View Full Version : Posting and Moderation on the message board
webteam
12-Nov-2007, 08:21
We previously had a policy of pretty much being self moderating and the only exception to that rule was to insist that there was nothing, abusive, unlawful or pornographic being posted.
Last year the website rules were updated to clarify the situation and to give examples of what was unacceptable behaviour. It is clear that simply updating the rules has not worked as a few message board users continue to abuse the forum rules and test them to the limit to justify personal and abusive attacks on each other.
This will be stopped!
Anyone who incites this kind of behaviour in the future will be banned from this board and the thread / post removed. There is no doubt this will arouse cries and opinions that this is censorship. We can assure you this is not the case but we are not going to have a debate on this issue as there is no way everyone can be appeased by this.
Please be assured that everyone is welcome to participate on the message board in whatever capacity or level of membership you choose so long as you treat everyone else the way you would expect to be treated yourselves (i.e. with respect).
We are of the opinion that anyone wishing to defend their “freedom of speech” to the point of libelous, abusive or threatening posting is not the kind of person who would be welcome on this board anyway.
The role of the moderators is to restore what we all once enjoyed, a club full of likeminded people with a common interest of creating a community where members have a mutual respect of each other, sharing banter, knowledge and generally enjoying each other’s company...and bikes!
We will be deleting any kind of potentially abusive, inciting threads / posts or anything that could possibly descend us back to where we have just previously come from and if the offender persists, they will be banned.
Please note there will be no public justification for closing, deleting or banning a member, I’m afraid you are just going to have to trust our judgment on this which is why we are here so please do not PM the Webteam or start a thread based on this as this will be viewed as inciting behaviour
Anyone can report a bad post or thread by sending a PM to the Webteam – click on the small warning triangle icon next to the relevant posting.
During the course of 2007, the MT has had to review its legal position with regard to the website and its usage. It is quite clear that there is a duty of care upon the website owners and operators to ensure that no libelous and/or defamatory comments are held on the system. Just two cases that appeared in the press this year have vividly demonstrated this; see http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/1/hi/technology/7056659.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7056659.stm) and http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/aug/08/news.newmedia2 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/aug/08/news.newmedia2) for more information. The MT are determined not to allow a few people to put at risk the operation of the club website and the above strengthening of the rules and moderation processes are designed to ensure all members can continue to benefit from the message board facilities.
psychlist
12-Nov-2007, 08:53
The over zealous application of these rules and, sometimes hypocritical, enforcement of advertising guidelines has been putting some people off of reading the board, let alone posting on it any more. So we'll probably end up with only nice, polite, supportive people posting on here anyway ;)
beancounter
12-Nov-2007, 09:08
So we'll probably end up with only nice, polite, supportive people posting on here anyway ;)
Excellent.
bc
psychlist
12-Nov-2007, 09:20
Excellent.
bc
Indeed, resistance is futile :lol:
So we'll probably end up with only nice, polite, supportive people posting on here anyway ;)
Good.
It is entirely possible to disagree with other people's views, sometimes vehemently, without resorting to personal abuse or threat. That, to my mind at least, doesn't mean that people will not be allowed to express their views, or their disagreement with others, just that they will have to frame those views in a way that does not cause others to start running round to their solicitors.
None of us are perfect, when faced with something that gets the blood boiling we can all be a bit snappy at times, but it is surely not beyond people's wit to treat other posters with the same level of respect that they would apply if they were in the same room with them.
In my view, it's really simple. Obviously, there are laws of the land that quite rightly prevent people from inciting terrorism, inciting hatred of other races or religions. These laws apply to everyone. Other than that, on DSC related issues, say what you want, express any views that you want, but if you haven't got the bottle to say that to someone's face, then don't say it here.
None of us are perfect,
Speak for yourself. I however know myself to be perfect in every way.
swannymere
12-Nov-2007, 09:59
How are the MT going to differentiate between banter and personal attacks and who will decide? What if a particular person has an axe to grind with the alleged offender? I'm afraid to say it feels like the thin off the wedge.
How are the MT going to differentiate between banter and personal attacks and who will decide? What if a particular person has an axe to grind with the alleged offender? I'm afraid to say it feels like the thin off the wedge.
Common sense?
