What happened to my thread about yesterday's BBC hacking report?

PrinceOfDenmarkPrinceOfDenmark Posts: 2,761
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Seems it's been deleted, but no PM as to why? Not like it was particularly contentious :(

Comments

  • chattamanukchattamanuk Posts: 3,397
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Seems it's been deleted, but no PM as to why? Not like it was particularly contentious :(

    When did you message the DS Mods?
  • PrinceOfDenmarkPrinceOfDenmark Posts: 2,761
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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?
  • Gary_LandyFanGary_LandyFan Posts: 3,824
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
  • mogzyboymogzyboy Posts: 6,393
    Forum Member
    Censored by the same cretins that sanctioned this appalling forum design.
  • mwardymwardy Posts: 1,925
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What did you say?

    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. :)
  • NilremNilrem Posts: 6,938
    Forum Member
    IIRC his thread was basically complaining that the BBC reported what was said in court.
  • mwardymwardy Posts: 1,925
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ah, OK--ta.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,587
    Forum Member
    Nilrem wrote: »
    IIRC his thread was basically complaining that the BBC reported what was said in court.
    Oh, that one. Yes. Hadn't noticed it was gone myself :)
  • davidmcndavidmcn Posts: 12,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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?

    Threads about on-going trials aren't allowed - see the rules (and the contempt of court laws!).
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    davidmcn wrote: »
    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 .... ?
  • cyril-furrcyril-furr Posts: 1,518
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    On that assumption, there should be no discussion on DS about the news international Hacking trial either?
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cyril-furr wrote: »
    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.
  • davidmcndavidmcn Posts: 12,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    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.
  • logjamlogjam Posts: 2,842
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • d'@ved'@ve Posts: 45,452
    Forum Member
    davidmcn wrote: »
    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.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,587
    Forum Member
    d'@ve wrote: »
    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.
    You're right of course. It is 'slander' when written and 'libel' when broadcast. The collective (or umbrella) term is "defamation".
Sign In or Register to comment.