Nama thread pulled: here's why....



Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
It wasn't done out of pettiness. I don't mind reprinting exactly what my concern was when I raised it in the mod discussion:
Eh, no. You're not allowing any comments at all on this forum. If anything, showing the link to pwo is justifying the original decision, because people can see what would have happened if you had allowed the thread to continue here.
 

soubresauts

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
3,232
If the discussion infers that Nama debtors somehow have done something wrong or in some way should be considered in a negative way, that's likely to result in said developer trying to march me into the courts to sue and the user who posted the remarks. I have NEVER had an issue with the discussion of factual information. But...
But, but... a discussion doesn't infer anything, surely? The problem is individual posts, and individual P.ie users, isn't it? And you reminded us, Dave, that users are responsible for what they post.

Now I didn't read the thread that was pulled, but I gather that there were several posts there that were potentially defamatory. Clearly what is needed is for a mod to delete those posts and exclude those users from the discussion. There is the extra problem of others quoting the original post... Be careful what you quote!

My take on this case is that it's going beyond the limits of what the P.ie mods can do, given their limited numbers, time, and, dare I say it, judgement (they're human!). The legal eagles demand that any offending remarks be removed promptly, and occasionally the P.ie resources are stretched too far. Hence the blunt instrument.

It would be sad if our only source for the real gen were Phoenix magazine, and the only discussions were face to face.
 

MPB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,455
This thread on the decision to refuse to discuss the NAMAWINELAKE spread sheet, sort of proves Paddy Mc Killens case. I wonder will he use it in court?
 

Iarmhi Gael

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
3,840
Now I didn't read the thread that was pulled, but I gather that there were several posts there that were potentially defamatory. .
Mostly posters questioning people in it - without realising there was actually no relationship to them in NAMA. Just people calling it wrong including me -To which Sync infracted me the (insert your own word here)
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,706
Mostly posters questioning people in it - without realising there was actually no relationship to them in NAMA. Just people calling it wrong including me -To which Sync infracted me the (insert your own word here)
I sent you a nice note explaining it! :(
 

Elmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
426
Will people please stop using the word "infer" when they mean "imply".....

It's driving me up the wall.
 

fecker

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
1,152
Fair enough. We (posters or in my case, non-posters) don't want to be done for libel or, say silly things in anger that will be quoted. What we might post is print as well as opinion, yes?
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
If the discussion infers that Nama debtors somehow have done something wrong or in some way should be considered in a negative way, that's likely to result in said developer trying to march me into the courts to sue and the user who posted the remarks. I have NEVER had an issue with the discussion of factual information. But I know too well the damage that uninformed "anonymous" remarks can make.

I'd like Politics.ie to encourage open and genuine debate, but I'm not here to defend users who don't understand what being in NAMA actually means. There are individuals objecting to being in Nama on the basis of their reputation, and there are developers in Nama taking members of our national parliament to the High Court for defamation proceedings along side this.

I'm going to apply my own rule from earlier and not discuss the spreadsheet in question here, I'm asking that users accept my bona fides from the OP and respect that.
I understand completely, and I'd be very nervous if likely to be held legally responsible for the ignorant and possibly malicious ramblings of posters mouthing off about wealthy men who have eager solicitors on speed-dial.

But if you do start shutting down debate on NAMA debtors once a dodgy post appears, what do you think will result?

How many weeks do you think will pass between a mystery post slagging off some developer, and you receiving a signal from that developer's representatives that no action will follow if you can assure them that it won't happen again (and the only way to do that is ban NAMA-related discussion altogether, like boards.ie and MCD).

If you show weakness on this front, they'll use it against you, and use you as an example to others.

odie1kanobie said:
I can see some people consulting lawyers and going after the publishers and anybody else who defames them.
Did you know it can be defamatory to falsely accuse someone of defamation?

That's twice now you've had a cut at the motives of the person/people behind that blog, which is pretty funny for someone who claims to be standing up for the reputations of others.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,249
Website
www.politics.ie
Twitter
davidcochrane
The intention wasn't to shut down a thread on Nama debtors Libero - I made clear the concerns were surrounding the fact that the document in question wasn't just a list of Nama debtors, it also included lists of people who may be (by accident, idiocy, or misleading) mistaken as being Nama debtors and/or in some way inferred as guilty by association. Comments had already been made about associates who had nothing to do with Nama as if they were. That's why we had to take action.

I had no issue with discussion on factual information being discussed - I made that clear in this thread too - however the presentation of information in a way which may mislead or cause misunderstanding leading to (most likely) very serious consequences required a response, not because of legal obligation, I could put my fingers in my ears, pretend the thread didn't exist and just wait until the solicitors letters started flowing in asking for information to assist defamation proceedings against (for example Iarmhi Gael or other users) - I'd rather not have to deal with that kind of correspondance.

