Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Unlike you i read the posts and the content contained in them and made my judgement based on that as did at least three other posters. Trial by internet is dangerous to say the least.

But you're an ex copper, not a judge, so don't judge . Unless a career in the ancient William has confused your boundaries. If people make statements which will later come back to bite them, so be it. Too much policing of thought and word in this world . Are we all to become one size fits all apologists, school , work , retire , die. What a dull existence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hogesar said:

Brilliant, I started a thread and didn't even get to see any of the replies. I don't understand why we can't have an online conversation about it. It's an unsolved crime at the moment and I think open dialogue is healthy.

There are a multitude of theories and some have absolutely zero evidence, some just basic circumstantial whilst a couple of other theories are more interesting and yes, do involve at least one of the parents. 

Why wasn’t the thread in the non-football section? Because it has nothing to do with football. (And I’d argue that the EU thread isn’t football-related and should be moved to.) 

Edited by Grando
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

Oh well that's OK then.....

There will be speculation about any unsolved mystery. There are various theories about flight MH370, still many theories about Jack The Ripper. I don't see how you can prevent people having theories about the various possibilities. So long as they are not accusations I cannot see the problem.

Some people on here used to directly accuse Delia Smith of stealing money from the club. I would have thought that defamatory. To pose the question, however, would be quite reasonable I would have thought, although personally I believe it to be a ridiculous one if you examine the club finances.

 

Edited by ron obvious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Unlike you i read the posts and the content contained in them and made my judgement based on that as did at least three other posters. Trial by internet is dangerous to say the least.

Trial by internet? No . Discussion on internet ...yes!

Now,  trial by red top newspaper aided by false statement by representatives of the law enforcement sector....(Hillsborough) ...now that is something truly disgraceful and abhorrent.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, hogesar said:

And how do we know they were rash or ill founded? Do we know how much research these posters have carried out to arrive at their conclusions? Or are we just assuming?

I generally assume the police (who haven't pursued any charges against them as far as I'm aware) will have had access to more evidence and research than random internet poster.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, king canary said:

I generally assume the police (who haven't pursued any charges against them as far as I'm aware) will have had access to more evidence and research than random internet poster.

I don't even know what the actual accusations were, but would that automatically make them ill founded or rash?

Look, I didn't see the posts and this is the PinkUn so there's invariably every chance they were exactly as Til has described, however..

To say 'the police haven't charged them so you cant think otherwise' smacks of double standards and completely ignores historical cases too. 

When I say double standards I refer to this entire forum that spends, or certainly has spent a large amount of time criticising managers and coaches for not knowing what they're doing or making the wrong decision - despite the fact they 'will have had access to more evidence and research than a random internet poster'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hogesar said:

When I say double standards I refer to this entire forum that spends, or certainly has spent a large amount of time criticising managers and coaches for not knowing what they're doing or making the wrong decision - despite the fact they 'will have had access to more evidence and research than a random internet poster'

I think there is pretty obvious difference between 'should the manager have signed player x' and 'did these people kill their daughter' as to how legitimate the discussions are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

But you're an ex copper, not a judge, so don't judge . Unless a career in the ancient William has confused your boundaries. If people make statements which will later come back to bite them, so be it. Too much policing of thought and word in this world . Are we all to become one size fits all apologists, school , work , retire , die. What a dull existence. 

Just maybe it was my real world life experiences that got me to those conclusions ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, king canary said:

I think there is pretty obvious difference between 'should the manager have signed player x' and 'did these people kill their daughter' as to how legitimate the discussions are.

I cannot believe that such a comparison has been made by the OP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TIL 1010 said:

I cannot believe that such a comparison has been made by the OP.

I cannot believe nobody has commented on the irony of the thread title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I cannot believe that such a comparison has been made by the OP.

