ZFarm still trading ?

[Farmer42]

Wasn't around a few years ago, but was anything mentioned last time about putting a caveat up on a thread / board or putting something into the terms & conditions to cover the club against user opinions?

It makes me wonder how other forums / social networking sites get away with it

Having read into this a bit more & talking to a former lawyer friend of mine it could be that they invoke the "Fair Comment" defence. He pointed me to English Defamation Law (Wikipedia) which says:

"This defence arises if the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff.

For an opinion to be fair comment it must be based upon facts...

A defence of fair comment can fail if the defendant shows malice, as in Thomas v Bradbury, Agnew & Co. (1906); the defendant not only criticised the claimant's book but made many personal slurs against the author, invalidating the defence."

As long as the comments are factual and you don't call anybody any derogatory names, it seems that it could be classed as 'fair comment'.

 

[SeanDezart]

For an opinion to be fair comment it must be based upon facts...

As long as the comments are factual and you don't call anybody any derogatory names, it seems that it could be classed as 'fair comment'.

So, the truth (as quoted by those with 1st hand experience and not those who've heard from a friend of a friend etc) is fait comment and NOT derogatory ?

So I can call Grolls a stout gentleman who holds hands with other stout gentlemen but not a fat poofter (not that ever I would of course) ?

 

[AD240Z]

There are a number of instances of people posting on facebook and twitter etc. and being jailed for the offensive or threatening nature of the posts - but the website operators weren't .


This is long - perhaps you may only read if you have a while ......Found online :

Under UK law the position is rather complex but the starting point is that, not only authors of defamatory content, but also "secondary publishers" who store or disseminate information, such as website hosts or operators of website forums or other websites with user generated content ("UGC"), can all be held liable for website / online defamation.

However, if what you do amounts purely to hosting online content or operating a website with content posted by others, the law (in particular, the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 and the Defamation Act 1996) may let you off the hook provided that you had no reason to know of the defamatory content and that, when you found about it, you quickly removed it.


Understandably, those operating online forums or other sites with UGC often prefer to vet and edit material before allowing it to be posted. But, by moderating content in this way, under UK law website or online operators will be more likely to be held legally responsible for internet defamation occurring on the website or other online location.


The safest course of action for website operators or hosts facing allegations of internet libel is therefore to take down all of the content immediately. If you delay or attempt to edit the material, then your risk of legal liability for online defamation increases substantially.


However, the Defamation Act 2013 and associated regulations (full title: "The Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013") offer an alternative route to website operators, though not a straightforward one.



Web operators have a defence to website defamation if they can show that they didn't post the defamatory statement on the site - provided they react correctly to a notice of complaint from a complainant claiming that it can't identify the person who posted the statement. The regulations set up a complex series of communications / steps (with relatively short timescales attached to each) whereby the site operator contacts the poster to get either consent to removal of material or else the poster's identification details to enable the complainant to sue the poster.


If they receive a complaint under the Defamation Act 2013, website operators have a difficult decision to make. Do they chase the carrot of a complete defamation defence by leaving the disputed material in place and devoting time, cost and effort in trying to comply with the tricky regulatory regime? If they get it wrong, web operators not only lose the Defamation Act 2013 defence but also risk their other possible defamation defences which depend on the swift removal of content. Or do they simply remove the offending content to achieve a quick end to the matter? Web operators will need to develop a strategy, weighing up the relevant factors including the importance which they place on preserving UGC on their sites and the cost / feasibility of setting up a system to comply with the Defamation Act 2013 regime.

 

[grolls]

So, the truth (as quoted by those with 1st hand experience and not those who've heard from a friend of a friend etc) is fait comment and NOT derogatory ?

So I can call Grolls a stout gentleman who holds hands with other stout gentlemen but not a fat poofter (not that ever I would of course) ?

As it happens you could not say that legally because being called stout would suggest your calling me fat and is now covered by the 2010 equality act... I can however call you baldy but not French baldy. Aint the law great:lol:

 

[grolls]

There are a number of instances of people posting on facebook and twitter etc. and being jailed for the offensive or threatening nature of the posts - but the website operators weren't .


This is long - perhaps you may only read if you have a while ......Found online :

Under UK law the position is rather complex but the starting point is that, not only authors of defamatory content, but also "secondary publishers" who store or disseminate information, such as website hosts or operators of website forums or other websites with user generated content ("UGC"), can all be held liable for website / online defamation.

However, if what you do amounts purely to hosting online content or operating a website with content posted by others, the law (in particular, the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 and the Defamation Act 1996) may let you off the hook provided that you had no reason to know of the defamatory content and that, when you found about it, you quickly removed it.


