FAO Scott Jones

[Jeffro]

On that note Scott has said MYU has banned him for life, what for?? I think he should reconsider as I want to see peoples reactions to his posting about Paladini on here. He can also defend himself from any ineviatable grief..

[SullivanQPR]

Not clinging to anything, just saying it as I see it as I don't care either way, but you cant have it both ways. If someone who was banned for personal reasons, by Pete, someone who is no longer involved in the web site, what are they not un-banned as the reasons why they were banned are no longer valid ?

Pete is still a member of this site. So while I know what you mean, he is still "involved".
Personally, I would un-ban a few people on here, but it's not my (or any other individual moderators) call to make. Maybe we can have a look at that.

But seeing as Pete is still a member of this forum, surely he should be treated as equally as you, me, or anyone else who is subject to regular personal abuse? It works both ways.

Now Paladini has gone, and Pete is no longer the site owner/mod, you would like to think that IF certain posters who have been banned in the past were to return, they would focus their attentions on other subjects in future, and let the past eras of this site and the club go.
I'd (personal opinion) be perfectly ok to give that a go, but I wouldn't put too much money on the people involved drawing a line under all that cr*p, that (again, in my opinion) became very repetative and tiring to read every day for most readers of this site. (and other sites)
Many people want others to be able to post what they like... unless it's them on the end of the stick. Then it all changes.

[BennyBoyRs]

On that note Scott has said MYU has banned him for life, what for?? I think he should reconsider as I want to see peoples reactions to his posting about Paladini on here. He can also defend himself from any ineviatable grief..

Without sounding like I wish to get involved, all Scott does is c**t Myu off. Would you allow someone to continue doing the same to you?

I wouldn't, but then again I'd do something about it, rather than just stop whoever it may be from posting.

Those two don't get on at all, mate. Plus it's boring enough seeing the amount of gay little rows we already have on here. Watching those two have a cyber war is embarrassing. I don't dislike either of them, and I've had words with Scott in the past, but on here, it's 'well gay'.

[stainrodisalegend]

On that note Scott has said MYU has banned him for life, what for?? I think he should reconsider as I want to see peoples reactions to his posting about Paladini on here. He can also defend himself from any ineviatable grief..

If you would be prepared to underwrite the libel insurance this board would need to take out if every poster would be allowed to post whatever they want, then great. In an ideal world we would have total freedom of speech. In this world, its a bit more difficult.

[paulmason]

Pete is still a member of this site. So while I know what you mean, he is still "involved".
Personally, I would un-ban a few people on here, but it's not my (or any other individual moderators) call to make. Maybe we can have a look at that.

But seeing as Pete is still a member of this forum, surely he should be treated as equally as you, me, or anyone else who is subject to regular personal abuse? It works both ways.

Now Paladini has gone, and Pete is no longer the site owner/mod, you would like to think that IF certain posters who have been banned in the past were to return, they would focus their attentions on other subjects in future, and let the past eras of this site and the club go.
I'd (personal opinion) be perfectly ok to give that a go, but I wouldn't put too much money on the people involved drawing a line under all that cr*p, that (again, in my opinion) became very repetative and tiring to read every day for most readers of this site. (and other sites)
Many people want others to be able to post what they like... unless it's them on the end of the stick. Then it all changes.

From what I have read in the past, the problem was not with the 'Poster' and Pete, it was between the 'poster' and Pete's obsession of Paladini and not accepting that there are two sides to a coin. Now that Paladini has gone and Pete don't post much, what can go wrong ?

[paulmason]

If you would be prepared to underwrite the libel insurance this board would need to take out if every poster would be allowed to post whatever they want, then great. In an ideal world we would have total freedom of speech. In this world, its a bit more difficult.

So what your saying, is if I say something really bad on here about somoene and they then want a pound of flesh, WATRB will get sued for libel not me ?

I'm no legal expert, but I don't think that is how it works............ I think it is more along the lines of my thoughts and opinions are mine alone and nothing to do with WATRB and somewhere in small print it should say that.

When someone says something on ITV about someone and later are sued for Libel, does ITV get sued, as they aired the interview or does the person who said it get sued ? So I would say stop using "libel insurance" as some sort of reason for you to close down a thread about something you don't like or agree with.

[SullivanQPR]

From what I have read in the past, the problem was not with the 'Poster' and Pete, it was between the 'poster' and Pete's obsession of Paladini and not accepting that there are two sides to a coin. Now that Paladini has gone and Pete don't post much, what can go wrong ?

I haven't been a mod through all the GP years, just a reader of the site.
But from what I've personally seen, a few posters came on here purely to #### off Pete and GP. No other topics were of interest to them.

Some others did get involved with all that, but also dropped it occasionally, and also debated and posted about other stuff. Football stuff.

