Obviously you can't say it again, but some clue would be useful. Was it the one about some royal calling another babykins or something? Which had been reported on the BBC?
Threads about on-going trials aren't allowed - see the rules (and the contempt of court laws!).
Unless it had strayed late yesterday, it was not about an on-going trial, it was about how news organisations had reported one particular piece of evidence read out in open court.
On that assumption, there should be no discussion on DS about the news international Hacking trial either?
Or indeed about any trial anywhere.It's one thing to comment on a trial, another to make a factual point about reporting (ie something was wrongly reported).As I didn't see the post I'm none the wiser.
Unless it had strayed late yesterday, it was not about an on-going trial, it was about how news organisations had reported one particular piece of evidence read out in open court.
Maybe a fine line .... ?
Maybe the OP's post was fine (I don't know, I didn't see it) but it's the sort of thing which is likely to encourage other posters with more general comments on the case, some of which may stray into contempt of court and/or libel. So I can understand why the mods prefer to kill such threads rather than micro-manage every post on them.
It isn't just on-going trials either. Any comments which might prejudice the jury in a potential court case might also cause problems. Posting here might seem like throwing way comments in a pub conversation between a few friends, but in reality we are publishing an opinion to a mass public which could in certain circumstances be seen as potentially influencing a jury.
Until the judicial system says otherwise the forum owners will not take the risk.
Maybe the OP's post was fine (I don't know, I didn't see it) but it's the sort of thing which is likely to encourage other posters with more general comments on the case, some of which may stray into contempt of court and/or libel. So I can understand why the mods prefer to kill such threads rather than micro-manage every post on them.
That's the main reason for it. Some posters just can't help themselves and however many warnings are given, insist in crossing the legal boundaries either because they don't understand, or just because they can.
It's more slander than libel by the way, in bulletin boards such as DS (Smith v ADVFN Plc & Ors (No 2) [2008]). Curious but true.
Comments
When did you message the DS Mods?
Don't know how to - what are they called?
I just logged on and found it gone.
Assumed they would at least PM the person that started the thread if there was a reason to delete it?
Obviously you can't say it again, but some clue would be useful. Was it the one about some royal calling another babykins or something? Which had been reported on the BBC?
One for yes, two for no.
Threads about on-going trials aren't allowed - see the rules (and the contempt of court laws!).
Unless it had strayed late yesterday, it was not about an on-going trial, it was about how news organisations had reported one particular piece of evidence read out in open court.
Maybe a fine line .... ?
Or indeed about any trial anywhere.It's one thing to comment on a trial, another to make a factual point about reporting (ie something was wrongly reported).As I didn't see the post I'm none the wiser.
Maybe the OP's post was fine (I don't know, I didn't see it) but it's the sort of thing which is likely to encourage other posters with more general comments on the case, some of which may stray into contempt of court and/or libel. So I can understand why the mods prefer to kill such threads rather than micro-manage every post on them.
Until the judicial system says otherwise the forum owners will not take the risk.
That's the main reason for it. Some posters just can't help themselves and however many warnings are given, insist in crossing the legal boundaries either because they don't understand, or just because they can.
It's more slander than libel by the way, in bulletin boards such as DS (Smith v ADVFN Plc & Ors (No 2) [2008]). Curious but true.