Do I dare mention UWINS?

stevo-london


Joined: 23/10/2010
Posts: 253

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 02:21

If i wrote my opinion of the business like 2 more have opened & shut... Would I get barred for 10 years?



Why are crook be invited & are allowed to profit on this site by allowing them on



If baffles me.

bertieboss


Joined: 22/07/2011
Posts: 149

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 04:38

Estate agents provide a service which you can take or leave!!

I was introduced to the buyer of my last house by a local estate agent. I did the selling and completed the deal. It cost me £2,700 and they did bugger all.

However try doing it yourself !!!

yrret


Joined: 17/08/2010
Posts: 761

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 08:11

Consistent with all other agents in most countries then eh bertie.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 08:21

You can hardly blame an Estate Agent for doing as little as they can for as much as they can....

Given half-a-chance it's what most people do..

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 08:25

PS it doesn't help when you can't even get their names right... so you won't get banned.

pollymarples


Joined: 08/08/2010
Posts: 1778

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 08:42

steve, you didn't get the name right but you got attention and everyone knew who you meant.



steve C44 have to earn income (I presume) so allowng them to advertise is a way of achieving this. YOu cannot blame C44, it is business.



As long as they alllow us our opinion, it shows lack of bias, so I for one have no problem with their advertising on here, even though my opinion of them is negative. MY former Advocate also advertises on here and I have no prlbem with that either.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 10:15

Yeah well you tell my friends the Uwins - they are furious that their good name is being dragged through the mire!

stevo-london


Joined: 23/10/2010
Posts: 253

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 12:50

Least it werent feed to the lions;)

stevo-london


Joined: 23/10/2010
Posts: 253

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 14:09

Polly im just here as was marcus & many other to help the people in need.

pollymarples


Joined: 08/08/2010
Posts: 1778

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 15:50

Why dont the Unwins come on and give their side of the story Groucho?

metininkibris


Joined: 12/12/2011
Posts: 86

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 15:52

coz they are less than honest imho

stevo-london


Joined: 23/10/2010
Posts: 253

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 16:14

http://www.johnpattison.co.uk/

TimothyCadman


Joined: 13/12/2007
Posts: 1040

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 16:15

Stevo-London,

Your evidence for Unwins, or any other Estate Agents, being crooks is......?

Don't make a statement on this, or any other board, where you cannot explain, in detail, how you came to the conclusion.

A person. or compnay, is innocent until proven guilty. It is YOUR responsibilty to prove Guilt, not for the accused to prove their innocence.

metininkibris


Joined: 12/12/2011
Posts: 86

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 16:16

stevo there is also a live UNCENSORED 24 hour chat page on that link.

pollymarples


Joined: 08/08/2010
Posts: 1778

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 16:36

If they are honest, then more reason to hear from them. NOthing to hide?

Ed1957


Joined: 03/09/2011
Posts: 377

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 16:48

But you cannot defend yourself adequately on a forum like this. It is impossible as anyone is free to make unproven allegations.

cyprusgiant


Joined: 08/07/2009
Posts: 467

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 17:25

I bought in 2005 through Unwins. They introduced me to a solicitor which also happened to be the builders solicitor!



As I awaited completion of my villa, problems occured and Unwins provided me absolutely no support in my quest to ensure finish to my build. I would say that that Unwins did not help in any way in supporting me as their customer.



I cannot compare them to any other estate agent in the TRNC as I haven't used any other than Unwins, but using the UK as an example of a trustworthy estate agent, they fall well short.

pollymarples


Joined: 08/08/2010
Posts: 1778

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 17:52

And that works both ways ed1957, Unwins have fans as well as detractors. You only have to read the vrious comments to know that.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 17:53

"I would say that that Unwins did not help in any way in supporting me as their customer. "

And therein lies the problem... you are not their customer, the builder is. Under the contractual arrangements the builder's the one who pays them for introductions - therefore de-facto he is their customer... in a transaction the Estate Agent is paid to represent the interests of the builder. They can't serve two masters.. Think of it like this:-

The estate agents are like a taxi driver taking you to a restaurant - good luck asking the taxi driver for your money back if the meal is no good....

