A couple of recent posts to uk.legal.moderated have been rejected by 
the moderators on the grounds that they were potentially defamatory, 
but the full (potentially defamatory) text is available on the 
moderation web site.  This seems unwise, as they are effectively 
published on moderation.org.uk.

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:27:31 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>A couple of recent posts to uk.legal.moderated have been rejected by 
>the moderators on the grounds that they were potentially defamatory, 
>but the full (potentially defamatory) text is available on the 
>moderation web site.  This seems unwise, as they are effectively 
>published on moderation.org.uk.

Do you mean the bit where someone says:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are we talking about Phones2U Direct Ltd here ? Anecdotally have a
fantastic
history of claiming all sorts of garbage about cheques not being sent
out
due to an oversight etc etc. They seem, as a matter of course, to
advise the
court that they will be defending all claims - then check the
paperwork to
see if there is any wriggle room. There is probably enough evidence
(if you
can collate it all from various fora) of this practice to request the
Court
to strike out their defence as abuse of process. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems about right to me - par for their reputation.

Why is it unwise? - For whom?

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:27:31  
uk.net.news.moderation Percy Picacity <key@under.the.invalid>

>A couple of recent posts to uk.legal.moderated have been rejected by
>the moderators on the grounds that they were potentially defamatory,
>but the full (potentially defamatory) text is available on the
>moderation web site.  This seems unwise, as they are effectively
>published on moderation.org.uk.

Having a conversation in the out takes has been done before.  I'm not 
sure if I was the first to do it but it takes only a small amount of 
imagination to work out that it is possible (Hint: keep quoting the bit 
that the mods disallowed).

My conclusion is they (the mods) should leave them there for reference; 
they are making a statement about what they haven't allowed and making 
it available for review, etc.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.net.news.moderation.]
In article ,
	nixon  wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:27:31 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
><key@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>>A couple of recent posts to uk.legal.moderated have been rejected by 
>>the moderators on the grounds that they were potentially defamatory, 
>>but the full (potentially defamatory) text is available on the 
>>moderation web site.  This seems unwise, as they are effectively 
>>published on moderation.org.uk.
>
> Do you mean the bit where someone says:
[snip]
> Why is it unwise? - For whom?

It is unwise for those that publish the defamation knowing it may
be defamatory,  because any claim of them being unaware of the
potentially defamatory nature of the post goes out the window.

OTOH, you've got logs, so the number of people who have seen the
defamation is known[1], and probably very small.  A pony - or even
a monkey - for each person who saw it might not break the bank.

[1] sort of.

-- 
Shenanigans!  Shenanigans!    Best of 3!
	-- Flash

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:30:15  
uk.net.news.moderation Mike Bristow 

>OTOH, you've got logs, so the number of people who have seen the
>defamation is known[1],

Yup

> and probably very small.

Yup

>  A pony - or even
>a monkey - for each person who saw it might not break the bank.

I've never really understood these terms for money.  I have googled and 
wiki'd but they still don't make sense to me.

Am I too common (in an international sense) to understand them?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wm... wrote:
> Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:30:15 slrnfquk67.32h.mike@cheddar.urgle.com

>>  A pony - or even
>> a monkey - for each person who saw it might not break the bank.
>
> I've never really understood these terms for money.  I have googled
> and wiki'd but they still don't make sense to me.
>
> Am I too common (in an international sense) to understand them?

They're out of all common usage now - the main ones were :

Pony - £25

Long 'un - £100
(or Ton)

Monkey - £500

Grand - £1,000
(or Large)

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:02:54  
uk.net.news.moderation Steve Walker 

>Wm... wrote:
>> Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:30:15 slrnfquk67.32h.mike@cheddar.urgle.com
>
>>>  A pony - or even
>>> a monkey - for each person who saw it might not break the bank.
>>
>> I've never really understood these terms for money.  I have googled
>> and wiki'd but they still don't make sense to me.
>>
>> Am I too common (in an international sense) to understand them?
>
>They're out of all common usage now - the main ones were :
>
>Pony - £25
>
>Long 'un - £100
>(or Ton)
>
>Monkey - £500
>
>Grand - £1,000
>(or Large)

You left out lobster which, as far as I can make out, is equivalent to 
the cost of a family of four going on a diving holiday, all expenses 
included.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

"nixon"  wrote in message 
news:ep7uq3d4g55e5lj81iovs1dcrpfup26jfo@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:27:31 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
> <key@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>>A couple of recent posts to uk.legal.moderated have been rejected by
>>the moderators on the grounds that they were potentially defamatory,
>>but the full (potentially defamatory) text is available on the
>>moderation web site.  This seems unwise, as they are effectively
>>published on moderation.org.uk.

The moderators can and do edit the rejected text if it is particularly 
offensive.

On Feb 11, 8:31 pm, "The Todal"  wrote:
>
> The moderators can and do edit the rejected text if it is particularly offensive.

Hey Toads, dont forget to say, that besides altering text you also
refuse to publish some valid responses that you dont support, so that
we all know the type of moderation we get, a one sided version
supporting your version of events.

What I dont like is the fact that it seems to be amod, you also need
to be a sexual pervert....just cant come at that

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:47:27 -0800 (PST), raffles-101@hotmail.com
wrote:

>On Feb 11, 8:31 pm, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>
>> The moderators can and do edit the rejected text if it is particularly offensive.
>
>Hey Toads, dont forget to say, that besides altering text you also
>refuse to publish some valid responses that you dont support, so that
>we all know the type of moderation we get, a one sided version
>supporting your version of events.
>
>What I dont like is the fact that it seems to be amod, you also need
>to be a sexual pervert....just cant come at that
>


woof woof