Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Frank Hovis

Posts on a forum coming to court

Recommended Posts

Breathe easy, it's mumsnet. And there are a lot of very nasty posts on there so I'm not that surprised.

 

 

Quote

 

Parenting website Mumsnet has been ordered to reveal the real identities of people who criticised a top cosmetic surgeon on its online forum.

Dr Jesper Sorensen is a specialist in facial reconstruction, eyelid reconstruction and facial nerve surgery and is the founder of the Sorensen Clinic in Kensington, west London.

People began posting and commenting on the website after one of the threads on its forum referred to an £11,000 operation, known as fat-transfer surgery.

The operation sees the doctor remove fat from the patient's body to revolumise hollowed areas under the eyes.

But after reading comments which criticised him, the specialist issued a High Court claim against the website, reports Richard Gittins at the Sunday Times

He reportedly wanted to take legal action against two individuals who posted using the names Blackfairy7 and Skohl.

Three messages posted by Skohl on one thread in September and November last year have since been deleted by the website. 

They had commented on a thread entitled 'Fat transfer for undereye hollows/tear troughs?'

It received 32 posts with people asking about the surgery and whether they had any information about Dr Sorensen's work.

Many comments were positive and praised the surgery, with one person writing that they 'cannot recommend him highly enough'.

The second thread focused specifically on the doctor after it was called 'Cosmetic surgery with Jesper Sorensen' - but it has since been deleted by moderators. 

And after presenting his case to the High Court, they ordered the website - set up in 2000 - to reveal the true identities.

They also have to hand over the copies of messages between Blackfairy7 and Skohl. 


 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4168630/Mumsnet-ordered-hand-identities-users.html?mrn_rm=als1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

And they believe the site knows their identies because?

Well.... gets intersting.

Theyd have to chase up an email.

And the person would ave to live in the UK.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Well.... gets intersting.

Theyd have to chase up an email.

And the person would ave to live in the UK.

 

My email and address have changed since I joined this site in April 2006.

Nevertheless, I am increasingly becoming cautious about what I post. Sometimes I probably sail to close to the wind even so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Well.... gets intersting.

Theyd have to chase up an email.

And the person would ave to live in the UK.

Looks like it's time to start using disposable email addresses (I think the one I used to sign up with still works). I don't exactly go to a great deal of effort to remain anonymous (it would be possible to work out who I am with a little effort, or a good guess at any rate) but anyone who ever gives real details to anything without the other party having a good reason for needing them (e.g. you obviously need to give a valid address if you want something posting to you) is bonkers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the email address is that critical.

The websites almost certainly (are legally required) to log all IP addresses.

They'll just provide the IP address the comment was logged from then go after your ISP to provide your name and address.

Unless you are using a VPN it would be incredibly easy to track you down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, libspero said:

I'm not sure the email address is that critical.

The websites almost certainly (are legally required) to log all IP addresses.

They'll just provide the IP address the comment was logged from then go after your ISP to provide your name and address.

Unless you are using a VPN it would be incredibly easy to track you down.

That (may) get you close but IP addresses are not unique to individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anybody on here has any need to be concerned; mumsnet amongst all the reasonable and often funny posts has some horribly embittered individuals who say very nasty things.  They have to do a lot of moderation over there and it's visible because the post envelope remains as deleted.  I've probably reported one post on here in the whole of the last year (though ironically despite my stressing that the rest of the thread was fine, the whole thread was deleted.  Maybe it's easier, but I digress...), of course I have no idea what my Ignore List posters are saying; but that is rather the point!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fair enough. 

If a poster, in front of an audience of potentially thousands, makes statements that could directly affect someone's livelihood then they should be able to back up the statements if called upon to do so.

Mumsnet is all over the meedja and pretty influential (if somewhat mental in some sections), they should have a pretty solid policy on this sort of thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sgt Hartman said:

I think it's fair enough. 

If a poster, in front of an audience of potentially thousands, makes statements that could directly affect someone's livelihood then they should be able to back up the statements if called upon to do so.

Mumsnet is all over the meedja and pretty influential (if somewhat mental in some sections), they should have a pretty solid policy on this sort of thing.

 

I think it is a bit tough on the poster tbh. They haven't got the back up and legal support of the mainstream press. It would be surprising if anybody that posts regularly, with say 10,000 + posts, hasn't said things that are legally questionable. Probably from venting anger or just being plain mistaken.

lf everbody goes around suing each other then it pretty much ends freedom of speech on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, crashmonitor said:

I think it is a bit tough on the poster tbh. They haven't got the back up and legal support of the mainstream press. It would be surprising if anybody that posts regularly, with say 10,000 + posts, hasn't said things that are legally questionable. Probably from venting anger or just being plain mistaken.

lf everbody goes around suing each other then it pretty much ends freedom of speech on the internet.

British legal system. No real right of free speech.

It can horribly backfire though!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, crashmonitor said:

I think it is a bit tough on the poster tbh. They haven't got the back up and legal support of the mainstream press. It would be surprising if anybody that posts regularly, with say 10,000 + posts, hasn't said things that are legally questionable. Probably from venting anger or just being plain mistaken.

lf everbody goes around suing each other then it pretty much ends freedom of speech on the internet.

Grey area for sure.

I think the Internet is a bit Wild West as it stands though I'm all for free speech. 

It's a fine line between excersising your rights and a complete free for all. It's getting a bit out of hand IMO.

Jail time is probably a bit harsh though banning from the net could be an idea. Facebook has taught me that some people shouldn't be within a hundred yards of a keyboard.

I'm just glad I'm not the one who has to make the official distinctions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

I met them once pouring blood over themselves outside McDs head office. They were delighted when McDs sued them, I'm sure.

