Re: Greengrocer in Northcross Road

[Mark]

Imagine you're a shop keeper and you come onto this website and read someone saying your business has broken the law. This is what happened and thus puts the East Dulwich Forum into dodgy waters as it is then the publisher of potentially libellous material, we have to err on the side of caution here.

Sorry to those who have contributed to the thread but I hope you understand why The Administrator has removed it.

Mark

[macroban]

Not that easy, Mark:

(text removed The Administrator)

[Ultraconsultancy]

Mark

Maybe i missed something during the day yesterday, but I think Ibo [and his son] are the aggreived party here, and a couple of others were being pretty nasty to him too.

But you're in charge, so no fingers to be pointed at local shops.

UC

[spadetownboy]

you certainly did miss something uc you obviously didnt look too closely at ibos post, or you would have seen the point he/she was patently trying to make was that (text removed as it says what the alleged illegal incident was),and thats why the post was removed. if theres one thing i cant stand its the race/class/disability card or any other card for that matter being played, and that is the perception i gathered from ibos original post and judging from similar replies received on the same topic did others as well.

[Mark]

Ultraconsultancy

The point is that the shop was accused of doing something illegal and the forum has no proof for that so it has to be removed. Ibo should report the incident to the correct authorities, not on a public forum. Imagine if someone disclosed who you were on this forum and said you were a thief, would you expect it to stay up? There are laws in this country that have to be abided to, please don't have a go at me for following them.

"But you're in charge, so no fingers to be pointed at local shops." Why say a comment like that when we're following the law? You know people are allowed to point fingers at local shops, you have been using the forum long enough to know that, it's just that if someone says a company has broken the law they have to be careful what they say.

Mark

[Ultraconsultancy]

I thought Ibo's assertion was that the shop had (text removed as it says what the alleged illegal incident was).

But these things happen; as a professional retailer I thought the more serious aspect was the refusal of the manager/owner to resolve the complaint about the nuts.

I'm meeting someone I do research for later today; he's looking to open art supply shops in suburban London. Shall I tell him it's ok to (text removed as it says what the alleged illegal incident was), because any resulting complaints will be censored?

No word in all of this from the grocer concerned, I see.

[Mark]

Ultraconsultancy

We don't like censoring posts but you're forcing us to censor yours as they put the forum in a potentially legal predicament, then, when we do, you accuse us of improper censorship. We can't win in such argument so we ask you politely to not mention the alleged offence.

I agree that what may have occurred was wrong, however what was said in the original implies that they broke the law and as the publisher of this information we can't allow that. Having had experience of libel threats, solicitors and police questioning over this forum please just take it from me that it's worth my while editing this one thread out out of the 2000+ threads live on this site.

Thanks

[edited once]

[Ultraconsultancy]

Mark

I'll stand down; you've got a tough job to do, and I'm glad you've done it so even-handedly.

Last word; if any libelous allegations were made [and I don't think any were] they didn't originate from me. I'm simply a commentarist.

Back to arguing about prams and coffee, then...

UC

[*Bob*]

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Having had experience of libel threats, solicitors and police

questioning over this forum

That sounds juicy. But I suppose you can't spill such beans, can you?

[Louisa]

Lokks like i've missed out on a juicy thread or two yet again!

[Mark]

Thanks UC, those 18 wheeler prams eh!

> "But I suppose you can't spill such beans, can you?"

I can't I'm afraid although the stories may slip out after you've bought me a drink or two

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Are you the same Mark I bumped into after a couple of Leffe's on Sunday? If so next time, I'll buy you a drink if I can get the inside story!

[*Bob*]

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > "But I suppose you can't spill such beans, can

> you?"

> I can't I'm afraid although the stories may slip

> out after you've bought me a drink or two

Shriek! You mean - actual non-virtual contact? *whimper*

[Mark]

ChavWivaLawDegree - yep, that was me

*Bob* - yes, I find virtual drinks don't touch the sides

Right, I'm going to hand back the reins of authority back to The Administrator, I've got to go and slay some kittens.

[ibo]

spadetownboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> you certainly did miss something ... as well.

What absolute nonsense you write mate . Look at your original reply to me and you will see that it was this post that highlighted the disability situation . You decided to try to behave like cyber bully hiding behind the computer screen . All you postings are classic examples of the trails that such a coward leaves ie .begins by being aggressive , misinterprets my postings than asks me to reread what I have posted and attempts to find contradictions therein.

To say that the parents of disabled people wear this disability as a badge of honour and also play it as some sort of

card casts a strong reflection on your mental instability.

I really could not care less what you think of me or my postings .

Ibo

[ibo]

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The point is ...

> it's just that if someone says a company has

> broken the law they have to be careful what they

> say.

>

> Mark

Ok mark , can we take it now that we are all not allowed to make any comments about the service that local shops provide because to do so may imply that the business in mind is behaving illegally?

Ibo

[Mark]

no

[ibo]

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> no

What do you mean by this , Mark? I need to know so as not cause future problems What laws is it that you thought I suggested the shop had broken?

Ibo

[Mark]

I mean no.

Ask your other question message via a PM

[SeanMacGabhann]

As I see it the difference is this:

poor service is not illegal, so we are free to comment on it on this forum (ditto good service)

breaking the law (eg disability lasws, or employment of temporary workers illegaly) is an accusation that needs evidence rather than a statement on a public forum where anyone could write anything

I'm sure shopowners feel aggrieved if someone posts on here about poor service but there are plenty of forumites who are likely to provide balance if it's just conjecture

[ibo]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As I see it the difference is this:

>

> poor service is not illegal, so we are free to

> comment on it on this forum (ditto good service)

> breaking the law (eg disability lasws, or

> employment of temporary workers illegaly) is an

> accusation that needs evidence rather than a

> statement on a public forum where anyone could

> write anything

>

> I'm sure shopowners feel aggrieved if someone

> posts on here about poor service but there are

> plenty of forumites who are likely to provide

> balance if it's just conjecture

Thanks for the clarification Presumably , we can play the politicians game when it comes to allegations of law breaking by beginning our sentences with "Allegedly shop x ...".

[bawdy-nan]

Give it up ibo - you're obviously very hurt and angry but this thread strayed into defamatory territory. Saying "allegedly" has no force at all.

[Administrator]

Thread closed