Understandably, those operating online forums or other sites with UGC often prefer to vet and edit material before allowing it to be posted. But, by moderating content in this way, under UK law website or online operators will be more likely to be held legally responsible for internet defamation occurring on the website or other online location.


The safest course of action for website operators or hosts facing allegations of internet libel is therefore to take down all of the content immediately. If you delay or attempt to edit the material, then your risk of legal liability for online defamation increases substantially.


However, the Defamation Act 2013 and associated regulations (full title: "The Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013") offer an alternative route to website operators, though not a straightforward one.



Web operators have a defence to website defamation if they can show that they didn't post the defamatory statement on the site - provided they react correctly to a notice of complaint from a complainant claiming that it can't identify the person who posted the statement. The regulations set up a complex series of communications / steps (with relatively short timescales attached to each) whereby the site operator contacts the poster to get either consent to removal of material or else the poster's identification details to enable the complainant to sue the poster.


If they receive a complaint under the Defamation Act 2013, website operators have a difficult decision to make. Do they chase the carrot of a complete defamation defence by leaving the disputed material in place and devoting time, cost and effort in trying to comply with the tricky regulatory regime? If they get it wrong, web operators not only lose the Defamation Act 2013 defence but also risk their other possible defamation defences which depend on the swift removal of content. Or do they simply remove the offending content to achieve a quick end to the matter? Web operators will need to develop a strategy, weighing up the relevant factors including the importance which they place on preserving UGC on their sites and the cost / feasibility of setting up a system to comply with the Defamation Act 2013 regime.

There are a number of instances of people posting on facebook and twitter etc. and being jailed for the offensive or threatening nature of the posts - but the website operators weren't .

Already said what country.... hence the problem!

However, if what you do amounts purely to hosting online content or operating a website with content posted by others, the law (in particular, the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 and the Defamation Act 1996) may let you off the hook provided that you had no reason to know of the defamatory content and that, when you found about it, you quickly removed it.

Understandably, those operating online forums or other sites with UGC often prefer to vet and edit material before allowing it to be posted. But, by moderating content in this way, under UK law website or online operators will be more likely to be held legally responsible for internet defamation occurring on the website or other online location.


The safest course of action for website operators or hosts facing allegations of internet libel is therefore to take down all of the content immediately. If you delay or attempt to edit the material, then your risk of legal liability for online defamation increases substantially.

Steve has the wording used elsewhere. Ultimately the club would have to state they would pass on your details like any other online club or company once threatened with action.

The best way to deal with it is to give outcomes from CCJ's etc if members wanted to complain and providing they stuck to the legal outcomes they could post (very carefully)

Of course members could ask for a “recommendation page” where members could recommend who they use and why, of course it would only be a service only available for members to see.

 

[SeanDezart]

Of course members could ask for a “recommendation page” where members could recommend who they use and why, of course it would only be a service only available for members to see.

Another reason to be put in place to be a paid-up member then.

 

[grolls]

Another reason to be put in place to be a paid-up member then.

Yup.... me fee is a free yearly subscription....next

 

[SeanDezart]

As it happens you could not say that legally because being called stout would suggest your calling me fat and is now covered by the 2010 equality act... I can however call you baldy but not French baldy. Aint the law great:lol:

No, stout means of heavy build or :

stout words
stout resulution
.......Guiness ?

I, however might take offence at being called baldy when in fact I shave my head and you are suggesting hair-loss and singling me out because of it.......as someone else might suggest that you're fat.....but you tell me who and I'll go beat them up - a lot harder to catch a hooded beater-upper than a public slanderer !

 

[grolls]

No, stout means of heavy build or :

stout words
stout resulution
.......Guiness ?

I, however might take offence at being called baldy when in fact I shave my head and you are suggesting hair-loss and singling me out because of it.......as someone else might suggest that you're fat.....but you tell me who and I'll go beat them up - a lot harder to catch a hooded beater-upper than a public slanderer !

Now funny that but describing someone as bald when they are is not in itself a crime, however publicly humiliating someone directly on a continual basis becomes harassment and is now deemed as a criminal offence.......

 

[SeanDezart]

So, incorrectly descirbing someone in an intentionally degrading fashion is not a crime but telling someone that Mr X damaged your car, removed and/or replaced new parts with old and didn't do work/supply parts for your car and you have the proof.......is ?

Now THAT's funny fatty !

 

[grolls]

So, incorrectly descirbing someone in an intentionally degrading fashion is not a crime but telling someone that Mr X damaged your car, removed and/or replaced new parts with old and didn't do work/supply parts for your car and you have the proof.......is ?

