On 2009-10-23, jms  wrote:
> This post appears in the history of having been rejected today
> 2009.10.23 15:00:23	80815
>
> It does not appear in the list of rejected posts and the reason given.

That's what always happens, until the rejected post is released into
the reject pile. Posts are held until manually released because the
reject pile is censored to remove libellous material, etc.

Follow-ups set.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:36:33 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

>On 2009-10-23, jms  wrote:
>> This post appears in the history of having been rejected today
>> 2009.10.23 15:00:23	80815
>>
>> It does not appear in the list of rejected posts and the reason given.
>
>That's what always happens, until the rejected post is released into
>the reject pile. Posts are held until manually released because the
>reject pile is censored to remove libellous material, etc.
>
>Follow-ups set.


Perhaps someone can now explain the reason for rejection:

============================================================================
Reject reason given -->
This is off topic for uk.legal.moderated or has insufficient
law-related material - see http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm


I have recently raised the point in uk.net.news.moderation and
uk.legal the question of "responsibility" of moderators in approving a
post.


When the formation of uk.legal.moderated was discussed I recall there
being some discussion on this topic.

I thought that the general conclusion then, was that the moderators
could be held to be responsible for "approving" anything which
appeared on the moderated group; however this may not have been
resolved one way or the other.

I'd like to discuss it again:

Could moderators have any legal responsibility for an approved post if
it was later the subject of some legal action?



=======================================================================

So discussion as to whether a moderator of a newsgroup has any legal
responsibility  for permitting the posting of a particular  message
has insufficient law related material and is off topic for
uk.legal.moderated.

Despite the fact , that that point  - the legal point - was the only
point/question being made in the post.


I despair.

What are we going to discuss in ulm if it is not such things as
"subject of some legal action".  Cycle helmets?

 
--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:03:18 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>So discussion as to whether a moderator of a newsgroup has any legal
>responsibility  for permitting the posting of a particular  message
>has insufficient law related material and is off topic for
>uk.legal.moderated.

If you wish to discuss moderation the appropriate place is unnm
especially as the subject may be of interest to other moderated
groups..  The only "legal" answer is going to be "maybe, we would
rather not find out the hard way" as has been said before.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:48:10 +0100, Peter Parry 
wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:03:18 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>So discussion as to whether a moderator of a newsgroup has any legal
>>responsibility  for permitting the posting of a particular  message
>>has insufficient law related material and is off topic for
>>uk.legal.moderated.
>
>If you wish to discuss moderation the appropriate place is unnm
>especially as the subject may be of interest to other moderated
>groups..  The only "legal" answer is going to be "maybe, we would
>rather not find out the hard way" as has been said before.


ffs "it is a legal question" - not one about the details of a
particular  moderation  of any particular post at all.

It is not the intention or wish  to discuss moderation policy at all.

IT IS A LEGAL QUESTION.
 
--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:36:33 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

>That's what always happens, until the rejected post is released into
>the reject pile. Posts are held until manually released because the
>reject pile is censored to remove libellous material, etc.

You can view the queue and craft a URL to view the content of any
message.  This confused me for a while until I realised what was going
on.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

"jms"  wrote in message 
news:gi34e5hlh9mff6bnbbb81bot82r05o9mol@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:48:10 +0100, Peter Parry 
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:03:18 +0100, jms 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>So discussion as to whether a moderator of a newsgroup has any legal
>>>responsibility  for permitting the posting of a particular  message
>>>has insufficient law related material and is off topic for
>>>uk.legal.moderated.
>>
>>If you wish to discuss moderation the appropriate place is unnm
>>especially as the subject may be of interest to other moderated
>>groups..  The only "legal" answer is going to be "maybe, we would
>>rather not find out the hard way" as has been said before.
>
>
> ffs "it is a legal question" - not one about the details of a
> particular  moderation  of any particular post at all.
>
> It is not the intention or wish  to discuss moderation policy at all.
>
> IT IS A LEGAL QUESTION.

I agree with you. I think it is on-topic.

jms wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:48:10 +0100, Peter Parry 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:03:18 +0100, jms 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So discussion as to whether a moderator of a newsgroup has any legal
>>> responsibility  for permitting the posting of a particular  message
>>> has insufficient law related material and is off topic for
>>> uk.legal.moderated.
>>
>> If you wish to discuss moderation the appropriate place is unnm
>> especially as the subject may be of interest to other moderated
>> groups..  The only "legal" answer is going to be "maybe, we would
>> rather not find out the hard way" as has been said before.
>
>
> ffs "it is a legal question" - not one about the details of a
> particular  moderation  of any particular post at all.
>
> It is not the intention or wish  to discuss moderation policy at all.
>
> IT IS A LEGAL QUESTION.