I'm sure they were. The British courts ruled that (and I quote):

Quote

ruled that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay and conditions"[24] and true that "if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat, etc., with the very real risk of heart disease". They further stated that this last finding "must have a serious effect on their trading reputation since it goes to the very business in which they are engaged. In our judgment, it must have a greater impact on the respondents' [McDonald's] reputation than any other of the charges that the trial judge had found to be true".

ie. you had the British court system ruling that, at the time, some of claims made by greenpeace had some merit (deliberately being careful).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mat109 said:

I'm sure they were. The British courts ruled that (and I quote)

I was making the point that they didn't just make a passing comment on a website, they went out great lengths over an extended period of time to try and force a confrontation. I'm sure people can slag off McDs on mumsnet without any fear of being sued. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Hail the Tripod said:

I met them once pouring blood over themselves outside McDs head office. They were delighted when McDs sued them, I'm sure.

Im a veggie.

I just dont get this MaccyD the devil thing.

My daughter - not a vegi - likes their vegi burger + carrot sticks.

I have a coffee + fruit bag.

MaccyD are great if you want a crp in a strange town - you know the toilets going to be bearable clean and have paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, crashmonitor said:

I think it is a bit tough on the poster tbh. They haven't got the back up and legal support of the mainstream press. It would be surprising if anybody that posts regularly, with say 10,000 + posts, hasn't said things that are legally questionable. Probably from venting anger or just being plain mistaken.

lf everbody goes around suing each other then it pretty much ends freedom of speech on the internet.

While true, I'd say comments on the internet are potentially far more serious than a sidebar in a national newspaper. The old adage of today's news is tomorrow's chip papers, is actually pretty accurate, news used to die off much faster. Now it's there for all to see, potentially without context, in most cases forever (despite the fact the original comments have been deleted there are plenty of web archiving systems that will potentially still have that logged and available). 

Similarly with web indexing it's possible that a negative comment can be higher rated than a positive one, regardless of accuracy. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spyguy said:

Im a veggie.

I just dont get this MaccyD the devil thing.

My daughter - not a vegi - likes their vegi burger + carrot sticks.

I have a coffee + fruit bag.

MaccyD are great if you want a crp in a strange town - you know the toilets going to be bearable clean and have paper.

Depends on your reasons for being vegetarian I suppose. As a fellow veggie I find their vegetarian food to be utterly shit, couldn't eat it more than a few times a year, as I always feel ill afterwards, but I think that's the fries. If only Burger King did a vegetarian based Whopper Cheese, I'd be a weekly customer... 

As for how to track these individuals down, ISPs only keep a record for so long (until recently anyway, cheers Theresa). I'd be very surprised if even a semi-competent lawyer couldn't get this thrown out easily; dynamic IPs mean there is no solid evidence of who was using that IP Address at that specific date/time as the passage of time passes.

Main problem for the defendants is that libel costs are incurred by them rather than the plaintiff. I hope they have deep pockets if they want to defend themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spunko2010 said:

If only Burger King did a vegetarian based Whopper Cheese, I'd be a weekly customer... 

They did once. Even had the "Vegetarian Society Approved" mark on the packaging. It was really nice.

Then they stopped doing it. Probably around 2001. And then started selling those inedible "King Fries". Which they may or may not still sell; I haven't been in there in 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

Depends on your reasons for being vegetarian I suppose. As a fellow veggie I find their vegetarian food to be utterly shit, couldn't eat it more than a few times a year, as I always feel ill afterwards, but I think that's the fries. If only Burger King did a vegetarian based Whopper Cheese, I'd be a weekly customer... 

As for how to track these individuals down, ISPs only keep a record for so long (until recently anyway, cheers Theresa). I'd be very surprised if even a semi-competent lawyer couldn't get this thrown out easily; dynamic IPs mean there is no solid evidence of who was using that IP Address at that specific date/time as the passage of time passes.

Main problem for the defendants is that libel costs are incurred by them rather than the plaintiff. I hope they have deep pockets if they want to defend themselves.

Id not eat anything fried i MaccyDs. I just have coffee + fruitbags.

My point is that McD are not the only palce serving meat based meals. WHy get a hard on about McDs?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Was it Burger King that did a spicy beanburger that I used to have every now and then?

Yeah, I remember that. I haven't seen it for a while, but it might not be widely sold but still available. When I worked in BK around 2004 they only seemed to sell 1 or 2 a day.

McDonalds do/did a beanburger as well fairly recently. I remember buying one circa 2013, but they probably don't any more. They got rid of the Veggie Wrap a few years ago, too.

Don't remember the Veggie Whopper but here's hoping they bring it back. Although i assume the next breakthrough will be vegan alternatives, as IIRC vegetarian numbers are stagnant whereas veganism is growing exponentially. I did try the new Quorn Vegan sausages the other day and they weren't too bad, but not sure I'd buy them regularly.

I don't tend to eat meat alternatives nor fast food as I'd rather make a proper vegetable-based meal, so I'm probably not the best person to sound off on all this though! I will say that the Amy's Kitchen microwave/ready meal range although expensive and looks revolting is actually really nice. Had my kitchen refitted recently and lived on them for a while. Can't argue with the nutrition either, were quite high in vegetables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy's_Kitchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spyguy said:

Id not eat anything fried i MaccyDs. I just have coffee + fruitbags.

My point is that McD are not the only palce serving meat based meals. WHy get a hard on about McDs?

 

I agree. No worse (any probably fewer calories) than your average "meat" kebab.

Notably, the horsemeat scandal never touched McDs, and with good reason - they're on top of their supply chains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   100 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.