BoxRec

Interesting article on the BBC website,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7056659.stm

Of course everyone can say what they want, but maybe it oversteps the mark sometimes. By the look of this case it could mean court action.

So play nicely kids

And the Wednesday board would be better advise focusing in a business plan for the next three years.

Please do not show this link to one "A Woollat" of Northumberland


Some of us could be facing 15 years if u do.....

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:Please do not show this link to one "A Woollat" of Northumberland


Some of us could be facing 15 years if u do.....

Oh, and Terry, unfortunately just inserting 'allegedly' isn't a 'get out of jail' card!

Deserter wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:Please do not show this link to one "A Woollat" of Northumberland


Some of us could be facing 15 years if u do.....

Oh, and Terry, unfortunately just inserting 'allegedly' isn't a 'get out of jail' card!

but it helps...

Terry D wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:Please do not show this link to one "A Woollat" of Northumberland


Some of us could be facing 15 years if u do.....

Oh, and Terry, unfortunately just inserting 'allegedly' isn't a 'get out of jail' card!

It isn't? Boxrec lied to me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1183394

see point 4. for specifics, but it's a good overall guide for any would-be writers out there (or posters for that matter).

that page is created by the BBC...not crown court, it only serves as guidence.

it would be very difficult for someone like FW etc to prove who had written a piece on the internet, very difficuly.

ip addresses are combined from some servers, so thats not a way

names on registration forms can be anything you want.

etc etc...

rhino222 wrote: it would be very difficult for someone like FW etc to prove who had written a piece on the internet, very difficuly.

ip addresses are combined from some servers, so thats not a way

names on registration forms can be anything you want.

etc etc...

True, but don't they go after site owners in cases like that?

rhino222 wrote:that page is created by the BBC...not crown court, it only serves as guidence.

it would be very difficult for someone like FW etc to prove who had written a piece on the internet, very difficuly.

ip addresses are combined from some servers, so thats not a way

and don't join the forum using your work e-mail address (DOH!!!)

to me forum's are more like conversations down the pub for people (like us) who don't get out much, I think people can get too jumpy about stuff posted.

Although I once accused someone of libal in another forum I used and he shat himself and sent me an email to appoligies :-D

rhino222 wrote:that page is created by the BBC...not crown court, it only serves as guidence.

it would be very difficult for someone like FW etc to prove who had written a piece on the internet, very difficuly.

ip addresses are combined from some servers, so thats not a way

names on registration forms can be anything you want.

etc etc...

Of course it's guidance material, that might have been why I mentioned in my post that it was a useful guide
However, it is based on the BBC's extensive collective experience so any aspiring writer would be foolish to ignore it.
You appear to be changing your argument now - I was pointing out that using the word 'allegedly' isn't a legal defence and you've now started talking about proving who's written a piece through the internet, which is a totally different tangent.

So maybe having put my 'facebook' page on a thread wasn't such a good idea, seeing as its got my gormless face on it, and where abouts I live

didn't really think that through did i.

Old bones Ian wrote:So maybe having put my 'facebook' page on a thread wasn't such a good idea, seeing as its got my gormless face on it, and where abouts I live

didn't really think that through did i.

I've done the same, but I don't write anything that I'd deem libellous and they can sue me all they want, because I've got fcuk all

Most of what we write on here is libellous, we just have to make a pact to stand up in court together and testify that we all felt calling FW a pudendum is fair comment

I find Chambers' Facebook photo offensive and am thinking of suing him ....

Captain Hook wrote:I find Chambers' Facebook photo offensive and am thinking of suing him ....

It should have a PG rating at least

Captain Hook wrote:I find Chambers' Facebook photo offensive and am thinking of suing him ....

It should be viewed as being an inspiration to all men, rather than being offensive



8) 8) 8) 8)

josh fg wrote:to me forum's are more like conversations down the pub for people (like us) who don't get out much, I think people can get too jumpy about stuff posted.

Although I once accused someone of libal in another forum I used and he shat himself and sent me an email to appoligies :-D

I only use use boxing forums to post secret details of "cottaging" meets that you can only find if you have the secret code.



Actually, I toyed with writing that i posted, in code, the exact whereabouts of Madeline McCann, but i thought it may have been in bad taste....

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote: Actually, I toyed with writing that i posted, in code, the exact whereabouts of Madeline McCann, but i thought it may have been in bad taste....

I didn't know you had a conscience or a sense of morality K-G

Someone sent me a Madeline McCann text last night, I know they're cruel heartless and in bad taste wrong, but that sums up my sense of humour perfectly. I was amused.

Chambers2 wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:I find Chambers' Facebook photo offensive and am thinking of suing him ....

It should be viewed as being an inspiration to all men, rather than being offensive



8) 8) 8) 8)

i heard the judge was impressed with the whistle

I really think the players / club would have better thins to do.

This look like going after the small man; and is likely to make the 'offended' party look like w@nkers.

In the bigger picture there are so many forums, so many posts and info can be removed so quickly; bringing action against forums is unlikely to be a normal occurence.

E wrote:
This look like going after the small man; and is likely to make the 'offended' party look like w@nkers.

Never stopped Allegedly.

I have always wondered why the people who "run" boxing in Britain were so concerned with what a bunch of semi-literate drunks wrote on a forum supposedly about boxing.

I remember a long time ago, in a galaxy far away, some of us here used to post on a forum that was moderated by a balding simpleton with a severe personality disorder who worked for a certain promoter.

Apparently this promoter had nothing better to do than read boxing forums all day, and was instructing this particular guy, (who had the mind of a demented child) to delete or change any posts that criticized him or his boxers.

The forum only had about 20 regular posters and half of them were made up "characters" of the mod who would post gushing tributes to this promoter.

This promoter was in charge of world champions and "bringing boxing back to terrestrial television" sadly he seemed o spend all his time worrying about what some blokes calling themselves "Chambers" or "DG" or whatever were saying about him.


British boxing = joke