I'm sure they refrain from posting on here because it's just a bun fight.

philbailey


Joined: 17/01/2011
Posts: 3533

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 21:23

Msg19, but if the taxi drivers knows the restaurant is bad

and is on a comission

would you feel cheated when you found out

TRNCvictim


Joined: 17/08/2010
Posts: 1417

Message Posted:
08/01/2012 21:25

Groucho (mess 19)



Your last paragraph makes me want to cry!

TimothyCadman


Joined: 13/12/2007
Posts: 1040

Message Posted:
09/01/2012 00:34

Absolutely spot on Groucho. It's a pity more people don't see it this way and treat it as such.

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
09/01/2012 08:12

But Tim, surely if you pay money to an estate agent for a particular service, you then become their customer too?



Don't they then owe you some form of a duty of care?

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
09/01/2012 08:50

There are couple of posters in this forum who have taken it upon themselves to be the advocaats of Unwins. The TRUTH is the people are self admitted liars! They have been accused and their names have been pulled down to that of a "cochroach" openly by those in this forum who suffered in their hands! What TC asks is asilly thing "explain in detail how you came to conclusion... ". What explanation?

If the agent in question has been attacked so unfairly by sommany and it is affecting their business, and if they are half as innocent as some claim, then WHY NOT TAKE LIBEL ACTION AGAINST THOSE WHO ARE ATTACKING YOU? And why no response of anykind to anyone in a forum where they adverstise religiously? Whether some like it or not, it is because of guilty conscience, plus the fact that there is probably a lot more that will hit the fan!

The idea that the agents have no responsibility towards buyers is the one of the most stupid propositions I ever heard in a forum! continues...

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
09/01/2012 08:53

What in effect we are saying is; if I were to pay 20,000 to an estate agent as a deposit for a house, and the agent runs away with the money; then, since they are responsible for the seller of the property and have nothing to do with me, it is the house owners who will reimburse me or in fact accept the balance gracefully, and chase the agents!

Oh! Give me a break will you...

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
09/01/2012 08:56

I am not an 'advocaat' of Unwins, I am an advocate of caution when making accusations on a publicly viewable forum if you wish to avoid a ban and or legal action that would only rub salt in the wound.

As far as "The idea that the agents have no responsibility towards buyers is the one of the most stupid propositions I ever heard" you obviously haven't heard the legal opinion that your own lawyer has no duty of care to you even you you do pay him to look after your affairs - so how is that going to pan out when you ask the court to enforce a duty of care from someone you don't pay.... the Estate Agent. Whose income is from the builder... and that's the only person they represent professionally. bigOz, I think you are confusing UK legal standards with Cyprus.

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
09/01/2012 09:03

With all respects Groucho, you are tempting me to open up an estate agent next week, collect hundreds of thousands from many would be buyers and shut shop again, expecting the buyers to run to the builders/owners for reimbursement! After all, I legally represent the sellers and have no responsibility for any loss by the buyers - so the buyers cannot take any legal action against me. Is that right?

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
09/01/2012 09:14

What you describe is a deliberate fraud... What you describe is not selling off-plan properties for builders. Of course the builder may not complete the task as per the contract the buyer takes out with the constructor - and here the Specific Performance Law tends to work against the off-plan buyer. The law was never designed to cover off-plan purchase and therefore is inadequate.

Morally, do I think all parties to the business ought to have a duty of care and legal responsibility - yes I do... but according to the information I have as it stands an Estate Agent is only responsible to the person paying them. If it changes in the future, so much the better. This is a matter for TRNC Government, as I'm sure Ismet will confirm.

