And the BNP thread has been returned, as I said it would be. Use the Search option before shouting.

Joe
ta joe

ann gave me the link to the bnp thread (do you really think searching on here for bnp would be useful? theres prolly 3 billion references to em thanks to roy :)

Originally posted by JoeP
...It's times like this when we wish we'd stuck to the old 'pull the threads, don't tell anyone, and pull every thread that refers to the pulled thread' approach..... :D

Joe
Ah, but just think how much more busy you'd be then... All those forumers thinking "what the...?" and posting again... and again... about their mysteriously vanishing posts...

:)

It's a fair question that we are asked on numerous occasions. The simple truth is that because of the voluntary nature of the moderating team it comes down to the time that is available to individuals.

Things aren't deliberately ignored. but sometimes it takes longer, or it doesn't get done at all. Removing threads is a quick 'point and shoot' solution to get bad stuff out of the public forum. We do try to trim stuff and put it back together, but where there are lots of quotations or referrals this often is a near impossible task.

Experience tells us that a mod can spend an hour or two of their own free time pruning and sorting out a thread only for it to be reposted and it quickly degenerate back to where it was before they started.

Whilst it is true to say that it is watched 24/7 it isn't the case that there is always a mod around every minute (or hour). We are very fortunate in that we have mods who work odd times and often we have round the clock cover - but not always. By 24/7 we mean that there is no 9-5 restriction on moderating, it is around the clock depending on individuals availability.

Also, it is true to say that we don't read every post. We rely heavily on members reporting the questionable things, and we probably have around half a dozen reports an hour on an average working say. Moderating is reactive in the majority of instances where things are removed / edited / pruned, etc.

Originally posted by ppn_2204
Ah, but just think how much more busy you'd be then... All those forumers thinking "what the...?" and posting again... and again... about their mysteriously vanishing posts...

:)

Nah....at that point we just ban 'em.... :D

:)

Originally posted by alchresearch
Yes, Abdul raised some very good points regarding the quality of Sunday tabloids.

I did have concerns, however, with the poster who was allegedly a relative of a social worker involved in the case.

This was very legally questionable. People who work on cases like this in whatever capacity are free to talk about them publicly, for example in lectures etc., but on the condition that they do not actually specifically name the case (or any specific identifying characteristics like date and location).

Most professionals would never publicly identify themselves as having been involved in any high profile case because it would mean them spending most of their time looking over their shoulder.

Originally posted by JoeP
Nah....at that point we just ban 'em.... :D

:)
Totalitarianism in action ;) .
Yes, I know, last post on the subject.
Keep up the good work :) .

Are not the protestors here missing the point...with FREE SPEECH surely comes a
RESPONSIBILITY.

JoeP and the mods have done a great job within the last week to get SF shaped up decently and within the law.

They are often unthanked, unfortunately, and also unpaid.

I, for one, welcome their intervention on these occasions.
The 2 threads pulled were very contentious, raising emotions from the baser elements of a few contributors. Unfortunately, like in other aspects of life...the few spoil it for the responsible majority

Originally posted by shoeshine
Are not the protestors here missing the point...with FREE SPEECH surely comes a
RESPONSIBILITY.

JoeP and the mods have done a great job within the last week to get SF shaped up decently and within the law.

They are often unthanked, unfortunately, and also unpaid.
I've nothing but respect for the mods. I might not agree with everything they say or do, but I respect the work they put in. I'd hate the forum to descend into an unmoderated free for all.Originally posted by shoeshine
I, for one, welcome their intervention on these occasions.
The 2 threads pulled were very contentious, raising emotions from the baser elements of a few contributors. Unfortunately, like in other aspects of life...the few spoil it for the responsible majority
Raised emotions can sometimes lead to stimulating debate, which is one of the many things I like about this forum. Remove the legally actionable stuff obviously (and I fully understand how pruning the threads might not always be an option due to limitations of time), but don't stifle debate.

Originally posted by ppn_2204
Totalitarianism in action ;) .
Yes, I know, last post on the subject.
Keep up the good work :) .

Moi?

Totalitarian?

A mistake, I'm sure! I just like things to be nice and tidy.... :)

Originally posted by Shoeshine
...the mods have done a great job within the last week to get SF shaped up decently and within the law.


Thank you - we try. Sometimes it's a difficult line to walk but again, that's part of the territory of Moderating.