Please don't shout.    You have been told, perfectly politely, that 
moderation issues are discussed in unnm.

Obviously your aim is to disrupt and undermine the moderated groups, but why 
on earth do you imagine that we're going to facilitate you in that spiteful 
behaviour?

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:19:10 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>It is not the intention or wish  to discuss moderation policy at all.

Of course it is as the concern about the uncertainty of the moderators
position underpins their policy and response.  That same uncertainty
applies to all moderated groups and until the likes of Dr Godfrey come
along to clarify it at vast expense it will remain uncertain.  

As the pay of moderators is somewhat below the minimum wage it is
hardly surprising that they may prefer not to risk their homes and
savings to become the test case.

What other answer do you expect?

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:45:47 +0100, "Steve Walker"
 wrote:

>jms wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:48:10 +0100, Peter Parry 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:03:18 +0100, jms 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So discussion as to whether a moderator of a newsgroup has any legal
>>>> responsibility  for permitting the posting of a particular  message
>>>> has insufficient law related material and is off topic for
>>>> uk.legal.moderated.
>>>
>>> If you wish to discuss moderation the appropriate place is unnm
>>> especially as the subject may be of interest to other moderated
>>> groups..  The only "legal" answer is going to be "maybe, we would
>>> rather not find out the hard way" as has been said before.
>>
>>
>> ffs "it is a legal question" - not one about the details of a
>> particular  moderation  of any particular post at all.
>>
>> It is not the intention or wish  to discuss moderation policy at all.
>>
>> IT IS A LEGAL QUESTION.
>
>Please don't shout.    You have been told, perfectly politely, that 
>moderation issues are discussed in unnm.
>
>Obviously your aim is to disrupt and undermine the moderated groups, but why 
>on earth do you imagine that we're going to facilitate you in that spiteful 
>behaviour?

I apologise for shouting - some people seem to have their head in the
sand - or perhaps elsewhere.

I thought perhaps that people could not hear or read what I was saying
- perhaps  it was slight frustration as it seemed really quite simple
to me.

It seemed a very straight forward legal question.

Perhaps you could explain to me precisely  why *you* think that post
was off-topic for uk.legal.moderated.

I would be interested in the view of the moderator who rejected it as
well.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:35:47 +0100, Peter Parry 
wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:19:10 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>It is not the intention or wish  to discuss moderation policy at all.
>
>Of course it is as the concern about the uncertainty of the moderators
>position underpins their policy and response.  That same uncertainty
>applies to all moderated groups and until the likes of Dr Godfrey come
>along to clarify it at vast expense it will remain uncertain.  
>
>As the pay of moderators is somewhat below the minimum wage it is
>hardly surprising that they may prefer not to risk their homes and
>savings to become the test case.
>
>What other answer do you expect?


It is a legal question.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular post.

It is not off-topic for uk.legal.moderated.

Please feel free to explain why you think it is not suitable for a
discussion in a legal newsgroup.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:09:10 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>It is a legal question.

It is also a moderation question.  

>It has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular post.

It has to do with all posts to all moderated groups, it is therefore
more appropriate to unnm.

>Please feel free to explain why you think it is not suitable for a
>discussion in a legal newsgroup.

For the reasons given in the previous reply and amplified above.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:44:29 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

<snip>


>I agree with you. I think it is on-topic.
>
>


Is it appropriate to repost it then ?

"Judith M Smith"  wrote in message 
news:hfc4e5pqh6pf4m59ali9iok067qvdomu9l@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:44:29 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>I agree with you. I think it is on-topic.
>>
>>
>
>
> Is it appropriate to repost it then ?