As for setting up an Estate Agency, well I do believe you are required to be approved by the TRNC Government so good luck with that.

pollymarples


Joined: 08/08/2010
Posts: 1778

Message Posted:
09/01/2012 11:07

The clue is in the word AGENT - someone who respresents an organisation and acts on its behalf.



It doesn't say only temprorarily.



Squirm all you like, Estate Agents are part of the scam, the first part.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
09/01/2012 11:58

bigOz the problem with potential defamation on a forum such as this, that is hosted in the UK, is that in reality the most likely result of the forum owner not removing alledged defamation once it has been brought to their attention is not that the defamed will take leagal action agsint the person that actual posted the potentialy deflamatory material, but will threaten to take action against the company in the UK that hosts this site, because even though they did not write the alledged material and did not set up and control the forum they are under UK law liable. The UK law in this regard is bad imo, but that IS the legal precedent that exists in the UK and it is very clear.

Thus the most likely outcome if a defamed person DOES take action, or even threatens to, is not that the person who wrote the defamation will be sued and face potential loss, but in fact that the site will be closed by the hosters and we will all loose as a result.

TimothyCadman


Joined: 13/12/2007
Posts: 1040

Message Posted:
09/01/2012 11:58

"if I were to pay 20,000 to an estate agent as a deposit for a house, and the agent runs away with the money; then, since they are responsible for the seller of the property and have nothing to do with me,"

No not at all. This then becomes a criminal act as laid down in Theft Acts world wide. No Estate Agent, to my knowledge, in the TRNC has ever witheld, or I doubt would ever withold, any deposit taken from a customer that is intended for a builder/developer. That is theft.

Just treat an Estate Agent with the distane that they treat you. "We've found you a builder/home. You've paid your deposit. Any problems from here on in see the builder/developer/property seller. We've had our commission, now 'F' Off." But of course I've paraphrased what they'd actually say as I'd need a lot more than 1000 characters to do it the nice way.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
09/01/2012 12:05

For me arguing that potential defamation should not be allowed to remain on the forum once the defamed has notifed the forum owener and or the forum hosters is nothing to do with seeking to defende or protect Unwins and everything to do with protecting the forum.

To all those that scream so loud about their right to free speech and argue that no post should ever be removed, I say the most likely result of following a policy like that is simply that sooner or later the forum will be shut down, not as a result of legal action but simply as the result of the threat of it agains the hosters, who know nothing of Unwins or north Cyprus and are simply running a commercial service. If that were to happen I wonder how those advocates of free speech will think it has been enhanced by the forum being shut down ?

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
09/01/2012 20:42

pollymarples

They are the agent of the builder/seller. A footballer's agent puts players in touch with clubs but he doesn't expect to be called a crook if the player doesn't score many goals.... he just touts his player's services and takes his cut. It's the club's task to give the player a medical fitness test and satisfy themselves that he is what the agent says he is....

The problem is one of expectations.... you need a fully independent property consultant or solicitor that you pay a professional fee to and have a binding contract with to cover the situation here... one who can discover whether the builder is capable, legal and honest and put his professional reputation on the line for you and have indemnity insurance to cover him should things go wrong... as far as I know, none of this exists and Estate Agents are not going to tell you you need these services as they'd tend to put you off buying.

oliveoil


Joined: 16/03/2008
Posts: 58

Message Posted:
09/01/2012 20:51

Message 16 ED1957 how right you are

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 04:00

erolz; Can you name some forums that have been shut in Uk as a result of this law you are talking about?

Hpwever, there has been cases of successful libel actions against individuals in USA, who have offended the other in forums (and not against the "discussion" forum itself)...