In spite of views expressed to the contrary, I think that the webteam does a fine job of making sure that this board doesn't descend into the gutter and that they have performed an extremely difficult job, under a great deal of pressure, for many years. I think that it would be very easy to underate the common sense they have shown to date and the level of judgement required.
Again, it's not rocket science here. The webteam do not have the time to watch over every post and scrutinise it for barbed comment. The individuals involved in the banter, or the people watching the banter from the sidelines, will take a view on when this banter steps over the line. If somebody then feels they've been insulted or libelled, or a 3rd party believes that a post is too near the knuckle, they can press the red triangle to report the post to the webteam as it says in the above statement.
Then it's down to the webteam to decide whether real offence has been caused or whether the complainer is just over-sensitive and take the required action from there.
I don't think it's the thin end of the wedge at all. Other Ducati forums have the 'advantage' of being owned and run by individuals as far as I can see. In that case, he who pays for it calls the shots and there is no arguement. Here, where the site is a resource - paid for by the paid up members of the club then everyone is a stakeholder so debate about what goes and what doesn't is bound to be up for more discussion.
At the end of the day there is no such thing as complete freedom of speech anywhere in the world. People are always held accountable for what they say in some way shape or form and as far as I can see a few simple rules doesn't make for a draconian site
antonye
12-Nov-2007, 10:30
Jools, please stop being so sensible this early on a monday morning. My brain can't handle it.
.............., sometimes hypocritical, enforcement of advertising guidelines has been putting some people off of reading the board, let alone posting on it any more............................
In what respect? I may be worng, but I think that on the whole we have been pretty even handed with regard to advertising.
I even went to the lengths of posting a poll soiliciting opinion to try to ensure I remained even handed.
I found this site useful for legal aspects......
http://www.ukaop.org.uk/cgi-bin/go.pl/forums/thread.html?uid=314;room_uid=1;category_uid=2
Indeed, resistance is futile :lol:
you have been assimilated;) :eek:
swannymere
12-Nov-2007, 14:40
That's me told :sniff:
Personally and this is MY opinion,I think its a shame that the MT/WT have to moderate some posts and that some forum users cant be adult enough to moderate themselves.
I dont expect victorian standards of decency but personal insults on public forums is just another form of school playground bullying.
ChrisBushell
13-Nov-2007, 09:51
Personally and this is MY opinion,I think its a shame that the MT/WT have to moderate some posts and that some forum users cant be adult enough to moderate themselves.
I dont expect victorian standards of decency but personal insults on public forums is just another form of school playground bullying.
Have to say well put.
The thing is that the law on message boards has changed over the last year or so and now the owners/operators of the message board can be held liable for what is put up there.
Thus if anything untrue/libellous about a person or organisation is put up and they take offence, they can sue the owners/operators of the message board, as well as the person who wrote it in the 1st place, for allowing it to stay on the message board.
Now that the position in law is clear, we need to make sure as a Club that we abide within it.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, but if you want to be rude about or libel someone or something off you need to be able to prove that what you say is true and possibly be able to back it up in Court. The newspapers have been having to do this for years and they do loose big sometimes. These days a printed appology is often not enough people want a big donation to Charity!
gordonparker
13-Nov-2007, 10:30
As Ian Hislop will testify !!!!
As Ian Hislop will testify !!!!
Allegedly
couchcommando
13-Nov-2007, 10:32
I always miss the threads/posts that are the reasons for this, ahve they all gone or can I go read some old fashioned abuse before the lynching ? ;)
dickieducati
13-Nov-2007, 10:39
could we have a 'libel free' forum where you could go and abuse people free from the prospect of any litigation?
ChrisBushell
13-Nov-2007, 11:29
could we have a 'libel free' forum where you could go and abuse people free from the prospect of any litigation?
Yes you can! It is called www.not-here.com or the letters page of the Sun!
dickieducati
13-Nov-2007, 11:43
could you blow a raspberry at someone or is that deemed ott too? lol
i am against censorship etc etc but if this is how it is then thats fair enough. there is no grey area and there should be no confusion over what is acceptable and what the outcome will be if the line is over stepped
Paul James
13-Nov-2007, 11:51
Well said Dickie!