Not now I've added another moderation guideline to ban it. Sorry, Judith - I 
for one believe your motives are honourable. But I think the discussion can 
as easily take place in the unmoderated uk.legal and I don't want to see our 
moderation team down tools and leave.

http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:23:03 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
>"Judith M Smith"  wrote in message 
>news:hfc4e5pqh6pf4m59ali9iok067qvdomu9l@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:44:29 +0100, "The Todal" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>I agree with you. I think it is on-topic.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is it appropriate to repost it then ?
>
>Not now I've added another moderation guideline to ban it. Sorry, Judith - I 
>for one believe your motives are honourable. But I think the discussion can 
>as easily take place in the unmoderated uk.legal and I don't want to see our 
>moderation team down tools and leave.
>
>http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm 
>

When I first read this I thought it must be a joke.  You said you
thought it was OT   - but you have now altered the guidlelines so that
it isn't and therefore can be stopped.


One of the reasons for having ulm was that you could have sensible
discussions about legal topics which would not be possible in
uk.legal.

I can see that there are quite a few people with a good legal
viewpoint who post here who would not even see a post in uk.legal.

Frankly - I am very disappointed and really have difficulty believeing
what has happened.

The message was clearly on-topic.  It was rejected by someone being
bloody mind.  If this was not the case why not reject it and give as
the reason - "this post raised some important legal issue which we
dare not discuss" ; rather than say as a lie : 

This is off topic for uk.legal.moderated or has insufficient
law-related material. 

You agreed that it was on-topic

But you have now added a moderation guidleine which bans it.

I trust that this will not be a precedent:

Someone makes a post which one of the moderators dislikes; it is
absolutley clearly on-topic but the moderators threaten to throw their
toys out of the pram and leave the group if it is permitted  -
therefore we introduce another moderation guidline in order to "catch"
this post.


If you have to start doing this sort of thing - I think you should be
asking - have we got the right people as moderators?  If they have
actully threatened to down tools and leave over this  - then you
should let them go.

A victory for censorship if ever there was one.

jms wrote:

> Someone makes a post which one of the moderators dislikes; it is
> absolutley clearly on-topic but the moderators threaten to throw their
> toys out of the pram and leave the group if it is permitted  -
> therefore we introduce another moderation guidline in order to "catch"
> this post.
>
> If you have to start doing this sort of thing - I think you should be
> asking - have we got the right people as moderators?  If they have
> actully threatened to down tools and leave over this  - then you
> should let them go.
>
> A victory for censorship if ever there was one.

Oh for heavens sake, don't be so histrionic.  You have other fora where you 
can raise your opinions, in the unmoderated group or in unnm for example.

A consensus view has been reached (without any arguments, threats or votes 
incidentally) that we don't wish to have this theme opened up in the 
moderated group.   We think that (like your previous gift to us, the cycling 
helmet thread) it has the potential to become unpleasant, personalised and 
counterproductive to the overarching purpose and value of the moderated 
group(s).

Having reached that view, we have plainly stated it so that posters know 
what to expect.   You would be first to condemn us if we had secret 
unpublished rules, would you not?

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:56:48 +0100, "Steve Walker"
 wrote:

>jms wrote:
>
>> Someone makes a post which one of the moderators dislikes; it is
>> absolutley clearly on-topic but the moderators threaten to throw their
>> toys out of the pram and leave the group if it is permitted  -
>> therefore we introduce another moderation guidline in order to "catch"
>> this post.
>>
>> If you have to start doing this sort of thing - I think you should be
>> asking - have we got the right people as moderators?  If they have
>> actully threatened to down tools and leave over this  - then you
>> should let them go.
>>
>> A victory for censorship if ever there was one.
>
>Oh for heavens sake, don't be so histrionic.  You have other fora where you 
>can raise your opinions, in the unmoderated group or in unnm for example.
>
>A consensus view has been reached (without any arguments, threats or votes 
>incidentally) that we don't wish to have this theme opened up in the 
>moderated group.   We think that (like your previous gift to us, the cycling 
>helmet thread) it has the potential to become unpleasant, personalised and 
>counterproductive to the overarching purpose and value of the moderated 
>group(s).
>
>Having reached that view, we have plainly stated it so that posters know 
>what to expect.   You would be first to condemn us if we had secret 
>unpublished rules, would you not?

Plainly stated it?

Really?  Has there been an announcement somewhere that the "rules"
have changed?  Where was it - uk.legal perhaps?

I think not.


Amazing - the moderators do not wish to have a particular theme opened
up in the news group - so they alter the charter to ban that post and
further  ones on the same topic.



Why was the original post judged to have insufficient legal content?

Why did the chief moderator say it was OT?

Was it you who rejected it?

Perhaps you'd like to tell us the chain of events.

What is the thinking behind making the change?