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 04:52

bigoz the legal precedent was set in the UK in the case Godfrey v Demon Internet Service. In this case Mr Godfrey was libled on a usenet discussion group. Details are here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_Internet_Service

Demon internet did nothing more that provide its users with usenet service and fail to remove the (then) alledged defamation. It had no role in the creation of the defamatory post made on usenet and no control such posting, it merely distributed them as nearly all ISP at that time did as part of their ISP service to customers, yet it settled with him after he sued THEM for libel and after in a pre trial motion where the judge ruled that any tramission of lible was the same as publishing it. He got 15k and 250k costs. IT was a very very bad ruling (that mere transmission equates to publishing) and precedent imo but to date it remains to be challenged in UK courts or ECHR.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 04:55

The effects of this case has had a profound effect on how companies that provide servers that host forums behave when notifed of alledged lible in the UK. They will almost all not make any effort to establish if the material is libelous but require that the forum owner running on their servers immediately removes the material and if they do not they will shut the server down. They just do not want or need the exposure of THEM being sued for libel, so its easier to just shut it down.

As for examples of specific cases where this has happened there are many. Here is just one for you

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/08/benefits-test-company-threatens-critics-with-libel-action/

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 05:06

I also have to say I have been reluctant to explain all this to those that argue Izzet does not need to worry about potentialy libelous statements on this forum, only those making the post do, primarily because it is almost a 'guide' for Unwins and other companies like them as to the ways and means of silencing critisim. However I balance that against those that continue to say there is no excuse to remove potentialy libelous content from the forum. The more this is said the more it is necessary to explain why it is necessary to do it even if that might give 'ideas' to the likes of Unwins.

I also have to say I was personaly libeled on this forum, by someone living in the TRNC and I did seek legal advise about the possiblity of persuing the person who made the libel through the courts here in TRNC. The advise I got was do not bother. At that time I was more than aware that I could have request that Izzet remove the libel and if he did not I could go to his hosters[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 05:13

and demand they make him remove it or close the site down. The hosters would most likely have done this. I did not goto Izzet of the Hosters because I absolutely beleive that neither Izzet or the company that hosts this site should be liable for what indivduals post and that ONLY the person who makes the post should be. However this NOT what UK law and test case precedent say. They say that anyone involved in the 'transmission' of the post is also and seprately liable for it. I had no desire at all to cause problems for Izzet as the forum owner, he did not libel me, nor use the hosters exposure to created problems for the forum. My only objective in considering legal action or the threat of it was to encourage the person who actualy did it to not do it to others in the future and maybe force them to make an public appology. However in a case like say Unwins, they would be more than happy to see the forum shut by its hosters as the result of a mere threat of legal action I think.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 05:48

Just a few more examples for you Bigoz if you are interested

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2007/10/britain-bloggers-unite-against-intimidation/

http://www.thebeard.org/weblogs/20000408.html



and a good general article about the whole issue here



http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/may/03/1

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 06:10

And finally because clearly I can not shut the f up I will add that I have been on the recieving end of this 'use' of the godfrey vs demon internet case. Back in 2009 I recived an email from a firm of solicitors stating their client had been defamed, not by me, on a forum I ran. They made various demands and said if I did not meet their demands I would be liable for being seud for libel and quoted the Godfrey vs Demon Internet case. I was able to resist this attempt at bullying but only because I was in the very atypical situation of knowing my hosters personaly and them also having a dislike of such censorship by bullying not those that make the statements but indirectly either forum owner or hoster and were willing to 'stand up'. Below is my reply to the solicitors that sent the treatening email.

http://www.visionmatters.co.uk/cyprus/defamreply.htm

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 08:28

You can clearly say what you like on any forum but you have to bear the consequences should you be unable to substantiate your statement in a court of law... That's only fair - but you can't expect the owner of this board to take the risk for you - that's not fair.

Anyone who doesn't agree with this should look elsewhere for a platform to air their grievances.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 08:40

and even if the owner of the board is prepared to risk real potential liability for something they did not write themselves, in many many cases the hosting company will not be so prepared with the result being site closed.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 09:13

Just a thought Groucho,



but have you ever thought that some of the people that firmly believe fraud has been committed, might relish going to court to prove their point or maximise the publicity?

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 13:19

Absolutely right Bradus!