If the lists were simply reflective of the Nama debtors there'd be no issue really - but again a point I made was that the suggestion that Nama debtors have done wrong is also a mistake, and one (for example) which a member of our parliament will be addressing in court.
 

Civic_critic2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
4,883
If you show weakness on this front, they'll use it against you, and use you as an example to others.
Indeed.

I understand David's in a difficult position which most of us would like to avoid but it would seem he has a decision to make here of some importance; allow discussion of one of the single greatest political acts of our time to be shut down and hence politics.ie being neutered or not. He can also choose to hand P.ie over to some legal corporation so that he is never held personally liable again for what appears on this forum.

Another alternative is to create a slush fund amongst users against all potential legal actions.

Another alternative is to go underground and create an anonymous new forum utilising proxy servers and whatever else is required to shift an internet presence one step ahead of the authorities. If that is what is required to prevent these ignorant bullying parasites that plague us from preventing discussion of what they are attempting to do to us and our children then so be it.
 

richie268

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
2,203
The spread sheet was published on Political world which is now off line??
 

Decadance

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
528
Folks,

I've made the decision to pull a thread about the NamaWineLake list from the site.

There are a few concerns, which primarily center around the likelyhood of comments being made by users on the site that may impugn or defame members of the public who have done nothing wrong in any way.

The NamaWineLake list is a fine piece of work I'm sure, however, the "associations" column invites suspicion and commentary about people who may have no relationship with Nama. It could therefore lead members of this website to make defamatory remarks about those people "associated".

Secondly, having loans moved to Nama does not in any way suggest a developer or any other bank debtor has assets that are not performing.
As we have seen today, even elected members of parliament are being pursued for remarks they've made about developers (who through no fault of their own) have found their loans in Nama.

We want Politics.ie to be a place for quality, responsible and open debate, however the concern is that users of the site may accidentally be misled by this data, and posting remarks here that contain errors (and it's happened three times in a thread in question) leaves users here wide-open to potential defamatory proceedings.

The Terms and Conditions that users agree to by their use of Politics.ie are clear, that users are responsible for what they post on Politics.ie. But we need to be responsible here too.

To that end, whilst we're happy to encourage people to read the blog in question (we're hugely in favor of sources for users to read on) in this situation we have to ask that commentary on the document (including the "associations" or anything else) not be done on Politics.ie.

It's unfortunate, and it's not something I'm particularly happy with, but we must ensure responsible and open discussion, but also we all as users have obligations surrounding the absolute accuracy of the remarks we make here on Pie.
Dave,

I think you are misguided on this matter. Your concerns are listed above as:

1. "the likelyhood of comments being made by users on the site that may impugn or defame members of the public"
2. "having loans moved to Nama does not in any way suggest a developer or any other bank debtor has assets that are not performing"
3. "users of the site may accidentally be misled by this data"

The possiblility of users doing something in the future is not a valid reason to pull a thread. If that is the criteria you wish to employ then no user or threads could be allowed on your site.

A thread as with all threads must be read in context and entirety; it is also common knowledge that both performing and non-performing loans have been transferred to nama so no issue arises there.

The arguement about accidentally misleading; is something which could be attributed to your comments about Lucinda Crieghton above. I understand that intention does not have to be proven for defamation to succeed however this site offers a right to reply and by placing comments in threads p.ie often provides the relevant context. Also the report system you provide allows for a quick takedown system - these I feel should be adequate to ensure that freedom of speech is given a fair run as against the pro censorship stance you have taken on this matter.
 

Thomas Ofiannachta

Active member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
282
I would like to see a thread where the fictinal baNAMArama is discussed in some country called The Republic of Biroland.

The main characters in this work of fiction may have such names as

Sean Fits Patrick Thistle

Birdie a Hernia

Alan Ducks

We can discuss how a small bank without ATMS machines called has contributed to bonds going over 6%.

I'll let someone else choose a name for this bank!

my muse seems to have eloped with a great fiction writer called ivor callously
 

soubresauts

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
3,232
I would like to see a thread where the fictinal baNAMArama is discussed in some country called The Republic of Biroland...
my muse seems to have eloped with a great fiction writer called ivor callously
That's a brilliant start!

... Even though truth is stranger than fiction.
 

Oldira1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,466
In fairness to David it is his call and I for one have rarely found him censorious. It is all to easy for one of us to make a comment on somebody that while true may be unproveable.

We all now where the information is and we can use it as best we can. What I would like to see done is see who acts as auditors/advisors/lawyers to the people on the list and then see if any have been awarded NAMA contracts. This would surely be a MASSIVE conflict of interest.

For example...Accountant X acts for developer Y with loans in NAMA.
X also is on the panel of advisors. X submits business plan on behalf of Y and then later is asked by NAMA to advise on and examine the business plan Of Z another developer.

Surely this could not be right?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top