It's odd how the group has only gone down hill quite recently isn't
it?

Any ideas?

jms wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:23:03 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Judith M Smith"  wrote in message
>> news:hfc4e5pqh6pf4m59ali9iok067qvdomu9l@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:44:29 +0100, "The Todal"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I agree with you. I think it is on-topic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it appropriate to repost it then ?
>>
>> Not now I've added another moderation guideline to ban it. Sorry,
>> Judith - I for one believe your motives are honourable. But I think
>> the discussion can as easily take place in the unmoderated uk.legal
>> and I don't want to see our moderation team down tools and leave.
>>
>> http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm
>>
>
> When I first read this I thought it must be a joke.  You said you
> thought it was OT   - but you have now altered the guidlelines so that
> it isn't and therefore can be stopped.
>
>
> One of the reasons for having ulm was that you could have sensible
> discussions about legal topics which would not be possible in
> uk.legal.

Not quite. Sensible discussions about legal topics are possible in both the 
moderated and unmoderated groups. But the moderated group is a forum where 
hurtful/abusive/threatening posts are rejected.

I don't think you'd learn anything about the law in the moderated group, 
that you wouldn't learn in the unmoderated group. The moderated group is not 
moderated by a group of lawyers, and there is no particular reason to 
believe that it has a high ratio of lawyers to non lawyers. The main point 
of setting up the group was to enable people to ask "I'm in trouble with the 
police, what sentence am I likely to get" without having to see an answer 
"you evil bastard, I hope you do go to prison and lose your kids".  And to 
let people have a polite conversation without being stalked by malicious 
obsessive posters, and being threatened with legal action.

I do not think it is reasonable for the moderators to have to make decisions 
on posts which discuss whether or not they themselves might have any 
liability.  Nobody has threatened to leave, no moderator has given any 
ultimatum and it is simply a decision based on what we believe to be a 
sensible policy for the group. Sorry if you don't like it.

Pedt" <"\"@ @\" wrote:
> In message , at 16:20:11 on
> Sat, 24 Oct 2009, jms  wibbled
>
>> Amazing - the moderators do not wish to have a particular theme opened
>> up in the news group - so they alter the charter to ban that post and
>> further  ones on the same topic.
>
> Given that you'd already said that you didn't agree with the view that
> it was unclear whether moderators would be liable and the view expressed
> that the news injection point wouldn't be liable and you were going to
> email a moderated injection point to voice your dissent regarding
> another moderated group then I think the moderators of ulm have made the
> right pro-active decision to not allow the thread as I agree with the
> moderators consensus view that
> <quote>
> it has the potential to become unpleasant, personalised and
> counterproductive to the overarching purpose and value of the moderated
> group(s)
> </quote>
>
>> It's odd how the group has only gone down hill quite recently isn't
>> it?
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
> Apart from the cycle helmet thread which spilled over into pro and anti
> posts in here (unn.moderation) when the moderators took action to limit
> point scoring posts from either side in ulm and the arguments that then
> ensued in here from that, ulm seems to be working pretty well.
>
> The only reason you think its gone downhill IMO is that the moderators
> of ulm are not allowing you to grandstand and/or troll. Why don't you
> put the dolls back in your pram and realise that Usenet groups do not
> revolve around you and your views.

Thank you Pedt, that summarises the situation very well.

Please stop arsing about now Judith, either contribute positively or go 
away.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:45:32 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>jms wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:23:03 +0100, "The Todal" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Judith M Smith"  wrote in message
>>> news:hfc4e5pqh6pf4m59ali9iok067qvdomu9l@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:44:29 +0100, "The Todal"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I agree with you. I think it is on-topic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it appropriate to repost it then ?
>>>
>>> Not now I've added another moderation guideline to ban it. Sorry,
>>> Judith - I for one believe your motives are honourable. But I think
>>> the discussion can as easily take place in the unmoderated uk.legal
>>> and I don't want to see our moderation team down tools and leave.
>>>
>>> http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm
>>>
>>
>> When I first read this I thought it must be a joke.  You said you
>> thought it was OT   - but you have now altered the guidlelines so that
>> it isn't and therefore can be stopped.
>>
>>
>> One of the reasons for having ulm was that you could have sensible
>> discussions about legal topics which would not be possible in
>> uk.legal.
>
>Not quite. Sensible discussions about legal topics are possible in both the 
>moderated and unmoderated groups. But the moderated group is a forum where 
>hurtful/abusive/threatening posts are rejected.
>
>I don't think you'd learn anything about the law in the moderated group, 
>that you wouldn't learn in the unmoderated group. The moderated group is not 
>moderated by a group of lawyers, and there is no particular reason to 
>believe that it has a high ratio of lawyers to non lawyers. The main point 
>of setting up the group was to enable people to ask "I'm in trouble with the 
>police, what sentence am I likely to get" without having to see an answer 
>"you evil bastard, I hope you do go to prison and lose your kids".  And to 
>let people have a polite conversation without being stalked by malicious 
>obsessive posters, and being threatened with legal action.
>
>I do not think it is reasonable for the moderators to have to make decisions 
>on posts which discuss whether or not they themselves might have any 
>liability.  Nobody has threatened to leave, no moderator has given any 
>ultimatum and it is simply a decision based on what we believe to be a 
>sensible policy for the group. Sorry if you don't like it. 
>

