Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
OMG! Emma really is mad! To PB, you do realize this place could be up the creek if anyone actually took Emma’s advice and contacted Diane Abbott. Emma’s comments are libellous there’s not even a hint of a doubt about it and you’ve published them. I’m not a lawyer so I really don’t know if saying that the views are not your own will suffice. I sincerely hope you know what you’re doing.
Emma’s falsely accused a member of parliament of being a racist who incites racial hatred and of breaking the law, along with other slurs on her character and reputation. She’s just begging to get a summons and in the process she could take this board down with her too. Anyone with even the least bit of common sense should realize that Emma crossed the line big time on this occasion and by suggesting that people contact the MP in relation to this issue she may have sealed her fate.
Here’s some information to clarify what I’m saying:
“Defamation is any published material that damages the reputation of an individual or an organisation. This covers material on the internet as well as radio and television broadcasts – so even drama and fiction can be defamatory if they damage someone’s reputation. You can only publish defamatory material if it comes within one of the recognised legal defences. If it doesn’t, the publication will amount to libel and you may have to pay substantial damages.
Internet sites are not exempt from any libel laws. If you are publishing on the internet you are bound by the same libel laws as print publishers.
In the UK, internet service providers are coming under increasing pressure to close sites containing defamatory allegations. You also have to be careful about the comments others post on your site. There have been cases where individuals have sued online publishers for libel over customer book reviews published on their sites.
Libel law protects individuals or organisations from unwarranted, mistaken or untruthful attacks on their reputation. A person is libelled if a publication:
Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt
Causes them to be shunned or avoided
Discredits them in their trade, business or profession
Generally lowers them in the eyes of right thinking members of society
The most important point is to make absolutely sure that what you are printing or writing is true. Do not make claims or accusations that you cannot prove. Even if you think you can do this, be cautious. Proving things in court can be very difficult.
If you write something that cannot be substantiated the credibility of your site, organisation or cause may be questioned. It can also land you with an expensive lawsuit and there is no legal aid for libel cases.”
Believing in a higher power isn’t as nonsensical as you portray it. Even if you disregard religious dogma, eminent scientists still debate over the existence of a creator. Is the universe the product of a long sequence of flukes, or is it the product of some supreme entity?
I believe that there must be a God out there. Not some old man with a white beard that lives up in the clouds but some kind of superior being or force that created and regulates all life in the universe. Maybe our universe is a small speck of paint on a giant mural. The purpose of each speck (i.e. universe) in isolation would seem insignificant and meaningless but each one is needed to create the big picture. So maybe our universe is the smallest part of a giant cosmic eco-system.
I don’t really know about credit unions but I know that if someone has a bad credit rating then it’s probably not wise to lend them money. Even with credit unions, they probably have to assess each person’s circumstances before granting them a loan. It’s not just about where you live, how long you’ve lived there and how much you earn. They also take into account a person’s credit activity over a certain period e.g. any missed payments, any defaults, CCJs, etc. So, maybe your trainee hasn’t been handling his finances well? Or maybe somebody else in his house has financial problems. Sometimes a person’s credit record includes other people at the address.
You can’t defame a prominent public figure especially not an MP (well you could but you better have a pretty big bank balance). You really could end up in deep sh1t Emma but you’re far too stupid to realize. You ought to withdraw everything you’ve said about her. All it would take would be for 1 person who came across this board to email Diane Abbott and you would be well and truly screwed. Your backside would end up in court so fast you wouldn’t know what hit you. How can any one person be so stupid? Well if one day the board gets sued for publishing one of Emma’s libellous comments you’ll only have yourselves to blame for letting her do it.
What could possibly be racist about a festival called “Darkie Day” I wonder? Could it be the people dressing up in blackface and afro wigs singing songs with racist lyrics?
Sorry, but I disagree with the idea that most asian/black mps have made racist comments. Where’s the proof? Also, I don’t see someone saying that the editor of the Daily Mail wants policies that are “tough on blacks” as a racist comment. It’s an accusation of intolerance towards Hitchens and his paper but I think it’s a fair comment considering it’s the Daily Mail.
As for having ethnic minorities in parliament well it’s part of the democratic process to have your views represented in parliament. Otherwise you have people that are disenfranchised. It’s perfectly reasonable to give somebody who could represent all aspects of a constituency the chance to stand for election. Let’s face it, a white MP wouldn’t fully understand all the issues affecting non-white people. So it’s good that Black people, Asian people, women, Catholics, Hindus, muslims, the disabled all have some kind of voice in parliament from people who fully understand issues affecting those minority groups.