There must be a raspberry smilie out there somewhere :o :)
couchcommando
13-Nov-2007, 11:56
I'm here on a regular basis but miss the posts that prompt the censorship or am I just thicker skinned and don't read into them what others do ?
dickieducati
13-Nov-2007, 12:01
i think you have to be quick. the few i have seen seem to spiral out of control quite quickly.
bradders
13-Nov-2007, 12:02
I'm here on a regular basis but miss the posts that prompt the censorship or am I just thicker skinned and don't read into them what others do ?
thicker skinned. I fear much of this is to do with peolpe opposing the MT and the way the club is run ratehr than me saying you are a c0k suk1ng to$$er!!
:lol: :lol:
couchcommando
13-Nov-2007, 12:13
thicker skinned. I fear much of this is to do with peolpe opposing the MT and the way the club is run ratehr than me saying you are a c0k suk1ng to$$er!!
:lol: :lol:
LOL ;)
dickieducati
13-Nov-2007, 12:14
thicker skinned. I fear much of this is to do with peolpe opposing the MT and the way the club is run ratehr than me saying you are a c0k suk1ng to$$er!!
:lol: :lol:
not sure if that would be libel or not. depends if you could prove it i guess!
ChrisBushell
13-Nov-2007, 12:19
thicker skinned. I fear much of this is to do with peolpe opposing the MT and the way the club is run ratehr than me saying you are a c0k suk1ng to$$er!!
:lol: :lol:
Paul
I am afraid that you are wrong there, this is a reaction to the way in which the Law has interpreted posting on message boards. Basically yes you can say what you like as long as it is not deflamatory/libellous/sexually offensive/racist/etc just as we all have to be very carefull in the work environment these days. In addition if you wish to make a seditious comment then need to be able to substantiate it or face the consequences.
The opportunity to make unsubstantiated serious comments/allegations against people or organisations is no longer available to us.
It is sad that society is coming to this, but this is the environment in which we all have to exist and we all need to abide by the rules that society imposes.
Cant see much chance of "Love thy Neighbour" being repeated on telly in the near future or for that matter a few of the "Carry on" films being allowed to be shown!
bradders
13-Nov-2007, 12:51
Chris, in that case sad day indeed....freedon of speech truely has disappeared in the UK :(
moto748
13-Nov-2007, 13:08
The somewhat hand-wringing, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger phaseology used by CB there seems to me a little at odds with the real world.
"The opportunity to make unsubstantiated serious comments/allegations against people or organisations is no longer available to us.
It is sad that society is coming to this, but this is the environment in which we all have to exist and we all need to abide by the rules that society imposes."
I cordially invite posters to consider Visordown, which many here post on. Not I'm not saying this forum ought to be like VD (before you all start wrinkling your noses ;)), but the fact is that freedom of expression, and, indeed, the freedom to give someone a good s l a g ging off, seems hardly to have diminished recently.
Ah, you may say, but VD's owners (now a bike mag, more or less) *could*, in theory find themselves liable in court. Well, maybe. But it's a big maybe.
For an even better example: who would be most aware of the law in this area than the talkboards of a national broadsheet newspaper? I invite posters to consider the International section of the Guardian talkboards. I can't access them at work, but I believe the link is
http://www.guardian.co.uk/talk/0,,546387,00.html
A bigger collection of free-range loonies and psychos you couldn't wish to meet! I know of their rep cos I post on their film and TV board, which fortunately is quite different. But the point remains that if the Guardian can preside quite happily over that farrago, we may be worrying just a teensy-bit too much.
I concur with the poster upthread who said that we should conduct ourselves without personal abuse etc.
Hoever, I also think that occasions some posters should follow couchie's good example, and grow a rather thicker skin! :p
I think there's been a bit too much navel-gazing going on. I am not aware of the finer points of law wrt libel etc but it seems to me that the WT/MT are worrying far too much about something that might never happen. As has been pointed out, there are many more far more "liberal" boards that are never troubled by this subject.
I fear that this kind of censorship will lead to a sterilised board where no-one dares say anything remotely contentious for fear of being "charged", "prosecuted" and found "guilty" in secret by the WT/MT without so much as an opportunity to defend themselves or answer the charges.
Such a policy as laid down in the seed post of this thread goes contrary to all of the principles of a fair and democatic society and, is symptomatic of a wider malaise where we see individual freedoms continually eroded.