Why not? Explain? Ignore the emotion (because it's not actually relevant to my point) and explain to me the principle differences between what i've stated? Two professions with experts in their field having something they've made a decision on discussed by members of  the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Drazen Muzinic said:

I cannot believe nobody has commented on the irony of the thread title.

Probably because most people have enough self awareness not to plough over other people's sensibilities with hob nail boots on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

If people make statements which will later come back to bite them, so be it.

The point is not that these statements may 'come back later' to bite the person making them, but that they make serious, unproven allegations against others. And, with reference to your OP: "I didn't read anything offensive in it, just opinions." Since when has it been a defence against the charge of offensive behaviour that "I was just expressing an opinion"? As for "Free speech at its finest", treasured rights come with associated obligations, among them the obligation to respect other treasured rights, including the rights of others; free speech is not the freedom to say anything you like in any circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Probably because most people have enough self awareness not to plough over other people's sensibilities with hob nail boots on.

There are enough posters who don't though Ricky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hogesar said:

When I say double standards I refer to this entire forum that spends, or certainly has spent a large amount of time criticising managers and coaches for not knowing what they're doing or making the wrong decision - despite the fact they 'will have had access to more evidence and research than a random internet poster'

The key words there are "managers and coaches" ie.....football.

Why are you still pushing this when the original thread was removed?  Can you not see why it might be a problem to have such a thread on here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Drazen Muzinic said:

There are enough posters who don't though Ricky.

Sadly true😞

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people make defamatory comments on a message board like this, the person making the comment and the website host are both at risk if sued for libel, in the same way that a book publisher can be sued as well as the author.

 

Defamation means comments which are false and likely to bring someone into public disrepute.  There is a defence if the statements are true, but in the UK you'd have to prove that, which obviously would be impossible in this case.

 

There is a defence for the website host if the comments are removed quickly in response to a complaint, but it makes sense for the website host to just do it anyway where it notices that sort of content, without waiting for a complaint.

 

Accusing anyone of a crime would normally be defamatory, so I'm not surprised that thread was pulled and don't like it anyway.  With anything  that's reported in the media, all of us can have our own suspicions about what really happened, but whenever I've been privy to what has really happened and it's then been reported, there's always been a lot of difference, so I'm always cautious about making judgements about stuff I know nothing about at first hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eddie & Keela........Woof!......

 

......anyway, will Brexit actually go ahead on the "9th of March 2019?"......Or 'May' it not?.....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

The key words there are "managers and coaches" ie.....football.

Why are you still pushing this when the original thread was removed?  Can you not see why it might be a problem to have such a thread on here?

Nope, I don't see why having the thread in itself would be a problem. I can understand if some of the replies were unacceptable for whatever reason then yes, it could get removed. Like plenty of other threads.

But, and I reiterate once again, I haven't seen those posts. So because of that, i'm discussing the general concept which a few have implied or suggested that, irrespective of where this is discussed, there shouldn't be any questioning of th parents because the parents haven't been charged with anything, and the police know better.

I'm arguing that point because taking the sensitivities out of the equation it's essentially disputing that if someone who is an expert in their field has stated or done something, then it shouldn't be questioned. I disagree, the case as a whole is still open and I think public dialogue is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Take on board what ricardo posted hogesar for goodness sake.

Shockingly, you're not going to answer my point then, and instead refer to a couple of one liners from Ricardo which are perfectly well placed but don't address the points i'm actually making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Nope, I don't see why having the thread in itself would be a problem. I can understand if some of the replies were unacceptable for whatever reason then yes, it could get removed. Like plenty of other threads.

But, and I reiterate once again, I haven't seen those posts. So because of that, i'm discussing the general concept which a few have implied or suggested that, irrespective of where this is discussed, there shouldn't be any questioning of th parents because the parents haven't been charged with anything, and the police know better.

I'm arguing that point because taking the sensitivities out of the equation it's essentially disputing that if someone who is an expert in their field has stated or done something, then it shouldn't be questioned. I disagree, the case as a whole is still open and I think public dialogue is important.

