29 August is an important deadline because ...

A snowHead

David Goldsmith, Actions were taken, which has set a precedent, and those actions could be used in turn by an outside party, against the site and the good folk who administer it, personally, as they have now demonstrated actively managing the content online.

A snowHead

snowbunny, refer us to case law. As I say, I think this is a balloon that deserves popping.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

David Goldsmith, I don't believe there is any. The problem for little people is they simply cannot afford to defend themselves and therefore set case law.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

ise, right, ok. No censorship on the 'other' site then? The one you and PG are setting up/have set up. The site David Goldsmith is always promoting/moaning about.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Tim Brown, sorry, I knew what you were referring to of course Very Happy

It's an interesting question with a long answer and I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss it. What I would say is that few of us ever achieve what we aspire to Very Happy

And, that I feel what's acceptable in a community needs to be defined by that community reflecting the values of that community.

After all it is free

ise, come on now, just answer the question. Laughing

Tim Brown, I can happily rephrase what I already said. Above all that isn't the place to discuss it but, I'd not expect your question to be removed because of that Very Happy

I do think censorship's a broad term though, technically it means the act of censure and I'm in general favour of censure in some circumstances. I'm pretty much against removal of any post or topic topic though. Censure's best as a strong reaction from a community, indifference is a reasonable measure of censure for some posts, witness the number of people not reading this nonsense for example Very Happy

If some thing's not acceptable 20 people saying so is better than removing the post or better even than indifference.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

So what if a genuine no holds barred libellous post is posted. It is either ignored or nobody in the "community" says that it is unacceptable. By this logic it should be left in the public domain. Is that the view of your legal advisers ise?

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Alan Craggs, we've probably had a few, with George W. Bush and Tony Blair the most frequent targets. Of course much of what has been said about them could pass for fair comment, but not all, I imagine. FWIW, I think it's a difficult line to tread, and it's done pretty well here. Very Happy

snow reports

Alan Craggs, sure, you're sure you're able to define a "genuine no holds barred libellous post" though ? Of course you can't. That's the nature of the common carrier defense, it's not the role of the service provider to make that definition.

So far, the closest real case to testing common carrier has been Yahoo France and the sale of Nazi memorabilia for anyone that's genuinely interested which Yahoo lost.

laundryman, I agree. It seems that certain public figures are seen as "fair game" by all sorts of pundits, not only online ones. Maybe they realise that suing ordinary folk is likely to do them harm rather than the other way round though wink

You know it makes sense.

I think moderation works well, here, too.

If only for admin's pocket, we should avoid libel, I also believe we should avoid personal abuse. Even as*******d words can, and have been inflammatory here - and on at least one occasion, the waves spilled over from here into the SCGB site. I'm all for robust comment and debate, but if an argument is powerful on its own, then the case is made without abuse. And there's a lot less anguish all round.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

ise, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong Laughing

but does this mean that Yahoo claimed that it was not their role as service providers to act with "due diligence" or to take "reasonably practicable" steps to prevent this sort of thing, and the Court disagreed with that view?

And whether or not the "community" approve, surely this has no bearing on how the law may see the matter?

A snowHead

Oh, and I don't need to define a libellous post. I'm sure I could make one right here and now Toofy Grin

A snowHead

Alan Craggs, no, as I understand the case the judge considered them in breach of French laws pertaining to the sale or display of racist items. Yahoo defended it on the grounds of jurisdiction basically. As I said it was the closest case I know of in that it could have called on common carrier, but common carrier may have no real legal basis. In fact, various lobbies campaign for a proper common carrier status.

The UK Usenet case mentioned by PG (I think) is more interesting, part of the arguments there hinge around whether Demon should have removed the posts having been notified of them by the complainant. I purposely didn't mention this earlier, it's unsatisfactory as the ISP settled out of court and it wasn't tested properly at all legally. By contrast US courts have thrown out similar cases, so in the US there's precedent for common carrier but the UK situation is unclear although the presumption is the court may not support common carrier. I think the ballon's pretty much popped now.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Because it's late on a Friday night and we have nothing better to do than be here? rolling eyes

If the balloon has popped. let us let it deflate in peace snowHead

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Absolutely. This thread was intended to alert (exiled?) members of the Ski Club of Great Britain that an important election was about to take place. It's gone a bit off-piste, without a guide (or rep!)

If people want to continue chewing over the moderation/censorship issue, it's maybe best if the irrelevant half of this thread is split out to form a new thread on that specific issue.

You'll need to Register first of course.

David Goldsmith, don't be so anal.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Most Club members had already seen the treasurer issue discussed at length on the club site. For those who had not, a link would have sufficed. A lesson for the future, perhaps.