Some people need to grow thicker skins.
I think there's been a bit too much navel-gazing going on. I am not aware of the finer points of law wrt libel etc but it seems to me that the WT/MT are worrying far too much about something that might never happen. As has been pointed out, there are many more far more "liberal" boards that are never troubled by this subject.
I fear that this kind of censorship will lead to a sterilised board where no-one dares say anything remotely contentious for fear of being "charged", "prosecuted" and found "guilty" in secret by the WT/MT without so much as an opportunity to defend themselves or answer the charges.
Such a policy as laid down in the seed post of this thread goes contrary to all of the principles of a fair and democatic society and, is symptomatic of a wider malaise where we see individual freedoms continually eroded.
Some people need to grow thicker skins.
eloquently put Mr Twpd
.... we are not going to have a debate on this issue as there is no way everyone can be appeased by this....
So I guess everyone who has replied to this post will now be banned for contravening the no-debate rules :lol:
Some people need to grow thicker skins.
Or try posting on visordown where they don't give a stuff.
If you don't want to accept this, take a look at what's happened to some posters on Sheffield FC forum. This is real, it's fact and it's NOT going to go away. Sad perhaps, but true.
couchcommando
13-Nov-2007, 13:50
TWPD sounds all gay to me
couchcommando
13-Nov-2007, 13:51
If you don't want to accept this, take a look at what's happened to some posters on Sheffield FC forum. This is real, it's fact and it's NOT going to go away. Sad perhaps, but true.
Visordown hasn't had the troubles of Sheffield FC and manages fine with little intervention, as I havent seen the posts that caused this I'm struggling to see just what could be said to offend. But i stand by the comments that people need a thicker skin when on a forum tbh
TWPD sounds all gay to me
ironically enough that kind of post is no longer tolerated:o:lol:
Chris, in that case sad day indeed....freedon of speech truely has disappeared in the UK :(
I don't know where the illusion of ever having complete freedom of speech in the UK came from. We've never had it at any time in our history and it doesn't exist anywhere else in the world.
TWPD sounds all gay to me
Indeed. I'd invite you to say that to my face, but we all know you southern shandy drinkers are too soft to come up here to the far north and we'd get lost somewhere south of Leeds. :)
If you don't want to accept this, take a look at what's happened to some posters on Sheffield FC forum. This is real, it's fact and it's NOT going to go away. Sad perhaps, but true.
Sheffield FC? That's you outed then - you should've kept quiet. ;)Seriously...there's a world of difference between here and a bunch of football fans elsewhere. I think some latitude is in order tbh.
I don't know where the illusion of ever having complete freedom of speech in the UK came from. We've never had it at any time in our history and it doesn't exist anywhere else in the world.
But by the same token that doesn't mean we should tolerate an erosion in our ability to express our opinions and thoughts. The next step will be them.
I am against all forms of censorship. I believe that rubbish, libellous comments, spurious statements of "fact" will eventually be outed or destroyed by good reasoned debate and the support of solid facts. To rely on censorship to quieten the vocal minorities/idiots is failure.
swannymere
13-Nov-2007, 14:07
Indeed. I'd invite you to say that to my face, but we all know you southern shandy drinkers are too soft to come up here to the far north and we'd get lost somewhere south of Leeds. :)
Not true, i had a lovely evening in Mirfield recently, only the abundance of people speaking funny ruined it.
Firstly I entirely agree with the removal or abusive, aggressive or libelous posts and a warning to the individuals concerned. I am a regular visitor to VD as some will know however that does not mean I agree with that type of behaviour.
My only concern is that of immediate banning or not informing the individual and giving them chance to apologise or agree not to post in that manner again.
I also have some element of concern over interpretation of the behaviour and what constitutes inciting behaviour or agression and if this will be treated differently depending on who it is directed at and your acceptance within the club.
I know John quite well and consider him a friend however when I see this
Or post on visordown where they don't give a stuff.
I find it agressive and offensive, however knowing him and his 'jock' :p tendencies means I would just ignore it as it is not intended to be inciteful. However I could not say the same if someone else posted it that I didn't know.
My concern is how this will be enforced and if it will be used to prevent people posting something which may be challenging to individuals or actions under the get out clause that it was 'inciting'?
Can we go for a rideout yet.?
Can we go for a rideout yet.?
Nah, it's dark here now and there's a thunderstorm banging away.........:lol:
ChrisBushell
13-Nov-2007, 14:24
Lilly
I agree that it is important that people be given the chance to take things down, amend their ways etc. Anyone who has a post removed will be advised and it is normally only repeated abuse of privilage that will get someone suspended. It is necessary that we keep things within the bounds that are acceptable to the society in which we live.
There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism or for people to be able to express their views, you just have to mindfull of the consequenses of what you write if you overstep the bounds of acceptability.
With the changes in the law since the Sheffield FC case and in particular an author who has sucessfully sued for damages, the ground rules by which people can use message boards has changed. The Club is reacting to clarification of the law and needs to protect not only the Club but also its members from the threat of being sued.
As Jools has elequently put further up this thread, when have we ever had complete freedom of speech? There are a whole raft of lawyers just waiting to sue people on a no win no fee basis, if you trip over a paving slab. The payouts from that pale into insignificance compared with libel damages.
If we look at how few threads/posts actually get removed each year we are talking about a tiny minority and there should/always be proper justification for their removal.
Thanks Chris, I guess I was just concerned that there would be bannings left right and centre with no chance for the individuals to state their defence or make amends.
Your post confirms that people will be approached and treated with repect and this makes me feel much better about it.
But by the same token that doesn't mean we should tolerate an erosion in our ability to express our opinions and thoughts. The next step will be them.
I am against all forms of censorship. I believe that rubbish, libellous comments, spurious statements of "fact" will eventually be outed or destroyed by good reasoned debate and the support of solid facts. To rely on censorship to quieten the vocal minorities/idiots is failure.
I agree with all of that, but in the context of this thread it depends on whether everybody who uses this board has the ability to employ good reasoned debate in support of their arguement. It is abundantly clear that not everybody has that capability, and some are quite capable of causing a great deal of offence very quickly.
In my view, these offensive remarks are more often levelled by members against other members rather than directly at the webteam or the MT, so to interpret this policy as something for the MT to hide behind, or exert greater control over views expressed by the members is illogical and, in my view, takes 'MT conspiracy' theories to new heights of paranoia.
Failure it may be to exert some form of 'censorship', but the fact remains that control exists over what people say in public to an enormous extent. As a simple example, supposing that you were in a pub with your partner and someone started to insult them in an extremely offensive way. Supposing that you tried reasoned debate, but you were up against the most oaf-ish individual who was quite clearly too thick to understand the eloquence of your arguement. Would you stand behind your principles of using reason or decide that the time honoured censorship of a smack in the teeth would be more appropriate? If you did that the landlord would be entirely within his rights to throw you both out, since causing an affray might have legal repercussions for him.
couchcommando
13-Nov-2007, 15:16
Indeed. I'd invite you to say that to my face, but we all know you southern shandy drinkers are too soft to come up here to the far north and we'd get lost somewhere south of Leeds. :)
Pah I'm not travelling to a 3rd world part of the country, I don't have a 4x4 and I like the convenience of electricity :) ;)
psychlist
13-Nov-2007, 15:38
Your post confirms that people will be approached and treated with repect and this makes me feel much better about it.
:eek: Not my experience recently with one WT member :o
Sadly there has to be censorship of some kind these days sometimes....
The law seems to hold the forum operators responsible where libelous stuff is not dealt with, ie where someone posts a libelous post on the site and it is just left there and not dealt with. I think readin between the lines as long as the MT/WT/Club are seen to delete said posts then they have upheld their responsibility......
ChrisBushell
13-Nov-2007, 15:45
Sadly there has to be censorship of some kind these days sometimes....
The law seems to hold the forum operators responsible where libelous stuff is not dealt with, ie where someone posts a libelous post on the site and it is just left there and not dealt with. I think readin between the lines as long as the MT/WT/Club are seen to delete said posts then they have upheld their responsibility......
Ozz
On a simple basis correct. What it doesn't do is relieve the original poster of their liability for what they have written. Assuming of course that it was in the 1st places incorrect/seditious/libelous or anything else that someone else doesn't like!
Ozz
On a simple basis correct. What it doesn't do is relieve the original poster of their liability for what they have written. Assuming of course that it was in the 1st places incorrect/seditious/libelous or anything else that someone else doesn't like!
Don't you love grey areas.....
Anyone who has a post removed will be advised
That will be an improvement then - I have only ever once had a post removed (which I don't believe deserved it, but that's another story), but I didn't receive any PM or communication from whoever deleted it - it just disappeared. And I don't believe I'm a contentious poster in any way shape or form
And I don't believe I'm a contentious poster in any way shape or form
Yes you are...you're a right trouble maker you are...;)
Yes you are...you're a right trouble maker you are...;)
Oh well, if the great voice of reason says so... I must be :o :o
Chris Wood
13-Nov-2007, 18:32
Permission to say ****...:lol:
Dementor
13-Nov-2007, 18:43
Ozz
On a simple basis correct. What it doesn't do is relieve the original poster of their liability for what they have written. Assuming of course that it was in the 1st places incorrect/seditious/libelous or anything else that someone else doesn't like!
and there's the rub Chris! ;)
Iconic944ss
14-Nov-2007, 01:42
This post by Ozz earlier is very useful:
http://www.ukaop.org.uk/cgi-bin/go.pl/forums/thread.html?uid=314;room_uid=1;category_uid=2
While the two links in the very first post should be born in mind too I feel.
Thankfully, moderating and removing posts here is becoming a much more rare occassion than it use to be. The forum rules and the constitution cover most eventualities for us but, its obvious that legislation is struggling to keep apace with many aspects of the virtual world.
Regards - Frank
antonye
14-Nov-2007, 10:21
But by the same token that doesn't mean we should tolerate an erosion in our ability to express our opinions and thoughts. The next step will be them.
Unfortunately we live in a country where you can be sent to jail for "thought crime"...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7084801.stm
Unfortunately we live in a country where you can be sent to jail for "thought crime"...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7084801.stm
Deeply worrisome. "Thought crime" indeed - until you get to the almost throw-away line near the end of the article where the defendant allegedly had attempted to donate money to a terrorist organisation. I think that would be a crime, morally if not in law.
antonye
14-Nov-2007, 12:13
Deeply worrisome. "Thought crime" indeed - until you get to the almost throw-away line near the end of the article where the defendant allegedly had attempted to donate money to a terrorist organisation. I think that would be a crime, morally if not in law.
Note the "allegedly" in there, let alone "attempted"!
"attempted" requires a definition; thought about it but didn't? Wrote a cheque but ripped it up? Put some money into a box at a mosque?
The whole "terror manuals" thing is bullshit. She had the owner's manual for a Dragunov sniper rifle on her computer; the owner's manual for a rifle which is widely available in most countries and it not technically illegal in this country either if you hold the correct licence. FFS, I've got pictures of me on my website firing that very same rifle (and scoring 45/50 at 250m!) so does that make me a terrorist as well? Surely that's worse than owning the user manual?
In this case, and it opens a whole can of worms, I think that the police backed up the terrorism charges with some very weak circumstantial evidence to paint a very bad view of a very naiive person; god help us if they ever checked out most people on this board!
Unfortunately we live in a country where you can be sent to jail for "thought crime"...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7084801.stm
You can still think what you like, just don't write your thoughts down/"publish" them or speak about them.
Ray.
antonye
14-Nov-2007, 12:36
You can still think what you like, just don't write your thoughts down/"publish" them or speak about them.
Why not?
What's the difference between having the thought and writing them down or speaking out?
Surely the deciding factor should be the intention?
I downloaded the Hacker's Handbook many years ago when I first got access to the internet because I thought it would be interesting to read (which it was). I never had any intention of using the information it contained, and most of it was US based so wouldn't work anyway, but if I did the same today I'd have a spell at Her Majesty's Pleasure!
I have similar books about internet security and hacking sitting on my bookshelf at home due to the nature of my job. They are years out of date but if my house was raided and the police were that desperate to send me down, I'm sure they'd be used as evidence against me.
Note the "allegedly" in there, let alone "attempted"!
"attempted" requires a definition; thought about it but didn't? Wrote a cheque but ripped it up? Put some money into a box at a mosque?