It’s up to the bus companies to make it a condition of travel that people have to lift their veils or whatever when asked to by the driver. Otherwise there is a grey area. As I keep saying, if there’s nothing in the terms and conditions that say that a person has to take something off when asked and a person is refused travel, then the passenger could probably take legal action over the bus company failing to provide the service that they were paid for.
Gordon Brown has decided to support Jack straw. It seems like the Labour party has hit the self-destruct button. Your traditional Labour party member/supporter would not agree with a politician dictating what people should or shouldn’t wear especially when it’s part of somebody’s religion. Amazingly, it’s Prescott who sounds the most reasonable over this issue.
Nick Griffin’s a loud-mouthed idiot and he would make himself look like a fool if he went on Question Time. I doubt he has the ability to debate with veteran politicians in front of a studio audience. They’d get under his collar and trick him into making foolish comments and no doubt he’d be hit with a barrage of boos.
Anyway, the BBC don’t just allow any old riff-raff onto Question Time. They do have some standards you know. Why give him a platform?
Surely freedom of speech means freedom to protest too. Personally, I think a person’s freedom of speech should have self-imposed limits for the greater good of the society as a whole.
That’s total nonsense. You have the reasoning ability of a bowl of porridge. To incite racial hatred you have to incite hatred towards a race. She clearly didn’t do that. To accuse Peter Hitchens of having a low opinion of black people is not racism nor is it inciting racial hatred. So you’ve libelled her.
Also, inciting racial hatred isn’t a “new law”. Are you really that stupid or are you doing a Tommy? Maybe you’re young and not too bright, that would make sense. Whatever your age, I just hope you don’t decide to have kids. I pity the poor bugger that would have you raising and nuturing them.
@sweetasbaileez wrote:
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
Unless it expressly says in the terms and conditions of the travelcard that a person has to remove a hat or sunglasses or any other item that might obscure a face, then the woman is entirely within her rights to refuse to remove her veil. If her photo is in the photocard and her ticket is valid then she is travelling legally and complying by the terms of her ticket as far as I’m aware. You’d have to ask a ticket inspector if you want a definitive answer since I’m just guessing what the legal situation is.
But if her face is not visible, how is the bus driver to know if its a valid photo or not ??? :roll: ](*,) If her face is showing on the photograph then I fail to see how it became an issue for her not to show the bus driver ?? She’s already shown it several times, so where is the issue in showing it again :?: :?: It all boils down to pure ignorance on her part and the fact that she feels she is above the law. No matter how you look at it MrB, the bus driver acted correctly, if it were a young lower class Chav he asked to remove his cap, he would have also been well within his rights to refuse his pass and expect him to pay. Yet the Chav wouldn’t get such a response from the Bus Company would he ???
How can you quote me and yet completely overlook what I’ve said? The way I see it, she probably has the right to refuse to remove her veil unless it says in the terms and conditions of sale that a person has to remove any facial obstruction when asked to by the driver. As I already said, if she has a photocard and a valid ticket then she is not breaking any law so how can she be acting above the law. There’s no law that says you have to remove your veil when travelling on a bus.
The bus driver was trying to do his job properly but he became pedantic. He could have just let her go and then spoke to the bus company about changing their policy. That would have been the right approach. You say the driver was within his rights to refuse her pass but was he? Is he allowed to turn down a valid ticket if he has doubts about the identity of the bearer or does he have to be sure that the bearer and the person in the photo are not the same?
The point I’m trying to make is that if there’s nothing in the terms and conditions that states that a person has to remove a veil or cap or anything like that then surely a person has the right to refuse to remove an item and still be allowed to travel. A person refused travel because they refused to remove an item could probably take legal action against the bus company.
With a passport it’s a different matter because there are serious security and safety issues attached to international travel. Therefore, the people checking passports have a duty of care towards the staff and other passengers (among others) to verify the identity of all travellers.
On reflection, maybe the driver has the right to turn down the pass and the woman has the right not to remove her veil. That being said, because the ticket was valid and there was nothing saying that she had to remove her veil, the woman probably has grounds to sue for the breach of the agreement.
Unless it expressly says in the terms and conditions of the travelcard that a person has to remove a hat or sunglasses or any other item that might obscure a face, then the woman is entirely within her rights to refuse to remove her veil. If her photo is in the photocard and her ticket is valid then she is travelling legally and complying by the terms of her ticket as far as I’m aware. You’d have to ask a ticket inspector if you want a definitive answer since I’m just guessing what the legal situation is.