Hoggy, I entirely understand your argument, and it may have applied to some generalised posts on the subject. However at least one post went way beyond simply questioning the parents' actions, for example in terms of negligence, which would probably be regarded as fair comment.

That post accused the parents of a handful of serious criminal offences. And the point there is that if someone has never been found guilty of such crimes then the poster would in effect have to prove them guilty to  defend themselves agains a libel action.

And since the police have never found enough evidence to bring a case, let alone secure a conviction, that would be next to impossible. And the same would apply to Archant, would might very well be sued on the basis that it is the publisher.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Len said:

I read that Cliff Richard had a property near to where Madeline disappeared 🤐.

Clement Freude had a property there and had met the family

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Shockingly, you're not going to answer my point then, and instead refer to a couple of one liners from Ricardo which are perfectly well placed but don't address the points i'm actually making.

I do not agree at all with anything you have posted in response to the criticism you are getting over this subject and it is not just me by the way so you carry on hogesar. I also seem to think this point or points you keep banging on about being missed has appeared before on numerous threads.

My opinion is you never should have started this topic in the first place and most certainly not on the main forum but hey ho that is just an opinion which after all i am entitled to.

As Purple has just posted at least one post which you did not read by the way overstepped the mark and could have landed Archant and/or the poster in very hot water. I said this was a car crash waiting to happen and it turned out that way.

Edited by TIL 1010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Len said:

I read that Cliff Richard had a property near to where Madeline disappeared 🤐.

That really is a remark way over the top,  this was obviously a case of a Paedophile group from Portugal or paedophile's  staying in the area taking this poor young girl and getting away with it. The Portuguese police have a LOT TO ANSWER FOR

As for the original post being deleted you should not be surprised anything controversial will get pulled. Remember posting about Ed Balls wife Pixie and the expenses fiddle and this labour controlled site will remove it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, daly said:

That really is a remark way over the top,  this was obviously a case of a Paedophile group from Portugal or paedophile's  staying in the area taking this poor young girl and getting away with it. The Portuguese police have a LOT TO ANSWER FOR

As for the original post being deleted you should not be surprised anything controversial will get pulled. Remember posting about Ed Balls wife Pixie and the expenses fiddle and this labour controlled site will remove it 

I think what people have been saying is that this website and virtually all of them will remove posts that have statements in them that have no basis in fact, could be construed as libellous or slanderous and/or could run the risk of said website being sued.

Accusing people of fiddling with no evidence is one such case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This site is owned and ran by Archant so it is up to them what they do. Odd we don't hear any weirdos talking about their 'freedom'.

The subject matter is still highly contentious and would not only allowed the usual nutjobs to post up inflammatory, but possibly libellous stuff.

Just as Mr Plod might deem it 'not in the best interest' to allow you to enter a 'millwall' pub in a City shirt singing 'On the ball City'  so Archant will decide what is in their and a wider interest acceptable on here.

That is not any curtailment of free speech, any more than stopping someone from running into a cinema and shouting 'fire' is.

Sadly though it is yet another example of the RWNJs seeing some 'big brother' control in even the slightest of actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, daly said:

The Portuguese police have a LOT TO ANSWER FOR

They have, so far, failed to solve a crime..... nothing unusual in that. The people that have a lot to answer for are those who PERPETRATED the crime.

I have no idea, nor opinion as  to whodunnit. I also have no problem with anyone voicing their opinion as to who they think dunnit. We must not be dictated to as to what we say or do, but ,and this is a very big but, our words and actions have consequences and no one, be he ( or she)  Prince, Priest,Pauper, Press,or Policeman is immune. As for causing offence, does anyone really think that Julian Clary had really " been fisting Norman Lamont"?

Personally, I doubt that the ' Parents did it '. I hope that someone that thinks they did, is not offended. I do however respect their right to say it.....and face the reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×