It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
I suppose I was perhaps a tad naive in expecting everyone to be sensible. Sorry.
Offset "(Emp) - a little heavy on the hyperbole."
Lord Voldemort?
Offset "(Emp) - a little heavy on the hyperbole."
No need to even post the specific link...
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Offset "(Emp) - a little heavy on the hyperbole."
The whole interweb, in fact the whole world is discussing 'a thing' and tFB is quivering in a corner.
This is bizarre.
The Telegraph has spent the past eight months investigating allegations of bullying, intimidation and sexual harassment made against the businessman, and the lengths he has gone to to cover up the claims. However, on Tuesday this newspaper was prevented from revealing details of the non-disclosure deals by Sir Terence Etherton, the Master of the Rolls, the second most senior judge in England and Wales.
The intervention makes it illegal, outside Parliament or in reports of Parliamentary proceedings, to reveal the businessman’s identity or to identify the companies, as well as what he is accused of doing or how much he paid his alleged victims.
It was the latest twist in a legal fight which began in July, which saw the appeal court rule that the confidentiality of contracts was more important than freedom of speech.
It overturned a previous High Court ruling which found that publication of the allegations would be overwhelmingly in the public interest and would significantly contribute to debate in a democratic society.
So, if you think you're so hard done to by this policy, you're welcome to piss off and discuss it on any of those other sites.
I'm sure everyone must have noticed that the current Preezeedent of the States has run out of luck with his non disclosure agreements with various ladies.
Yes, he's been named on the BBC website. But named very carefully, factually and objectively.
There is no judgemental comment in that article.
Contrast that to the comment that we know will be posted here. Which be judgemental to the point that it would be defamatory with or without the context of the injunction. IE, put the whole injunction thing aside, people would take the facts as reported on the BBC website, and extend those into a load of comments that would be actionable. That - arguably - already happened in the threads before Lee removed them.
Now, *you* may want to incur the costs and hassles of attempting to defend yourself against some legal actions, but we really don't want that hassle in defending ourselves or the forum. We wouldn't even bother defending you and will quite happily divulge any and all records of your identities as soon as requested.
If you think that your voice will add that little bit extra value to freedom of speech, then set up your own website and do it there.
I noted that I appreciate your caution.
Really no need to resort to telling people to piss off. That is an overreaction.