Factual description removed by Consumer Action Group management as 'libellous'

[Zedres]

Hi all - Forum Management/CAGbot were right - comments removed were indeed libellous, I'm really sorry. I was overstressed and panicking myself as when I was writing that post, I was convinced my description was factual.... putting increasing pressure on myself and on people with no serious reason... It wasn't factual - I was simply talking with the wrong people. My request is now being dealt with and I'll receive my bills shortly - pls see link:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/telecoms-mobile-fixed/179167-bt-taking-peoples-money.html

 

Post Edited

Hi Zedres,

 

The post that you created in the following thread has been edited

 

-----

 

 

Reason: Libellous comments removed

-----

 

This is an automated message, please do not reply.

 

Regards,

The Forum Management

Edited March 3, 2009 by Zedres

[caro]

The site team have to err on the side of caution in order to avoid litigation. We simply don't have the resources to risk a court case, even if we can prove the accuracy of the post in court.

[Bookworm]

Was the edited word "stolen" by any chance? ;-)

 

If no, then don't read what follows, it's irrelevant, up to a point, the rule of thumb to libellous comments still applies.

 

If yes, then it is libellous. "stealing" indicates a voluntary and permanent intent to deprive, and can only be established by a court of law. Until such time a judge says it was theft, then you would have to qualify your statement by saying "allegedly" before each and every one of those statements.

[Conniff]

I have to agree with the others on this. What you have said is your interpretation of things and not 'fact'.

[Zedres]

edited - see top of page.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Zedres