Now THAT's funny fatty !

Its the way you do it and above all what you say that matters, after all the law is the law but its challenged on a daily basis by minds greater than ours. What is key is that its evidenced correctly and taken to court.

Let me give you an example;

Grolls places an order for an exhaust from Sean

Sean Supplies the brand dogs nuts new stainless exhaust by post as requested and paid for.

Grolls then accepts the exhaust and signs for it, (not allowed to open package because companies wont allow..... this is a different discussion)

Grolls sends a complaint to Sean as exhaust is a fecked mild steel old one in picture and wants his money back as feels ripped off.

Sean says feck off

Grolls gets his money back as paid by credit card

Sean complains and has no evidence to show what he actually posted to Grolls


Grolls then slags of Sean online, his evidence being the mild steel knackered exhaust and as such then sells no exhausts after htis point and probably because of the posts.




Now what you going to do as even the credit card company refunded the money based on the picture of the exhaust I swapped after the post man delivered. You have no evidence, no proof of what you posted or what arrived. Now you are the victim and slated publicly..... so what are you going to do and how much money are you prepared to throw at it?

 

[SeanDezart]

Sean doesn't accept payments via C-card.

Sean doesn't say feck off to clients.

Point taken about me now being the victim.....a good reputation takes a while to establish and seconds to destroy.

Good and rapid communication between cilent and supplier is the key......and going back to the initial subject matter here - this has been an important issue in each case of which I've heard !

 

[grolls]

Point taken about me now being the victim.....a good reputation takes a while to establish and seconds to destroy.

Good and rapid communication between cilent and supplier is the key......and going back to the initial subject matter here - this has been an important issue in each case of which I've heard !

Yup, easy to destroy some one and their business, there are some nasty people out there. I guess the management will have to make a decision. I think a positive feedback page is the way to go, after all if a supplier isn't listed anyone with half a brain should wonder why.

 

[SeanDezart]

I think a positive feedback page is the way to go, after all if a supplier isn't listed anyone with half a brain should wonder why.

And if someone asks what about so and so not amongst those listed, we count upon those with first-hand experience to survey the the page to immediately PM the asker ?

Or Mr A buys some parts from trader C and leaves positive feedback.

Mr B reads that, notices that trader C also offers a restoration service alongside the parts selling, places his car with him and it is a catastrophe......reports this in a post here, sparks a whole new hysteria and others come forward and say, yes, ok for parts but never take your car there.....

I feel that the good AND the bad should be indicated.

I work hard at being and staying good - perhaps....others might do the same if it was all a little less murky !

 

[Alphabettispaghetti]

It just seems like we are covering up and protecting those that we need to be informing others about.

 

[status]

I allways thought grolls as plump not fat,calling him fat or stout ain't very nice

 

[SeanDezart]

It just seems like we are covering up and protecting those that we need to be informing others about.

I think that enough has been sais upon this subject to have a good idea what we're all looking for - a medium through which we can (star) rate suppliers/garages with a trace by which interested parties can contact by PM those 'voter's for more precise details ?

Shut this down and incorporate the synopsis with those collated by Ali and with Mr Tenno's help, produce a summarised list of actions/proposals to implement before the end of the year.

Having given everybody the opportunity to say their thing, any future delays in producing the list and its implement after agreement can only encourage more whining and negative posts from frustrated members.

Looking forward to being part of a brighter, better club and forum.

 

[STEVE BURNS]

I think that enough has been sais upon this subject to have a good idea what we're all looking for - a medium through which we can (star) rate suppliers/garages with a trace by which interested parties can contact by PM those 'voter's for more precise details ?

Shut this down and incorporate the synopsis with those collated by Ali and with Mr Tenno's help, produce a summarised list of actions/proposals to implement before the end of the year.

Having given everybody the opportunity to say their thing, any future delays in producing the list and its implement after agreement can only encourage more whining and negative posts from frustrated members.

Looking forward to being part of a brighter, better club and forum.

Well said that man Credit where it is due
Going to close it in a couple of hours so you can slag me of for doing it LOL

 

[SeanDezart]

so you can slag me of for doing it LOL

No, your stoutness.

But let's get that list published and then acted upon or I (won't speak for others) will be slagging (is that a recognised verb and should I be using it with my wife's knowledge ?) !

 

[STEVE BURNS]

Closing this thread as suggested
Also have been forwarded the guidelines of posting from the Kia owners club and boy does it cover everything and shows how easygoing it is on here