I just wonder if the first catagory of poster would move on, and let the whole "GP thing" go, seeing as, as you say, GP and Pete have stepped down and are happy to move on.
I'm not so sure, but I'd personally be willing to give anyone a chance to do just that.
Once the dust has settled on yesterdays news about GP, and everyone has had their say on his time at QPR, it would seem all a bit pointless to harp on about that stuff in the future, now we are genuinely in a "new era" at QPR, and Pete is no longer the owner of this site.

[stainrodisalegend]

So what your saying, is if I say something really bad on here about somoene and they then want a pound of flesh, WATRB will get sued for libel not me ?

I'm no legal expert, but I don't think that is how it works............ I think it is more along the lines of my thoughts and opinions are mine alone and nothing to do with WATRB and somewhere in small print it should say that.

When someone says something on ITV about someone and later are sued for Libel, does ITV get sued, as they aired the interview or does the person who said it get sued ? So I would say stop using "libel insurance" as some sort of reason for you to close down a thread about something you don't like or agree with.

Then, respectfully, you don't know much about libel law. The "publication" - in this case the forum - can be sued every bit as much as the individual who made the claim. Newspapers that carry allegations are almost always the ones that are sued rather than the person making the allegation (mainly because the newspaper - or website - is easier to get money out of than an individual). So for instance we had on here a case of a poster making allegations about the personal life of a player. If that player wanted to take legal action against this board, he could have done - hence the post, and the poster, were removed.

As for your other points Paul:

Who has closed down a thread? No one as far as I know.

How do you possibly know what I like or don't like?

[paulmason]

Then, respectfully, you don't know much about libel law. The "publication" - in this case the forum - can be sued every bit as much as the individual who made the claim. Newspapers that carry allegations are almost always the ones that are sued rather than the person making the allegation (mainly because the newspaper - or website - is easier to get money out of than an individual). So for instance we had on here a case of a poster making allegations about the personal life of a player. If that player wanted to take legal action against this board, he could have done - hence the post, and the poster, were removed.

A newspaper is normally sued, because it has run a ******** story by one of the newspapers reporters, hiding behind their source's, which they will never reveal and the Newspaper is correctly sued for that reason, as they said it.

But if a newspaper has a story where is states that "Stainrod said" and had evidence that you did, the newspaper will not have a problem but the individual would, as they have done nothing wrong and have only reported correctly what was said.

Can anyone clarify ?

[brightonr]

On that note Scott has said MYU has banned him for life, what for?? I think he should reconsider as I want to see peoples reactions to his posting about Paladini on here. He can also defend himself from any ineviatable grief..

Jeffro.

Purposely stayed out of these ridiculous debates since yesterday.

But since you posted this, let me state a FACT.

MYU did not ban Scott Jones.

Therefore, if that is what he is telling you, then he is either lying to you, or very much mistaken.


Whilst on the subject, let me set out a few more facts, as there seems to be a desire for many posters to still believe what is so obviously wrong.

1) Not a single thread or even post on the subject of GP leaving has been deleted so far. The reason being, that despite the range of views, things are not getting out of hand and nobody has taken things too far.

2) No poster has ever been banned for holding a "particular view". The problem is usually down to the fact that due to their inability to convey such views in either a sensible manner or without stating blatant lies.

3) As for being "Pro-GP", perhaps it would be of interest for everyone to know that as far as I am aware, not a single one of the moderators/admin is in that camp. Some are most definitely anti, whereas the majority find the subject a little pointless these days, considering his lack of influence.

Cannot wait to read Scott's aptly named blog.

[Jeffro]

I couldnt care less to be honest, just looking forward to Liverpool away aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh have it!!!!!!!!!!

[stainrodisalegend]

A newspaper is normally sued, because it has run a ******** story by one of the newspapers reporters, hiding behind their source's, which they will never reveal and the Newspaper is correctly sued for that reason, as they said it.

But if a newspaper has a story where is states that "Stainrod said" and had evidence that you did, the newspaper will not have a problem but the individual would, as they have done nothing wrong and have only reported correctly what was said.

Can anyone clarify ?

Mate, I've been a journalist for 20 years. I know what I'm talking about. I cd quote you case studies but I really can't be bothered. Look it up if you don't believe me.

[Rieger]

Mate, I've been a journalist for 20 years. I know what I'm talking about. I cd quote you case studies but I really can't be bothered. Look it up if you don't believe me.

status = told

[Bluehoop]

status = told

[brightonr]

From what I have read in the past, the problem was not with the 'Poster' and Pete, it was between the 'poster' and Pete's obsession of Paladini and not accepting that there are two sides to a coin. Now that Paladini has gone and Pete don't post much, what can go wrong ?

From what I have read in the past, the problem with you is that although we all know you don't rate Taraabt, think he's just a selfish prima donna and have wanted him to fail from the day he arrived, you keep denying anything of the sort. I'd like to believe you Paul, but as you are the only one disagreeing with that point of view which is held by everybody else who keep reminding you of it, how do I know who to believe? It's a dilemna.