happy camper Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 I'm sure it's frustrating to say the least but I'd hate you to give up now. Think of what you've achieved so far, for the rest of us if not for your wallet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather of Manx House Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 ...maybe we should have a whip round ? Put me down for a score... ...GOMH*... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Getting back on thread.We will not be in court on Monday 28/2/05 as Neds Advocates have asked for a delay of six weeks as they are not ready, this is what they said last December too. Thats the Local legal system for you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your wrong again FC, they did not get a six week delay, they have been told to be back in Court early March Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 ...Its all in Hansards anyway... Might I suggest that to remove uncertainty, that where possible posters provide links to sources. It may appear to be a pain, but no more of a pain than when threads have to to be susended, locked or deleted. Unisol and the moderators can not be expected to know for fact the legality of all allegations and sides of stories (on all subjects, not just Ned and Maude). We all have a part to play in the good running of this Forum and have to respect if the policy is "If in doubt, Delete". If the information is available, link to it. This removes any doubt of a message being an unsubstantiated rumour. I'd rather see them helped wherever possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Todays court is not on Hansards ( Fixed court open to the public) so it can be reported on, maybe the IOM Newspapers will report on it. Other items can be obtained from the general registry or by looking up in the miles of Hansards. The trouble with most people is that they are not prepared to go to the likes of Tynwald, registry or the courts and as we all know the press/radio here get gagged when it suits the Government, thats why the Mannin line got reduced and edited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Totally agree Ripsaw. Also I think that making the forums easier to follow is a good idea. e.g., links to quotes might be useful too. While in this thread, a question for the mods and admin team. Is using a false name when referring to someone still done for libel protection or is it just a habit now? I often wonder how new members ever manage to follow some references. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Totally agree Ripsaw. Also I think that making the forums easier to follow is a good idea. e.g., links to quotes might be useful too. While in this thread, a question for the mods and admin team. Is using a false name when referring to someone still done for libel protection or is it just a habit now? I often wonder how new members ever manage to follow some references. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have you forgot that it was the FORUMS that brought Ned out into the public domain, something the press would not do. And when it was first posted on a forum it was thought to be a load of S**t. IF you want an other example, Tax of property thread of last week. Aint it funny that two days after being on the Forum Manx Radio went with the story on Mandate. Thats Power to the Forum.Com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Have you forgot that it was the FORUMS that brought Ned out into the public domain, something the press would not do. And when it was first posted on a forum it was thought to be a load of S**t. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No I haven't forgotten the earlier posts or previous forums. That wasn't the point I was making though , Crumlin. My query was Is using a false name when referring to someone still done for libel protection or is it just a habit now? I often wonder how new members ever manage to follow some references. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Using a false name is NO protection at all, Yours Crumlin pp George W Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey_magic Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 You mean "Ned Flanders"? Is there anyone who doesn't know who that is? Iit was only changed on the last forums as a joke (via the swear filter). I think it's just habit now - a nickname that's stuck. I'm led to believe that it's no protection against libel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Proceedings have collapsed in the past because press attention has been to such a level and biased a certain way that a "fair" trial was deemed impossible. Don't forget the famous "Threats on teh interweb" total bs. Personally I want to hear about progress, or in this case the lack of it, because I think the whole issue is of particular public concern. But that is all I want to hear as anything judgemental, libellous, rumour or whatever is going to be completely counter-productive. Mind your p's and q's folks! - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Mind your p's and q's folks! Oh yes, just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Todays court is not on Hansards ( Fixed court open to the public) so it can be reported on, maybe the IOM Newspapers will report on it. Other items can be obtained from the general registry or by looking up in the miles of Hansards. The trouble with most people is that they are not prepared to go to the likes of Tynwald, registry or the courts and as we all know the press/radio here get gagged when it suits the Government, thats why the Mannin line got reduced and edited. ...and some of us are prepared to research, and even to publicly summise and draw conclusions based on probability and/or possibility. Re: Unreported Information. I'm not condeming a person's right to report something heard in court that day, the Moderators are not going to ear ache or pressure from advocates if the facts have been repeated accurately, are they? There is a vast difference between saying: (i)"I heard that blah blah blah" and (ii)"I was in Tynwald today and xxxxxxxMHK stated that blah blah blah" Re: Recorded Information. I know all too well about spending several hours looking for one line of information to back up a post (trust me, I am sad enough to have done it), I am only pointing out that serious information has a right to be reported seriously. If you include a link then it saves me and others who are interested from wondering where the details come from and it gives us the chance to read the context of the report and form opinions too. I realise that whistleblowers have to often watch their own backs and that they may be putting public interest first, but for what if when doing so they appear to undermine their own credability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.