I see that the 'name and shame' kind of post gets removed from the forum. However, there are certain people operating out here to feed off gullible ex-pats. Perhaps someone could start a webpage - or direct me to one - which warns of crooked financial advisers, dodgy estate agents, glib salesmen and other low lifes.

But as a commercial site how can BE legally allow threads to be posted naming and shaming?


If they were just a site run by a few mates for the sole purpose of a few mates it would be a lot easier to allow it but it would just open BE up for all sorts of legal action.

Is this any help?

http://www.costa-action.co.uk/index.asp?file=Caution

Trouble is that the site owners can be held liable for whats posted on here, and even if nothing comes of it all the hassle and time that is spent dealing with correspondance etc etc is not worth it.

Whilst I'd agree that people need to know about these things, unfortunately this cant always be the place for it

If anyone would like the name of a crooked builder in Spain and also the name of agents who are cheating and lying to people looking to buy in Spain then pm me. Surely a pm is ok.

pm's are fine, as they aren't in the public domain

or used to express your sexual deviancies.

Very interesting site. Notice Chiclana is named too.

Hi,

I don't think that legal argument stands up. There are forums all over the internet on a variety of industries and topics where companies and people are sometimes named and shamed. The legal action would be aimed directly at the user, which BE can be ordered to provide the details of. At the worst case scenario BE will be sent a polite letter or e-mail asking them to remove the offending content.

Examples you ask? Sure!

http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/ People publicly slate the biggest ISPs in the UK. There are many awful reviews and plenty of accusations flying around.

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/ A place for people to discuss their webhosting providers. Companies are publicly accused of knowingly overcharging cards there, stealing hardware, going bust and leaving people high and dry.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/index.php Electronics. People publicly slate some of the biggest retailers over the quality of their goods, customer service. There are also plenty of threads accusing various couriers of being thieves.


So, while I understand the policy, the reasons given for it are fairly weak. If you want to say we can't trust the content of people that join up, post an accusation and then never come back, I agree, delete it.

If you want to say we never want the slightest controversial topic posted on here, reconsider your ownership of an online community with thousands of members.

But hey, it's your forum, do what you want.

I doubt it's that simple.

As I understand it, this forum is mainly paid for by advertising. I doubt many advertisers would stay around if things got out of hand (which, let's face it, they do on many forums). Furthermore, it's not just the forum owners - the hosting companies and anyone else involved in the site's production can be targetted. Once again, advertisers won't take too kindly to the site being null routed for a week whilst the matter is being resolved.

In a world where even the likes of eBay and YouTube can back away from a bit of controversy, it's hardly surprising that BE chooses to keep well away from the line.

Start a site, then we can post it all over to you, then you can worry about it.
I don`t think you realise how big this site is and how many countries it covers, letting one on would probable start a landslide, people don`t really wan`t to spend their time reading "yes you did, no I didn`t" do they ?

PS read rule 12. ;-)

Quite right and well said.

Since you mentioned webhosting, allow me to give some examples. Yes, I'm fully qualified and experienced to discuss the implications of the hosting side of it.

For example, if I own a server (like the one BE is running from) and my server get's compromised (happens every day) and starts sending out Spam e-mails. What happens? Sooner or later (usually very soon) I get a nice friendly warning from such and such organization (let's say SPAMCOP) telling me that Spam e-mail has been detected coming from my server. It will then give me the details.

Am I held liable? No, not at that time. If I ignore that warning, then I become liable.

Another example. If I'm unknowingly hosting a website that tries to trick people into giving away personal data (PHISHING). I receive a warning telling me that a website I'm hosted is impersonating another site. I then get lots of technical information and am asked to deal with it.

Am I held liable? No, not at that time. If I ignore that warning, then I become liable.

How about a more general example. YouTube. Type near enough any song title into youtube and you will get a match. You can then watch and listen to said song.

Are youtube liable? Nope. If they receive a warning about said song and continue to host it, they become liable. Somewhere in the future youtube might be asked to provide information on the person(s) that posted that song. The person is liable.

I have given examples of very large forums that face the same proposed legal problems. Yet they allow their members to issue warnings and they are all still around to this day. Do they allow their members to post a simple thread like "blabla are cheats, they conned me!" ? Nope, that's a very simplistic post that can't be taken seriously. It would get deleted. Do they allow a very detailed posting where someone puts their point across? Yep. This is an open internet the last time I checked. Everyone has the opportunity to defend themselves.

Now, if BE doesn't want the hassle of responding to such things, fair enough. I can understand it. Hell, I might even do the same thing in their situation. I wouldn't, however, blame it on potential legal problems. There is just no basis for it.

I don't have a problem with the policy, I just take issue with the reasoning.

Well I run a Car Club site and we had a name and shame section. We were worried about it so we consulted a solicitor well versed in these matters. he advised that we were indeed putting ourselves at risk by allowing people to shame companies / individuals. They also said we could put a disclaimer on the site, although it didn't necessarily mean that we would be exonerated if it went to court.

So we took the shamed section off

Not worth the risk

End of story!

Nothing wrong with being cautious. ON the flip side though, I notice you have an employment offers forum here. What would happen if someone took a job there and wasn't paid at the end of the month? Could the user then sue BE for damages? Or would it come down to individual responsibility?

It's the same argument and a different policy is used for it.