If there is libel then all the points are taken! But the fact is, if the accused in a forum had many people swindled out of their money on false promises, then a libel action or even responding to the allegations in a forum would be even more harmful, which has been the case here!

erolz;

thank you for the info, but I do not see how the case set precedent, when it was settled out of court? i.e. no such judgement passed! The same story goes on to say:

"Media lawyers have described the case's resultant restriction on freedom of expression as "disproportionate" and suggested that it may not survive a challenge under the Human Rights Act"

Second thing, this was a totally different scenario than the ones discussed here, or as the case may be in your cown complaint (where I did suppport your position at the time). You cannot sue someone for libel against a user name, whose personal details are at user's discretion to supply. A forum is for public discussion.

metininkibris


Joined: 12/12/2011
Posts: 86

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 13:32

Has any one ever been SUCCESSFULLY sued as a result of something written on a forum in or about trnc ? despite many threats to do so off some I think not !

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 13:33

Finally, the case involves an ISP provider in UK covered covered by (the dodgy) British Law. There is no such laws for ISP providers in TRNC! And if someone were to go to court on anything other than proving an allagetaion by many who might love to give evidence in a court of law against them, was nothing more than lies and scenarios, then their solicitors would advise them not to be foolish - unless of course they go to Menteş Aziz

In short, nothing wrong that has been done by cyprus44, unless the subject matter constitutes a libel or at least was demonstrated to them as such by the offended - neither of which has happened in this forum yet. "Facts"cannot constitute libel, neither do "opinions". Geoffrey's claim cannot be compared to what happened here.

In your case the solicitor was right in his advice, because not only 99% of people in this forum have no idea who "erolz" is, but the allegations were nothing more than personal "opinions" and "interpretations"...

simbas



Joined: 16/07/2007
Posts: 5943

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 13:36

Msg 48 , Yeah ! we heard you the first time

Simbas





{HAROLD2555} I deleted the extra copies of the post Pat

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 14:53

If they believe fraud has been committed under TRNC law, then they should take legal action not make accusation and wait to be taken to court; because that's a recipe for disaster... the burden of proof is swayed in favour of the complainant in libel/slander cases. i.e. you have to prove that you have not slandered or libelled them.

Given the current interpretation laws of the TRNC as evidenced by recent legal case decisions, what is a fraud? If banks can lend money to builders who've already sold the asset by contract to someone else and the original buyer's right to possess the asset is thereby undermined and that's not a fraud - what the effing hell is a fraud?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 15:53

Bigoz clearly I am not explaining myself correctly. The 'problem' with the Godfrey vs Demon iternet case and the precedent it set is that since it websites, blogs, forums are being closed down by the hosting companies summarily at the merested suggestion that they may contain libel. Not by the owner or creator of the forum but by the the hosters. Not as the result of any legal action but just my the merest hint of it. This is site is HOSTED in the UK, that is what makes it exposed to such a summary shut down by its hosting company. If it was hosted elsewhere it would be different potentialy. Izzet's may be 'protected' from personal liability to some degree by being in the TRNC, but the hosting company is not.

The godfrey vs demon internet case set precedent because before it was settled out of court the judge made a determination that DEMON was liable to be sued as the publisher in a pre trial hearing. That is WHY demon then settled because of this ruling.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 16:00

metininkibris msg46. You are missing the point, or my point at least. Many websites, blogs and forums hosted in the UK HAVE been summarily shut down by their hosting companies (not the people who own and run and set up the website but by their hosters) at the merest hint of potential libel being on said site, because if there is libel on that site THEY, the hosters can be sued for it under UK law.

The issue is, would this site be at risk of summary closure by its UK hosters if it just allows potential libel on the forum on the basis that, the accuser can sue the person who made the libel, its nothing to do with the site. The answer is it is at great risk of summary closure by its UK hosters if it does this, which is why it makes sense to not allow such posts and not risk such summary closure by its hosters.