I don't like it - but it is not the first  thing I have disliked on
here - so that has to be tough shit for me - I think I may get over
it.

A final simple question for you:

If you were the one to have first picked up my post - would you have
allowed it?

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:41:18 +0100, Pedt <"\"@
@\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote:

>In message , at 16:20:11 on 
>Sat, 24 Oct 2009, jms  wibbled
>
>>Amazing - the moderators do not wish to have a particular theme opened
>>up in the news group - so they alter the charter to ban that post and
>>further  ones on the same topic.
>
>Given that you'd already said that you didn't agree with the view that 
>it was unclear whether moderators would be liable and the view expressed 
>that the news injection point wouldn't be liable and you were going to 
>email a moderated injection point to voice your dissent regarding 
>another moderated group

You are spot on that I had raised it - as it was the introduction to
my post when  I said:
==========================================================================
I have recently raised the point  in uk.net.news.moderation and
uk.legal the question of "responsibility" of moderators in approving a
post.

When the formation of uk.legal.moderated was discussed I recall there
being some discussion on this topic.

I thought that the general conclusion then,  was that the moderators
could be held to be responsible for "approving" anything which
appeared on the moderated group; however this  may not have been
resolved one way or the other. 

============================================================================
(Seemed a pretty  harmless sort of post for the moderated group.  Get
some different legal minds and views  on it - that sort of thing.  It
was obviously on-topic as the chief moderator of uk.legal.moderated
has agreed.)

Someone then posted a forgery post and an email which appeared to be a
complaint from me to the University of Cambridge.

I responded to that post within the hour stating that that post was a
forgery.

I am surprised you have not seen that - it was 24 hours ago.

Perhaps you were too busy installing Agent on to your machine in order
to try and prove that when I said I had not noticed a spelling checker
suggestion,  I was in fact lying.  That did seem to be rather an
obsessive thing to do; did you learn it in your "shed"?

I am sorry that when I explained what I had done - this showed *you*
up as the person telling porkies and jumping to wrong conclusions - I
can see that you would have felt to be just a bit of a prat; however -
I can see that you are not holding that against me or allowing it to
colour what you say.


Follow ups reset back to what they were

In message , jms 
 writes
>Perhaps you were too busy installing Agent on to your machine in order
>to try and prove that when I said I had not noticed a spelling checker
>suggestion,  I was in fact lying.  That did seem to be rather an
>obsessive thing to do; did you learn it in your "shed"?
>
>I am sorry that when I explained what I had done - this showed *you*
>up as the person telling porkies and jumping to wrong conclusions - I
>can see that you would have felt to be just a bit of a prat; however -
>I can see that you are not holding that against me or allowing it to
>colour what you say.

Gosh - has a month gone by already?

