Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by editor, Oct 12, 2012.
You are talking bollocks.
eta: to internet legal expert "Dr_Herbz"
You are talking with your collective brain cells hanging out. All three of them.
Actually why don't you fuck off back to your little board, start libelling extremely rich and powerful people and wait for the writs to roll in?
How many people read your boards?
well at least you're consistent, every time you come here you prove yourself to be, without doubt, the stupidest poster on Urban75
you should get a medal or something
Carerwatch got taken down because someone said something very non outrageous about atos.
They're not the only ones to get threatened with lawyers.
I've been looking at the defamation bill 2012-2013 that is currently going through the upper house. If it goes through in its current form then it clarifies a few things in regards to website operators, makes clear a particular defence they can use, but this wont substantially change the position of sites like u75 on its own.
I wont bore on about the detail much at this stage, but it seems to me that they have set it up in a manner that will encourage website operators to provide information to the claimant which they will be able to use to attempt to discover the identity of the offending poster. It wont stop website operators from receiving threats, or having to take action to protect themselves.
Section 5 of this for anyone thats interested. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2012-2013/0041/20130041.pdf
What's the address of your boards? We can all go and test your theory!
It's all over twitter in rumour form, but no out and out confirmation as far as I can see. The only things i've seen have been suggestions that an elderly gentleman is being interviewed, and as someone else has just stated: "The nature of a case like Savile is that many potential witnesses will also be famous. Being interviewed does not imply guilt."
In other words, let's not.
the media's obviously trying to avoid another lord mcalpine
This isn't the thread to speculate about new arrests so I'll be deleting them to stop this important thread being dragged off topic.
Please start a new thread, but, of course, please bear in mind the legal guidelines described above when doing do.
Er, surely you'd delete a new thread naming this individual?
I said: "Please start a new thread, but, of course, please bear in mind the legal guidelines described above when doing do."
Thank god for twitter. I wonder how long that has until it has its nuts chopped off though.
awww, that was a brilliant joke and it didn't name anyone or accuse anyone of anything
and not before time
Are threads about Jimmy Savile still being deleted? It was a big issue last time I was here.
As far as I know, no Savile threads have been deleted.
The BBC finally mentioned that another man in his 80s was arrested under caution last week. Wonder why they why don't report that fully but Cliffords name is all over mainstream media?
Clifford was arrested, the other one wasn't - he was interviewed under caution. Maybe that's something to do with it. All the others arrested have been named.
I suspect that's it.
If people turn it around a bit - consider the case of someone who's been arrested in connection of an action that you approve of but the state doesn't - it's a really, really good idea for it to be OK to report the name of an arrested person.
It's also possible that there's been a court order forbidding the naming of the 80-year-old - which would be a rather good idea if, for example, doing so would prejudice further investigations...
na not a good idea.
There is a massive gulf between being nicked and being proven to have done something wrong. Especially now google will leave it findable by anyone, anytime, forever. Misses out 2 very important stages independant assesment(CPS) agreeing there is a case to answer (a realistic place to put the line),then a random sample of the public(jury) agreeing you did it
Of course, all this must be balanced against the compelling legal argument that privacy is for paedos.
I'll spell it out. Please imagine that your best friend has been nicked and you're not allowed to demand her release by name.
Is that why then? Theories about a super injunction being a possibility
i think that's rubbish. I think it's because of the difference between arrest and interview under caution.
I'll spell it out.All the times you get arrested and never charged coz (a)the dibble was being a twat (b)the dibble was told to clear an area and deal with concequences later, all following you around for the rest of your natural life; hopefully dragged up at every interview so you can point out that as you weren't even charged, rather than thrown on the reject pile without it being raised....
Standing outside a police station shouting free Joe Bloggs is at most breach of the peacee, and I'm guessing next time a good mate is arrested, it'll be a text not the media that tells me.
Clear now everyone?
So how are you going to deal with the consequences of the police being allowed to arrest (and hold) people anonymously?
Rather a lot of trust there, that you'll get that text...
most times I do, though mates only tend to get couple of arrests a year between us these days, and as we are getting older its for things they get charged with
We aren't talking anti terror 14 day shit here cos national security concerns would obviously demand a blackout , we are talking PACE based so max 36 hours. Being generous you are able to help your mate sort out better legal rep than he has. Still its 36 hours max, mcdonlds breakfasts aren't an amnesty level atrocity, I'd take that kafka period over giving ALL dibbles the ability to to blacken you name for evermore. You could up the unlawful arrest money by ten times it still aint going to cover the impact that could have on your life
Separate names with a comma.