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 17:17

erolz;

I understand well what you are saying but ı do not think I made myself clear either;

In short - you are talking about hosters and web sites with ISP in UK, UK laws etc. This has no bearing on forums and/or ISPs in TRNC! So cyprus44 is safe as...

Second point, even in UK or anywhere else, there has to be a libelous act to start with, for anyone to take such action. The people may not have the money to start individual court hearings against some con merchants, so they express their frustrations in forums! If there was no substance to the claims, the accused would respond in kind, inform the forum admins (which is what Geoffrey tried before a legal action), and if they really believe there has been some kind of libel - then sue the asses of the posters! In the absence of all the above, my ears refuse any other arguments...

metininkibris


Joined: 12/12/2011
Posts: 86

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 17:43

bigOz Cyprus 44 check out wher 44 is hosted

http://www.ip-adress.com/whois/cyprus44.com



Nameservers.



NS13.ZONEEDIT.COM



http://www.ip-adress.com/whois/zoneedit.com



Technical Contact

c/o ZONEEDIT.COM

P.O. Box 821650

Vancouver, WA 98682

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 20:24

Bigoz, this site is run from a machine physicaly in the UK by a UK company that sells 'space' on these machines to people to use as webservers, so they can send out webpages. Izzet buys this service from this UK company. However this UK company is under UK law liable for any potential libel that comes from this machine and service they sell to Izzet (or anyone else) and they know this. So if they think there is any risk THEY may end up having to pay someone libel damages for sojmething writtne by someone annoymous on Izzets forum, they will in most cvases just not take the risk. They will tell izzet to remove it and if they do not they will turn of THEIR machine to stop Izzets site (this one). That is not if there is prioven libel on the site, only if there is a chance that it MIGHT be libel. Beter safe than sorry is the approach many hoster will and do use.

The whole point Bigoz is not that there has to be a proven or clear libelous statement on a site before a UK hoster [cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 20:29

get nervous that THEY may be sued because of it. It is exactly because it only has to be a possible libelous service that most will just take no risk and make the site owner removed it or shut the site down. In most cases the hoster if they recieve a notification from someone that they have been libeld from a machine they own and control will not investigagte 'is it ACTUALY libelous' they will just take no chances.



In the example where I got a solicitors letter relating to a post on a forum I ran, but did not make the pst cocerned, the solititor claimed that the post was libelous of their client. It almost certainly was NOT libelous and was totaly just a 'speculative' attempt to sleicne fair critisism and I refused their request on that basis. However if my site was hosted by any number of UK hosting companies and they had got the same letter as I got, the reality is most would have demanded I given in to the demands and if I did not [cont]

philbailey


Joined: 17/01/2011
Posts: 3533

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 20:35

Are any of the comments by members wrong?

because if they can back up their claims

there is no problem



In my opinion anyone working with convicted criminals (uk/roc)

would not want any more publicity in an EU court

(this is a fact G Robb)

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 20:35

THEY would have shut my site down and all over a post that was alomst certainly never libelous anyway. That IS the problem, that is why the godfrey vs demon internet precdent HAS affected free speech so much. Not because it has led to libelous statments being removed (and only libleous ones) and sites not removing them being closed down but exactly because it has led to countless cases of sites being closed down and posts removed that are NOT libelous but that someone does not like enought to threaten the hoster with a suit over.



Metininkibris, that is the danger os someone who thinks they know 'alot' but in fact do not. I have to do 'dinner' but for now you are just totaly wrong in thinking because the Nameservers for the domain of cyrpus44.com is run by a company registered in Vancouver (according to their domain contact details) that this site is not hosted by a UK company from a machine in the UK. When I get the cahnce I'll explain how you could have done the 'investigation' [co

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 20:38

nt] properly and come up with a correct conclusion rather than a totlay incorrect one. For now try wotking out the IP address of the machine that is running this site and see if you can find out who owns that IP range, who they are and where they are based. The machine that runs the site is seperate from the domain, you can link any domain to any physical machine. What you have found relates to the domain and not to the machine that runs the site. If you do not beleive me try a traceroute to cyprus44.com and see where the traffic too and from the site actualy physicaly goes and where that is and who owns the machine at the end of that trail. better luck nex time.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 22:56

Is it me ? Does anyone actualy read what is written in other peoples posts ? Are my explainations so bad they are not understandable ? I thought I had explained exactly why the site is at risk from being shut down over alledged libel even when there is no libel and without not only no court action or case but summarily with little or no examination of the merits of the case.



So then philbailey posts 'if its not libel its not a problem, and they wont sue because they wont want the publicity of a court case' ! Frustrating.



So philbailey for your benefit here is how it could well work, absolutley explicitly and if this does aid Unwins or others in finding cheap and effective ways to silence not libel but just critisim they do not like, it will be your faul phil and not mine as far as I am concerned.



1. Someone posts something here that is critical of Unwins. It is not libelous, either because it is true or opinion just critical. [cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 23:03

2. Unwins know its is not libelous but they want to stop such posts.



3. Unwins get a solicitor to send a letter to UK2.net the company that hosts this site, saying that a post on here is libelous of them and that if it is not removed they will have to consider action against UK2.net



now go and look at UK2.net site. Look at what they do. They sell 'hosting' to anyone from as little as 99 pence a month. Imagine first that cyprus44.com is a 99 pence a month customer of theirs. Do you think they will look at the offending post, take a judgement and legal advise as to if it is libel or not and decide to ignore the letter based on that judgment and face possible 100 thousand pund damage claims if they are worng. Or do you think they might just tell their 99p a month customer to removed it , regardless of if it is libelous or not and if the customers does not they just turn the site off ? Now of course cyprus44 will be buying a more expensive [cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 23:09

package than the 99p a month one, but the overall principals are the same. At best the hosters might look at the alledged libelous post, thouhg in many case they will not even bother with this. If it is looked at and it is so clearly and absolutely possibly libelous in any way they might just ignore the letter. However if they look and their is even only the remotest chance it might be libelous they will force their customer to remove it or shut it down the site entirely iof they do not. It is just about numbers, the income from their customers is x, to determine an opinion of if the post is or ins not actualy libelous might cost anywhere from x to 10 times x and more. If they do make such a determination and decide it is not libelous and they are wrong and get sued in court they may end up liable for an amount 100 to 1000 times greater than x. So what do you think the majority of hosters do ?In many case , probably the majority they would do....

philbailey


Joined: 17/01/2011
Posts: 3533

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 23:13

But this site has a disclaimer

philbailey


Joined: 17/01/2011
Posts: 3533

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 23:16

Disclaimer



The content on this website is provided by Cyprus44 for personal purposes only.



Although Cyprus44 staff makes reasonable efforts to make information on this web site as accurate as possible, we cannot guarantee that all web pages are error free.



Cyprus44 does not accept any responsibility for any inconvenience originated from information published on this website.



Cyprus44 shall not be liable for any damages or costs of any type arising out of or in any way connected with your use of information and services on this website.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 23:19

4. UK2.net tell Izzy to remove the post and possibly comply with other demands in the original solicitors letter, like ban the user that made them.



5. This now is an imaginary 5, in that from what I can see Izzy is to sensible to do this, but lets say Izzy decides its not liable, that they will Unwins will not sue him or can not in the TRNC and does not remove the post and comply



6. UK2.net shut the site down.



Now recall this is all over something that was never libelous in the first place and all it has cost Unwins or whoever to do this is one solicitors letter and no risk of having to prove in court it is libelous or adverse publicity from a court case. THere may be adverse publicity from bullying a site to be closed by its hosters.