-- 
< Paul >

"jms"  wrote in message 
news:oet6e513mp98dmlrrncri0huv7daoch4ll@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:45:32 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>jms wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:23:03 +0100, "The Todal" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Judith M Smith"  wrote in message
>>>> news:hfc4e5pqh6pf4m59ali9iok067qvdomu9l@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:44:29 +0100, "The Todal"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with you. I think it is on-topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it appropriate to repost it then ?
>>>>
>>>> Not now I've added another moderation guideline to ban it. Sorry,
>>>> Judith - I for one believe your motives are honourable. But I think
>>>> the discussion can as easily take place in the unmoderated uk.legal
>>>> and I don't want to see our moderation team down tools and leave.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm
>>>>
>>>
>>> When I first read this I thought it must be a joke.  You said you
>>> thought it was OT   - but you have now altered the guidlelines so that
>>> it isn't and therefore can be stopped.
>>>
>>>
>>> One of the reasons for having ulm was that you could have sensible
>>> discussions about legal topics which would not be possible in
>>> uk.legal.
>>
>>Not quite. Sensible discussions about legal topics are possible in both 
>>the
>>moderated and unmoderated groups. But the moderated group is a forum where
>>hurtful/abusive/threatening posts are rejected.
>>
>>I don't think you'd learn anything about the law in the moderated group,
>>that you wouldn't learn in the unmoderated group. The moderated group is 
>>not
>>moderated by a group of lawyers, and there is no particular reason to
>>believe that it has a high ratio of lawyers to non lawyers. The main point
>>of setting up the group was to enable people to ask "I'm in trouble with 
>>the
>>police, what sentence am I likely to get" without having to see an answer
>>"you evil bastard, I hope you do go to prison and lose your kids".  And to
>>let people have a polite conversation without being stalked by malicious
>>obsessive posters, and being threatened with legal action.
>>
>>I do not think it is reasonable for the moderators to have to make 
>>decisions
>>on posts which discuss whether or not they themselves might have any
>>liability.  Nobody has threatened to leave, no moderator has given any
>>ultimatum and it is simply a decision based on what we believe to be a
>>sensible policy for the group. Sorry if you don't like it.
>>
>
> I don't like it - but it is not the first  thing I have disliked on
> here - so that has to be tough shit for me - I think I may get over
> it.
>
> A final simple question for you:
>
> If you were the one to have first picked up my post - would you have
> allowed it?

I probably would have done.

I am doubtful that the discussion would have gone much further, though.

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:38:03 -0000, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
>"jms"  wrote in message 
>news:oet6e513mp98dmlrrncri0huv7daoch4ll@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:45:32 +0100, "The Todal" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>jms wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:23:03 +0100, "The Todal" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Judith M Smith"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:hfc4e5pqh6pf4m59ali9iok067qvdomu9l@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:44:29 +0100, "The Todal"
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with you. I think it is on-topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it appropriate to repost it then ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not now I've added another moderation guideline to ban it. Sorry,
>>>>> Judith - I for one believe your motives are honourable. But I think
>>>>> the discussion can as easily take place in the unmoderated uk.legal
>>>>> and I don't want to see our moderation team down tools and leave.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I first read this I thought it must be a joke.  You said you
>>>> thought it was OT   - but you have now altered the guidlelines so that
>>>> it isn't and therefore can be stopped.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One of the reasons for having ulm was that you could have sensible
>>>> discussions about legal topics which would not be possible in
>>>> uk.legal.
>>>
>>>Not quite. Sensible discussions about legal topics are possible in both 
>>>the
>>>moderated and unmoderated groups. But the moderated group is a forum where
>>>hurtful/abusive/threatening posts are rejected.
>>>
>>>I don't think you'd learn anything about the law in the moderated group,
>>>that you wouldn't learn in the unmoderated group. The moderated group is 
>>>not
>>>moderated by a group of lawyers, and there is no particular reason to
>>>believe that it has a high ratio of lawyers to non lawyers. The main point
>>>of setting up the group was to enable people to ask "I'm in trouble with 
>>>the
>>>police, what sentence am I likely to get" without having to see an answer
>>>"you evil bastard, I hope you do go to prison and lose your kids".  And to
>>>let people have a polite conversation without being stalked by malicious
>>>obsessive posters, and being threatened with legal action.
>>>
>>>I do not think it is reasonable for the moderators to have to make 
>>>decisions
>>>on posts which discuss whether or not they themselves might have any
>>>liability.  Nobody has threatened to leave, no moderator has given any
>>>ultimatum and it is simply a decision based on what we believe to be a
>>>sensible policy for the group. Sorry if you don't like it.
>>>
>>
>> I don't like it - but it is not the first  thing I have disliked on
>> here - so that has to be tough shit for me - I think I may get over
>> it.
>>
>> A final simple question for you:
>>
>> If you were the one to have first picked up my post - would you have
>> allowed it?
>
>I probably would have done.
>
>I am doubtful that the discussion would have gone much further, though. 
>


Fine.

Closed.

--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents