BoxRec

princess wrote:

Final round wrote:
I agree, it's not a charity the people who run it should be paid.

They are paid ??? By licence holders Robert smith on a very good wage the
Girls in the office ARE paid Charlie Giles is paid ??all out of licence holders money
Yet when you ring the office with a problem or query Your talked down to
Without licence holders paying for 1st class flight hotels expenses there is no board

Well not all out of licence payers money, according to the BBBoC that accounts for only about half of the income.

Sure the board needs a shake up (especially that Welsh guy, forgotten his name, I wouldn't let him near an ironing board let alone a board of council) but it's a private company and as far as I know it the lience payers ain't shareholders.

slapbangwhallop wrote:

princess wrote:

Final round wrote:
I agree, it's not a charity the people who run it should be paid.

They are paid ??? By licence holders Robert smith on a very good wage the
Girls in the office ARE paid Charlie Giles is paid ??all out of licence holders money
Yet when you ring the office with a problem or query Your talked down to
Without licence holders paying for 1st class flight hotels expenses there is no board

Well not all out of licence payers money, according to the BBBoC that accounts for only about half of the income.

Sure the board needs a shake up (especially that Welsh guy, forgotten his name, I wouldn't let him near an ironing board let alone a board of council) but it's a private company and as far as I know it the lience payers ain't shareholders.

That Welsh Guy is a QC! worrying in itself!

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
Indeed. In response to boxingchat's no doubt entirely serious query, you would not believe what some people would attempt to sue you for. Free speech costs a lot of money when rich bullies are prepared to take legal action, regardless of merit.

So, in order to protect you, a friendly moderator obviously thought it best if you didn't leave yourself open to any such action. See, at BoxRec, we care about our posters. If only everyone was so nice!

beautifully said, sir

Counter-puncher wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
Indeed. In response to boxingchat's no doubt entirely serious query, you would not believe what some people would attempt to sue you for. Free speech costs a lot of money when rich bullies are prepared to take legal action, regardless of merit.

So, in order to protect you, a friendly moderator obviously thought it best if you didn't leave yourself open to any such action. See, at BoxRec, we care about our posters. If only everyone was so nice!

beautifully said, sir

But was point was, I wasn't defaming or libelling anyone, I was telling the truth and based on that and the evidence I couldn't be sued and, if I was, I would wins hands down. If you are so confident you or the site haven't dafamed or libelled anyone then surely your stance would be the same and you would invite the action so to be vindicated. You don't seem to get it do you?

boxingchat wrote:But was point was, I wasn't defaming or libelling anyone, I was telling the truth and based on that and the evidence I couldn't be sued and, if I was, I would wins hands down. If you are so confident you or the site haven't dafamed or libelled anyone then surely your stance would be the same and you would invite the action so to be vindicated. You don't seem to get it do you?

It doesn't matter if you're telling the truth - anyone can start a libel action against someone regardless of whether it has any merit at all. Sorry if that comes as a shock to you.

And it doesn't matter if you're telling the truth...it's what you can prove to a judge (type 'Jeffrey Archer libel' in Google).

By the way, you might be a little taken aback by this but I'm not particularly concerned if anyone sues you. The moderators are obviously concerned about the site.

I don't get your second sentence completely, no - but that's merely because it's so convoluted and poorly written. I think you're saying that if we feel we're in the right we would positively invite legal action in order that we could be cleared? Yes, similar logic to 'I know I've got a great chin so go on, have a free shot!'

Even if one has done nothing wrong, it takes time, energy and money to defend actions - money that is often not recouped in full. Plus it's a dreadfully unfair law which is why it's currently in the stages of being reformed. You wouldn't believe how some people exploit it.

Or maybe you would know - I don't know how much you know about these things, to be fair. Do you know anyone who has ever resorted to court action for defamation?

Looks like we've got a fair bit of common ground here, boxingchat! I'm loving your approval of people's right to express free speech!

Based on what you've said, I think you'll have already signed the petition available below:

http://www.libelreform.org/

But if not, go for it - pass on the link to friends, work colleagues...

again, good stuff, Ian.

RIZPECK!

boxingchat your smug hypocritical tone is nauseating, as is your trying to play the ingenue where defamation actions and the like are concerned.

boxingchat:

If you are so confident you or the site haven't dafamed or libelled anyone then surely your stance would be the same and you would invite the action so to be vindicated

you mean, like the Daily Mail did with the alleged killers of Stephen Lawrence?

Daily mail, really big paper with big publisher behind it.

Boxrec.

spot the difference, here?

There is a massive difference between 'free speech' and libel/defamation surely? If you can prove something and, without question, state what is true then I am all for free speech. But surely to say something that is not true, or simply designed to harm someones reputation cannot be right. If the statement published or said is not true and has no truth based fact or accuracy then it is libel or is defamatory.

Edited by moderator - risk of defamation.

yeah, people with personal agendas. only worse thing you can do with one of those swine is givethem a column in The Sun

yeah, people with personal agendas. only worse thing you can do with one of those swine is givethem a column in The Sun

i like that one

boxingchat wrote:There is a massive difference between 'free speech' and libel/defamation surely? If you can prove something and, without question, state what is true then I am all for free speech. But surely to say something that is not true, or simply designed to harm someones reputation cannot be right. If the statement published or said is not true and has no truth based fact or accuracy then it is libel or is defamatory.

Edited by moderator - risk of defamation.

Blimey, I see you've been at it again! Thanks to the moderators for their vigilance.

I know you must value coming on here given the amount of time you devote to it so, please be careful. Surely responsible posters do not want to open up the site to possible legal action. If you want to make statements which the moderators on here don't like for this reason, then please set up your own site or post somewhere else.

Remember - it's not what you know to be true, but what you can prove. I'm sure that whoever is responsible for this forum would not want to spend money defending your allegations, even if YOU 'know' them to be true. It's really hard to prove something in court, and very expensive. Then again, should you want to post on here under your real name and supply your full contact details, then that will help the site if anyone comes calling for this reason. Not necessarily, but it might.

You don't need to take me through your cod interpretation of what defamation is but thanks for trying anyway. I'm sure we agree though - the sooner the law changes on this, the better. What can't be right is that - rather like the obtaining of injunctions on reporting (another way of killing free speech) - that there is one rule for rich people and another for the average person.

I think it's a shame that you aren't allowed to express your opinion for fear of legal action but, that's the way it is at the moment.

Long live boxingchat and his campaign for free speech!

boxingchat wrote:Not quite sure why that needed editing and what was potentially defamatory but hey ho!

well why would you? obviously suing for libel is not something that normal people do very often so leave it to experts like Ian to edit - keeps us all safe! wouldn't be nice to be on the wrong end of threatening legal correspondence mate!

boxingchat wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Coco wrote:
It's you boys that set the bar for things being defamatory

Indeed. In response to boxingchat's no doubt entirely serious query, you would not believe what some people would attempt to sue you for. Free speech costs a lot of money when rich bullies are prepared to take legal action, regardless of merit.

So, in order to protect you, a friendly moderator obviously thought it best if you didn't leave yourself open to any such action. See, at BoxRec, we care about our posters. If only everyone was so nice!

Defaming or libelling someone is when you make untrue statements. I didn't and posts elsewhereon this forum confirm this.

No it isn't - lack of truth is or may be part of defamation. There's more to it than that but not being acquanted with vexaious litigation you obviously wouldn't know stuff like that.

is boxingchat Warrens lawyer or something?

boxingchat wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote:

princess wrote: They are paid ??? By licence holders Robert smith on a very good wage the
Girls in the office ARE paid Charlie Giles is paid ??all out of licence holders money
Yet when you ring the office with a problem or query Your talked down to
Without licence holders paying for 1st class flight hotels expenses there is no board

Well not all out of licence payers money, according to the BBBoC that accounts for only about half of the income.

Sure the board needs a shake up (especially that Welsh guy, forgotten his name, I wouldn't let him near an ironing board let alone a board of council) but it's a private company and as far as I know it the lience payers ain't shareholders.

That Welsh Guy is a QC! worrying in itself!

That is worrying.

He had all the interpersonal skills of a premenstrual African honey badger.

Final round wrote:is boxingchat Warrens lawyer or something?

no, don't think so - not aware of any link between him and F rank W arren. He's an anonymous poster so could be anyone but got to presume that he's just a punter.

In my opinion actions in defamation can be awful things and as we've all seen recently with the superinjunctions, some rich people are able to use the courts to supress free speech. If you've got the money to use the courts to injunct a writer, that writer has enormous difficulties fighting back unless he has access to a serious legal war-chest.

this means that the issues of truth or otherwise that lay behind a story are rarely heard and tested in court due to an inequality of financial arms.

some people (look at ryan giggs) have attempted to rely on their financial muscle to stop stories coming out. it backfired in his case, spectacularly, but i'm sure he's not the only one.

in any event, ian and the team are quite correct to edit potentially libellous posts on here because the trouble they can cause can be extensive (and often completely beyond the understanding or intention of the poster at the time he makes his posts)

ok Dan, I'm just sensing a bit of previous between boxingchat and boxec and have heard bc stick up for FW promotions before.