So to say as long as its not libel there is no problem is just nonsense. That this is the case is a direct result of the Godfrey vs Demon Internet case in the UK. It not how things should be but until someone with enough [cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 23:29

philbailey the disclaimer makes not difference because Unwins or whoever (in this hypotetical) senario are not threatening Izzy who runs the site, but UK2.net who host it and secondly because it would not proect either of them in any case. A newspaper can put a dsiclaimer that its published letters section but that would NOT protect it as the publisher if it published a letter that was libelous.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
10/01/2012 23:35

so, so far we have had - its not a problem if its not libel, dealt with that one



and



there is a disclaime so its not a problemr, dealt with that one



so whats next philbailey ? how many more of these do we have to go through before you can even start to think that perhaps poissibly it might actual be a problem ?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
11/01/2012 00:14

Philbailey did you even read the guardian article I posted about all this ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/may/03/1



Did you see what the mumsnet said about it. A site that is hugely sucessful run by people who know what they are doing, rather than you who is god know what or me who is also god knows what but at least backing up assertions with evidence and exmaples and the like. Here it is again



"We delete around 1,000 posts each year as a result of concerns about defamation. This is almost always a pre-emptive act on our part, rather than the result of legal advice; we simply cannot afford to seek legal opinion on every instance. As a result, we frequently delete posts that we believe are eminently defensible. [cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
11/01/2012 00:16

We do not have the financial resources that would enable us to put this to the test. Even with this pre-emptive action, dealing with libel threats takes up a couple of hundred staff hours each year. We also incur legal costs when dealing with (rarer) instances of complainants choosing to involve solicitors and court threats."



Do you REALLY think all they actualy need to do is put up a disclaimer instead of the above and not just them but their hoster would then be protected from any possible action and that they were too slow to realise that this ?

pollymarples


Joined: 08/08/2010
Posts: 1778

Message Posted:
11/01/2012 07:58

Can you imagine a case in the TRNC. Estate Agent -v- Naughty Person ... How would anyone gauge the loss libel has caused the Agent? How could you quantify such a loss in such a market?



What about the old adage All publicity is good publicity?



Since the person who started this thread is in the UK, how would a TRNC based Agent with allegedly an EAW out on them TAKE SUCH ACTION?



Just a series of question not an accusation you understand. Does anyone have an answer?

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
11/01/2012 08:07

philbailey,

you know quite well that such disclaimers were blown out of the water many moons ago... for the management of any organisation to abdicate responsibility simply by declaring that they take no responsibility is a patent nonsense and does not hold any sway in a court of law. It's tantamount to a car manufacturer declaring the safety of their vehicles is no concern of theirs..

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
11/01/2012 12:37

erolz; please try and respond in less detail and to the point Not many would bother read half a dozen posts in sequence - especially when you try and get too technical!

Geoffrey's case (that sat a precedent - did not - settled out of court) was against ISP THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER and not the Hosting company! Meaning of ISP:

"Short for Internet Service Provider, it refers to a company that provides Internet services, including personal and business access to the Internet. For a monthly fee, the service provider usually provides a software package, username, password and access phone number. Equipped with a modem, you can then log on to the Internet and browse the World Wide Web and USENET, and send and receive e-mail..."

It is the ISP that can connect or disconnect one's and in the aforementioned case Demon was not a hosting company but "one of the major Internet Service Providers in Great Britain". All of a sudden we are talking about hosting companies and IP addresses!

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
11/01/2012 12:49

Bigoz it makes no difference in terms of the Geoffry vs Demon Internet. Hoster or ISP. What the judge said is if you are transmitting the alledged libel, you can be sued for it.

In the first case example I put the link for involving the closure of carer watch forum, it ws there hoster who got threats of being sued for libel and their hoster who closed the site down in face of it.

Quoting from the second example link I gave

"However, instead of attempting to prosecute Murray for libel, Usmanov’s lawyers, Schillings, went to Fasthosts, the company hosting Murray’s blog. Under pressure, Fasthosts cancelled the account overseeing Murray’s website bringing the site down. "

People trying to shut down critism will go for the hoster, because they are liable and they are most likely to summarily remove the material or close the site down. Thats the whole point and it is a consequence of the Geoffrey vs demon Internet case.