After all it is free

Nick Zotov and David Goldsmith, has the SCGB ever claimed though their website to be 'the spokesbody of British skiers'?

No, not that I'm aware of.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Strange, according to masque ' it was there for years until it became questioned.... ' and he also said, 'I first read it about 5 years ago, the last would probably be Nov. 04'

So, masque, the truth and what you have stated seem to be at odds!

This statement appeared in one document 10 years ago. The document was sent only to member of the club, so you could not have seen it.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Masque

snow reports

I think you're tempting yourself into a non sequitur, Tim.

I wouldn't have thought that a mission for our Club to be 'spokesbody of British skiers' has simply been abandoned, just because a few years have rolled by.

I can't comment on whether the mission statement was reproduced elsewhere. Presumably it has been part of Club policy since 1995, since so much has been invested in media relations and contact over the past decade.

For many years I wondered if I should join the SCGB, I never did get around to it, despite being approached on many occasions at shows and in resorts. I guess it was a "gut feeling" decision. Reading this thread confirms to me that I made the right decision.

You know it makes sense.

Mods - please delete Beck Daross's last sentence. It's very 'un-parliamentary' and abusive, for no good reason.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

David Goldsmith, Perhaps Beck Daross should keep on digging, in the public interest?

A snowHead

Beck Daross, It certainly used to be there back in the days when the SCGB had a proper club house and wasn't a glorified travel agent, so you are mistaken, even Tim (the troll) Brown says it used to be there all be it 10 years ago

A snowHead

No, don't delete Beck Daross' last post, I'd like it to stand for the perfect example of why the SCGB is losing respect. Tell you what Beck Daross, how much are you willing to bet it wasn’t there? . . . How about the cost of next year’s renewal

There's nothing quite like reading someone typing with one hand on their groin and their brain seized in neutral. If I didn't enjoy watching the challenges you overcome to turn on your computer and log on here, I might consider a note to your chairman about your inability represent the club in good light.

And you don’t know I’m not a member . . . there’s a concept to screw with your mind, sweet dreams sweetcheeks.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Masque!!! Why couldn't you finish your post at the first paragraph? That was a good point, well made. The rest? rolling eyes

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Masque, where did you read it (be honest now)? BTW, any luck with that letter?

You'll need to Register first of course.

laundryman, It's late and I'm tired of these two morons playing 'fast and loose' with both the qualities of the SCGB and this forum. Their demonstrable ignorance of the club’s history and their unwillingness to provide any cogent argument is unworthy of any response above their apparent intellect . . . though even then I may be pitching a little high over the plate for these numpties. If Beck Daross is willing to call me a liar on a public forum, without providing any evidence to support her statement . . don’t expect me not to respond with a little invective.

The thicker the plank the better to sharpen claws on?

If anyone other than the protagonists feel my posts are outside the bounds of decency in this context, please PM me or the mods and without complaint, I’ll delete or change as requested.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

©"Ski Club of Great Britain: a club for all skiers and boarders! Join here
The Ski Club of Great Britain is the leading, independent, not-for-profit snowsports club, offering excellent value to its members. Run by ski enthusiasts, the Ski Club brings 100 years of experience to enable today's recreational skiers to maximise their skiing experience. Ski Club members are offered a large range of services that make skiing more fun, more fulfilling and cheaper. All skiers and boarders of any standard are welcome to join the Ski Club and take advantage of the benefits."

That! Is from an archived SCGB web page, would you like to define all and leading?

That last sentence has disappeared too . . . because it IS (or was) a lie.

Tim, the words "spokesbody for British skiers" was stated in an annual report shortly after the first chief executive was appointed - about 15 years ago . . . that document still exists and is on public record. You've repeatedly shown yourself to be an idle troll, don't expect me to hand it to you on a plate . . . go find it, it's in the club records . . or would you like to call me a liar too? And there's me thinking you're a 'silk', maybe more research needed.

Tim, Becks, why do you think that any comment outside the SCGB is a threat to it? Whatever you think of me, you do far more damage to the club than I could even concieve!

After all it is free

Masque, according to David Goldsmith the statement 'spokesbody for British skiers' has not been published on the website to the best of his knowledge. But according to you it was there in Nov. 2004!

Anyway, according to you, what did the last sentence say (be honest now)?

David Goldsmith, you describe my comments as ‘un-parliamentary’. Presumably you object to the word lying. Funny that you get hot under the collar about that and yet you whine that gripping tales of ten-year-old holiday upsets are in the interest of the wider skiing community, and should not be moderated, when the guy on the receiving end isn’t even a member of this 'parliament' and doesn't have an MP here.

Masque, calm down my honorable friend, your language is most ‘un-parliamentary’. Tim has got you on this one!

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Help!!

29 August is an important deadline because ...

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Ski Club of Great Britain