| Couple of posts removed 19:47 - Jul 26 with 17879 views | Support |
Just because Phil is no longer running this site doesn't mean that people can make accusations about him that are of a litigious nature. This site will be moderated and we're more than happy to issue bans if we deem it necessary. However, I have no record of what's been said in the past so you have a clean slate to a degree, but please keep to our terms and conditions and don't post stuff that can get you and us into trouble. |  |
| |  |
| Couple of posts removed on 20:48 - Jul 26 with 15708 views | Treforys_Jack |
Spot on. |  | | |
| Couple of posts removed on 22:11 - Jul 26 with 15580 views | Jackinexile1 |
Wow. |  | | |
| Couple of posts removed on 22:14 - Jul 26 with 15564 views | Jackinexile1 |
Can we discuss Trust incompetence without mentioning names, or will that be censored too? | | | |
| Couple of posts removed on 19:11 - Jul 27 with 15210 views | Catullus |
I did say to be careful about what you post. The Mods may not be as visible as they were before but somebody will still be watching.
Even if you have evidence for what you say, posting it on here is still not too wise. |  |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 18:09 - Jul 28 with 15025 views | britferry |
| Couple of posts removed on 19:11 - Jul 27 by Catullus |
I did say to be careful about what you post. The Mods may not be as visible as they were before but somebody will still be watching.
Even if you have evidence for what you say, posting it on here is still not too wise. |
I'd have hidden down an alley if I could have banged Leslie Ash too | |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 13:43 - Jul 29 with 14912 views | Catullus |
| Couple of posts removed on 18:09 - Jul 28 by britferry |
I'd have hidden down an alley if I could have banged Leslie Ash too |
Did you have to bring the tone down but......yes! | |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 13:44 - Jul 29 with 14906 views | onehunglow |
The younger Ash | |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 17:40 - Jul 29 with 14834 views | Catullus |
| Couple of posts removed on 13:44 - Jul 29 by onehunglow |
The younger Ash |
Yeah, the Men behaving badly Ash, before the lips.
Very sexist! I should be ashamed of myself. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Couple of posts removed on 18:12 - Jul 29 with 14804 views | onehunglow |
I'll pray for your soul.
And she married Lee Chapman | |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 21:21 - Jul 29 with 14726 views | Catullus |
| Couple of posts removed on 18:12 - Jul 29 by onehunglow |
I'll pray for your soul.
And she married Lee Chapman |
Marrying Chapman, that is beyond redemption  | |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 21:30 - Jul 29 with 14715 views | Jackinexile1 |
| Couple of posts removed on 17:40 - Jul 29 by Catullus |
Yeah, the Men behaving badly Ash, before the lips.
Very sexist! I should be ashamed of myself. |
Probably the best series ever! | | | |
| Couple of posts removed on 06:38 - Aug 25 with 14327 views | NotLoyal |
To the OP.
Ok fair shout from you.
Who are you then, I’m not saying disclose yourself to the word, are you a swans fan or just someone running a few websites for extra cash ?
Cheers. |  |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 09:25 - Aug 25 with 14251 views | britferry |
| Couple of posts removed on 06:38 - Aug 25 by NotLoyal |
To the OP.
Ok fair shout from you.
Who are you then, I’m not saying disclose yourself to the word, are you a swans fan or just someone running a few websites for extra cash ?
Cheers. |
If you go to this sites homepage
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/
you will see each club has its own section, I'm guessing "Support" is the bloke who either owns or runs the whole show, not just the Swans bit which was under Phil's control. [Post edited 25 Aug 2020 9:26]
| |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 10:39 - Aug 25 with 14164 views | Dr_Parnassus |
So what was said that can’t be posted? (Obviously not specifically just general).
Phil is a former Trust chair, he will be spoken about regardless and people will exercise their right to evaluate his role. As long as people’s opinions aren’t being suppressed I have no issue.
ACTUAL libellous comments shouldn’t be tolerated through, I agree. |  |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 11:11 - Aug 25 with 14138 views | Catullus |
| Couple of posts removed on 10:39 - Aug 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
So what was said that can’t be posted? (Obviously not specifically just general).
Phil is a former Trust chair, he will be spoken about regardless and people will exercise their right to evaluate his role. As long as people’s opinions aren’t being suppressed I have no issue.
ACTUAL libellous comments shouldn’t be tolerated through, I agree. |
Your question answers itself! | |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 11:34 - Aug 25 with 14110 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Couple of posts removed on 11:11 - Aug 25 by Catullus |
Your question answers itself! |
I have read my question again and see no answer.
What was said? People have differing understandings of what is actually libellous. If I can determine the topic/gist of what was said without doing into specifics I can then determine what is or isn’t allowed.
It’s a football forum not a court so people will of course not be well versed in libel. | |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 14:09 - Aug 25 with 14018 views | Catullus |
| Couple of posts removed on 11:34 - Aug 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
I have read my question again and see no answer.
What was said? People have differing understandings of what is actually libellous. If I can determine the topic/gist of what was said without doing into specifics I can then determine what is or isn’t allowed.
It’s a football forum not a court so people will of course not be well versed in libel. |
In the opinion of the Mod what was said had to be removed because it was potentially litigous in which case what was said canot be reposted.
What your opinion of it is, quite frankly doesn't matter. It's the person/people running the site who decide, and they have.
Libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a persons reputation, it's a written defamation. | |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 14:13 - Aug 25 with 14009 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Couple of posts removed on 14:09 - Aug 25 by Catullus |
In the opinion of the Mod what was said had to be removed because it was potentially litigous in which case what was said canot be reposted.
What your opinion of it is, quite frankly doesn't matter. It's the person/people running the site who decide, and they have.
Libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a persons reputation, it's a written defamation. |
Of course it matters.
We need to know what can and can’t be said. Saying “litigious” doesn’t really explain that as “Support” isn’t a litigation lawyer. What “Support” deems litigious may not be at all. Hence why I need to know the gist of what was said in order to determine what can and cannot be said. I haven’t asked for specifics.
“Support” also won’t know what is true and what isn’t true, so how can a determination be made? [Post edited 25 Aug 2020 14:15]
| |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 14:43 - Aug 25 with 13983 views | Catullus |
| Couple of posts removed on 14:13 - Aug 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
Of course it matters.
We need to know what can and can’t be said. Saying “litigious” doesn’t really explain that as “Support” isn’t a litigation lawyer. What “Support” deems litigious may not be at all. Hence why I need to know the gist of what was said in order to determine what can and cannot be said. I haven’t asked for specifics.
“Support” also won’t know what is true and what isn’t true, so how can a determination be made? [Post edited 25 Aug 2020 14:15]
|
If support decides a post is potentially libellous and removes it, what you think really doesn't matter. You are not "Support" and you do not run the site. Support has more experience of this than myself and possibly you.
In the same way, if I disagree with a support decision it doesn't matter, we have to follow the rules and support interprets those rules. Until or unless support makes you a mod that won't change. | |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 14:51 - Aug 25 with 13971 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Couple of posts removed on 14:43 - Aug 25 by Catullus |
If support decides a post is potentially libellous and removes it, what you think really doesn't matter. You are not "Support" and you do not run the site. Support has more experience of this than myself and possibly you.
In the same way, if I disagree with a support decision it doesn't matter, we have to follow the rules and support interprets those rules. Until or unless support makes you a mod that won't change. |
You are taking this away from my question. I wasn’t questioning “supports” right to remove posts, which now seems is like what you are discussing.
My question was, what was the gist of the posts that were removed. We need to know as we need to know what we can and cannot post. I haven’t said I have agreed or disagreed with the decision, I have no idea what the posts said.
So was Phil accused of a crime for example? If so then I’m sure we can all steer clear of posting such things. So what I’m asking for is the gist of what was removed in order for us to better determine what we can and can’t post. | |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 15:03 - Aug 25 with 13965 views | Catullus |
| Couple of posts removed on 14:51 - Aug 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
You are taking this away from my question. I wasn’t questioning “supports” right to remove posts, which now seems is like what you are discussing.
My question was, what was the gist of the posts that were removed. We need to know as we need to know what we can and cannot post. I haven’t said I have agreed or disagreed with the decision, I have no idea what the posts said.
So was Phil accused of a crime for example? If so then I’m sure we can all steer clear of posting such things. So what I’m asking for is the gist of what was removed in order for us to better determine what we can and can’t post. |
Have you read the rules, the terms and conditions? It's laid out there isn't it?
You cannot post anything libellous or defamatory, simple. Whether you agree or disagree with a decision doesn't matter.
Maybe you should PM support and ask them? Because what was aaid, even the gist of it cannnot be posted again, if it is it'll be removed and the poster may get a warning. | |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 15:06 - Aug 25 with 13961 views | Support |
| Couple of posts removed on 14:13 - Aug 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
Of course it matters.
We need to know what can and can’t be said. Saying “litigious” doesn’t really explain that as “Support” isn’t a litigation lawyer. What “Support” deems litigious may not be at all. Hence why I need to know the gist of what was said in order to determine what can and cannot be said. I haven’t asked for specifics.
“Support” also won’t know what is true and what isn’t true, so how can a determination be made? [Post edited 25 Aug 2020 14:15]
|
You are correct that I'm not a litigation lawyer but we have been running busy football forums for 25 years. In that time we have had solicitors writing to us, and several police forces wanting stuff removed or wanting the particulars of individuals making posts.
So if you want to know what can't be said, basically don't accuse someone of breaking the law unless that person has been convicted of that crime, which I believe was the case on the posts removed although I genuinely don't remember the specifics. On top of that we have our T&Cs which we like to run our sites with: https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/swanseacity/page/terms-and-conditions
One thing I've had to pull up a few people with is swearing. We don't approve. However since we've taken back control over this site it's been pretty good and long may that continue. | |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 15:08 - Aug 25 with 13953 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Couple of posts removed on 15:06 - Aug 25 by Support |
You are correct that I'm not a litigation lawyer but we have been running busy football forums for 25 years. In that time we have had solicitors writing to us, and several police forces wanting stuff removed or wanting the particulars of individuals making posts.
So if you want to know what can't be said, basically don't accuse someone of breaking the law unless that person has been convicted of that crime, which I believe was the case on the posts removed although I genuinely don't remember the specifics. On top of that we have our T&Cs which we like to run our sites with: https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/swanseacity/page/terms-and-conditions
One thing I've had to pull up a few people with is swearing. We don't approve. However since we've taken back control over this site it's been pretty good and long may that continue. |
Perfect.
Thank you. | |
| |
| Couple of posts removed on 17:05 - Aug 25 with 13895 views | Treforys_Jack |
Yes, agreed. Some of the swearing previously was over the top, especially when you think some kids may want to read a forum. I was always surprised Phil didn't clamp down on it to be honest. I can swear with the best of them, just not on a public forum. | | | |
| Couple of posts removed on 17:21 - Aug 25 with 13881 views | britferry |
| Couple of posts removed on 17:05 - Aug 25 by Treforys_Jack |
Yes, agreed. Some of the swearing previously was over the top, especially when you think some kids may want to read a forum. I was always surprised Phil didn't clamp down on it to be honest. I can swear with the best of them, just not on a public forum. |
well he couldn't really, as the major profanity thrower was his main gimp and moderator | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.