The whole "terror manuals" thing is bullshit. She had the owner's manual for a Dragunov sniper rifle on her computer; the owner's manual for a rifle which is widely available in most countries and it not technically illegal in this country either if you hold the correct licence. FFS, I've got pictures of me on my website firing that very same rifle (and scoring 45/50 at 250m!) so does that make me a terrorist as well? Surely that's worse than owning the user manual?
In this case, and it opens a whole can of worms, I think that the police backed up the terrorism charges with some very weak circumstantial evidence to paint a very bad view of a very naiive person; god help us if they ever checked out most people on this board!
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
If this person did happen to be involved in atrocity in the near future and it came out that the authorities had known about her and done nothing for lack of evidence, they would have been wrong then as well...
antonye
14-Nov-2007, 12:43
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
If this person did happen to be involved in atrocity in the near future and it came out that the authorities had known about her and done nothing for lack of evidence, they would have been wrong then as well...
Very true.
But isn't that what the security services should be doing - keeping a close eye on people like this and making their way higher up the chain to unravel the networks and make a bigger impact? Picking off the minions won't make much of a difference.
If they'd have found 2lbs of C4 under her bed then I would applaud the conviction, but as it stands what little evidence that has been provided is very circumstantial and I'm surprised it stood up in court.
But we're digressing from the subject... ;)
But we're digressing from the subject... ;)
Indeed we are.
And I do agree with your valid points about a perceived lack of firm evidence. Just strikes me that no-one can really do the right thing these days. It probably also didn't help her case that she worked at an airport - had she worked in the local corner shop she might still be there.
Why not?
What's the difference between having the thought and writing them down or speaking out?
Bit difficult to present thoughts to a court unless there is evidence, i.e. written or evidence of conversations.
"Are you thinking what we're thinking"...........unless there is communication in some way you'll never know although some egg heads might say that technology does exist to know what someone is thinking, you can give away what your thinking in so many ways but how many stand up to court scrutiny is the difficult question.
The ways things are going though I s'pose with the state having to provide less evidence or in some cases no evidence to your guilt and the burden of proof shifts to the accused having to prove their innocence then maybe "thought" crime as I see it or think of it is going to become more common.
I'm thinking its time for a cup of tea............................and possibly a quiet lie down in a darkened room.............................:D
Ray.
antonye
14-Nov-2007, 12:55
The ways things are going though I s'pose with the state having to provide less evidence or in some cases no evidence to your guilt and the burden of proof shifts to the accused having to prove their innocence then maybe "thought" crime as I see it or think of it is going to become more common.
I think the mentioned case highlights exactly that problem.
I'm thinking its time for a cup of tea............................and possibly a quiet lie down in a darkened room.............................:D
Just don't have any naughty thoughts while you're there! ;)
bradders
14-Nov-2007, 19:37
theres an interesting post on VD about this, in trems of the quoted litigation etc
back to bikes, lost out on one today so still looking :rolleyes:
antonye
14-Nov-2007, 20:35
Interesting page from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/606/2/popups/defamation.shtml
Unfortunately we live in a country where you can be sent to jail for "thought crime"...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7084801.stm
That's a bit different. She was convicted for possession of terrorist materials.
Samina Malik, from Southall, west London, was found guilty at the Old Bailey of owning terrorist manuals.
She was convicted of having articles "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".
This is not the same as being convicted for having thoughts. She was in possession of articles forbidden under the relevant act.
antonye
15-Nov-2007, 20:20
That's a bit different. She was convicted for possession of terrorist materials.
This is not the same as being convicted for having thoughts. She was in possession of articles forbidden under the relevant act.
Yes, but what about the original charge?
And besides, there is no definition of "terrorist materials" in law, except that the police can make it up as they go along. Seriously, the owner's manual for a sniper rifle? FFS!
Mad Dog Bianchi
07-Dec-2007, 02:37
The reason I came to DSC was because the board I was on before just spiralled out of control and the owner had to shut down the forum. I became almost impossible to get anything of substance done because there was so much cutthroat immature posting going on. That only took about 7 or 8 months to degenerate into the final mess and although I doubt this board will do anything similar, the web team is probably mature enough to cut that kind of action out early and still leave in the normal unabusive crackpot postings. To me, it is not censorship at all or a matter of the law, but truly a question of viable survival. The WT is in a difficult position! Yet, the strength of the board is in our hands.
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.