This discussion has been closed.
Posted by stolenkisses (U6230663) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
is not being paid by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ they ought to be.
I can well understand that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is scared of being in breach of the famous super injunction simply by revelaing either directly or indirectly on its website (which includes this MB) the identity of the footballer who dare not speak his name.
But surely there are not sufficient public-spirited MLers who are willing to give up their weekend to ferreting out all the offending posts and reporting them to the mods?
If there is a mod/team of mods who have been detailed to do this work then we are no longer 'reactively moderated, surely?
I think we should be told.
sk
It may well be an auto-mod thingy, set up to alert mods to any post which contains certain words or phrases (could at the moment be 'footballer', 'Twitter', and so on), so they can check whether that post is likely to be in breach of the injunction (and therefore the law).
'Ö'
If there is a mod/team of mods who have been detailed to do this work then we are no longer 'reactively moderated, surely?
I think we should be told.Â
Absolutely, stolenkisses. Good point, well made. I'm going to end up in pre-mod at this rate but, you know, I don't care. The world and his wife knows who this twit (use whichever vowel you please) is, so all this weird modding of things that *don't* mention his name is so, so, daft.
Oh well. :-D
But it goes further than that - I had a post removed for mentioning a footballer's name and alleging that he was... er... a footballer.
With respect Badger, there has to be more than that. There are huge numbers of posts with those key words (the majority, it has to be said, still on show) that would have to be listed and checked, so at the very least an army of extranumerary mods must have been drafted in.
Then there are the crafty anagrams and cryptic clues - can an auto-mod read these?
sk
I had a post removed that simply said " clever".
It was in response to a very good crypic crossword clue.
How can calling apost clever be defamatory , as the E-maill claimed?
One of my emails said my post was 'defamatory' because I described a boat, an ugly person and a horse drawn cart.
Watch this go as well.
, in reply to this message.
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
And teh acrostic's gone.
I am genuinely annoyed. Of course we can't say that ¦¦¦¦ ¦¦¦¦¦ is the injunctee.
But simply saying "¦¦¦¦ ¦¦¦¦¦"
is not an allegation of anything, except that that is his name.
¦¦¦¦ ¦¦¦¦¦
¦¦¦¦ ¦¦¦¦¦
Running down the wing...
It may not be defamatory per se, but it may well be in breach of this injunction which - whatever the rights and wrongs of the injunction - has been granted in law and is therefore in force in law. By allowing anything which might be in breach of this injunction to be published, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ can be open to prosecution, just as this person's lawyers are prosecuting Twitter. Is that what you want?
I could kind of understand it if it actually matter one iota, as in the Trafigura case, which was a matter of public interest. But this is such a nothing, why does anyone want to spend their time writing and posting coded clues to something which anyone, if curious, can find easily from overseas websites, and which by posting here might cause the ´óÏó´«Ã½ legal hassles. Can anyone explain?
'Ö'
I have visions of Gareth Edwards flying through the air...
How do you /do/ that blocking thing?
I wish I'd kept the link, I think petal jam or dean did, but it was admitted on one of the Radio 4 boards a few years ago that in certain circumstances there is a degree or auto-modding.
by posting here might cause the ´óÏó´«Ã½ legal hassles. Can anyone explain?Â
Because the whole thing is ludicrous, as is the modding on here, and deserves to be ridiculed.
IMO.
Allegedly.
I know, Badge. You're quite right. However, I can only speak for myself, of course, when I say that its the overkill of the moderations that's got my tail up. But I do see your point.
Bolly, I can understand the mods (on behalf of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, their employers) being a bit antsy in a case like this, when the person concerned has proved just in the last few days to be extremely litigious. And, as I said about Trafigura, that was a case when speaking out was actually worthwhile. Here - to me, at least, it's all so much fluff.
There have been ridiculous moddings in other circumstances, which is a different issue. But I can't really see what people are getting out of (seemingly deliberately) trying to push the mods' buttons and flout the law in an instance in which doing so can't possibly gain anything - I mean, really, who cares who it is who had an affair with someone out of Big Brother? Really?
'Ö'
, in reply to this message.
Posted by May_Contain_Nuts (U14871839) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
It may not be defamatory per se, but it may well be in breach of this injunction which - whatever the rights and wrongs of the injunction - has been granted in law and is therefore in force in law. By allowing anything which might be in breach of this injunction to be published, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ can be open to prosecution, just as this person's lawyers are prosecuting Twitter.Â
Exactly. You may think the law daft (and the upshot of this case may be amendments to this area of law, who knows), but while it IS the law, people in the firing line such as the ´óÏó´«Ã½ who publish your comments have to keep within it's bounds. Just as you can't pick and choose which bits of the law you stick to in day to day life. You may think having a 30mph limit along that stretch of road on the way out of town is daft because it's always really quiet, but I wouldn't try that as a defence in court if you try to challenge a speeding ticket.
, in reply to this message.
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
"How do you /do/ that blocking thing?"
Run "charmap"
It's a little box of treasures.
, in reply to this message.
Posted by Auntie Clockwise (U8040384) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
I, for one, would prefer that this MB continues to function. I can understand why people are enraged that someone with a lot of money is attempting to stifle free speech, but I agree with Leaping Badger that the story of someone having an extra-marital affair isn't that interesting. Occasionally we get outbreaks of hysteria on this board (and I'll admit to being part of it), but maybe the jokes have all been done and we should move on to other topics before we get closed down.
, in reply to this message.
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
Correction:
...."charmap"
Yep, Badge. There are so many more important things I could have been doing! But I find it's so easy to get carried away on here Should know better by now.
I'm not defending the posters who are trying to get round the injunction and I'm not blaming the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for trying to keep itself out of trouble.
I just wish they'd come clean about the active post-moderation.
sk
(though must admit I'm enjoying the spectacle of the courts trying to cram the lid back down on Pandora's box)
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Copyright © 2015 ´óÏó´«Ã½. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.