I guess while ever we have people constructively criticising us and supporting us for taking the same actions, we're probably doing something right. :)

Joe

Originally posted by shoeshine
Are not the protestors here missing the point...with FREE SPEECH surely comes a
RESPONSIBILITY.

JoeP and the mods have done a great job within the last week to get SF shaped up decently and within the law.

They are often unthanked, unfortunately, and also unpaid.

I, for one, welcome their intervention on these occasions.
The 2 threads pulled were very contentious, raising emotions from the baser elements of a few contributors. Unfortunately, like in other aspects of life...the few spoil it for the responsible majority

as far as im aware nobody in this thread mentioned freespeech

just said we'd like the threads pruned to get rid of the norty bits and the thread left

Originally posted by ppn_2204
Totalitarianism in action ;) .
Yes, I know, last post on the subject.
Keep up the good work :) .
Just remember - Joe's the nice one - I'm the nasty one that does the dirty work :evil:

Originally posted by JoeP
To repeat a libel is to prolong that libel, and you can be sued. The 'Allegedly' defence so loved by smart-arses on TV is no defence whatsoever.

If a crime is sub-judice, then to discuss it will lead to one of two things. The first is that the defebce counsel can try to get a mistrial verdict, if they can convince a judge that the possibility of a fair trial has been denied the accused by public discussion. The second is that a rather ****** off judge can sue us for contempt of court.

A media banning order is again imposed by a court and to breach it would lead to a possible contempt hearing. If the banning order is a 'D' (Defence of the Realm' notice then it can lead to a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.


Judge Joe! i see a new tv series on its way for daytime ITV

Originally posted by JoeP
Moi?

Totalitarian?

A mistake, I'm sure!...
No, a joke :D .

Originally posted by Tony
Just remember - Joe's the nice one - I'm the nasty one that does the dirty work :evil:
What exactly stimulates the dirty work? I've seen trolls appear and - thankfully - disappear relatively quickly when it's realised that they contribute little, if anything, to any debate. I can also understand how personal abuse and related nastiness can lead to marching orders being issued. Would, for example, my fairly obvious and innocuous joke about totalitarianism (followed by the obligatory wink) lead to a temporary ban?

I presume the mods have a clearly defined list of what leads to disciplinary action?

If it's an obvious joke and not pushed too far, and the recipient takes it in good humour, then a ban is unlikely.

If you keep up with something that the recipient finds annoying or is generally viewed to be offensive, then yes, a ban becomes likely, the size of which depends upon the circumstances.

If there is a repeated breach of Forum rules, or a persistent refusal to take on board what a Mod. says, again, we woudl probably impose a ban.

We will warn people, on the thread and occasionally by PM, on most occasions although there are times when someone just steps so far out of line that we just ban them and ask them to contact Admin. to explain themselves. Typically spamming, duplicate IDs or posts deliberately aimed at breaching the law of England.

And yes, we have a collection of notes and policies that Mods refer to to help decide whether any action needs taking, and if so, what action to take. But ultimately it boils down to Forum Rules, the Law of England, and the judgement of the Mods.

Joe

Originally posted by ppn_2204


I presume the mods have a clearly defined list of what leads to disciplinary action?
no they make it up as they go along

and the time of the month also comes into effect too :)

erm *gets coat*

Mod. Note

Having explained the whys and wherefores of closing the Bulger Thread., I'm going to shut this one down later this afternoon.

Again, thanks for the input and debate, and I hope that it's clarified why we did it.

Cheers,

Joe

Thanks, JoeP, for the information.

Originally posted by Tony
Just remember - Joe's the nice one - I'm the nasty one that does the dirty work :evil:

And there I was thinking it was MAX
:heyhey:

*sets off the air raid siren*

WOO WOO GET YOUR POSTS IN NOW, BEFORE IT CLOSES WOO WOO

Originally posted by bonny
And there I was thinking it was MAX
:heyhey:

We're ALL evil when we want to be.

It's just that I drew the 'Be Nice' straw for Christmas and so I'm having to do the equivalent of say 'Can't we all just get along' and 'What about the children? Will no-one thinkof the children?' for a while.

:)

Originally posted by JoeP
We're ALL evil when we want to be.

It's just that I drew the 'Be Nice' straw for Christmas and so I'm having to do the equivalent of say 'Can't we all just get along' and 'What about the children? Will no-one thinkof the children?' for a while.

:)

lol :hihi:

I don't believe that for one second Joe. It's your default mode.

:heyhey: