Banned from Pi$$poti

It's got to be a record lol Banned in less than 2 hours of joining and accused of being a troll just because I had an opinion that was different from theirs. All I said was that Brent should maybe make a cash injection, not millions as that would be ridiculous, but just a little. They blamed this seasons budget shortfall on Sheridans misfortune last season ! I think that is a total pile of rubbish to be honest. So I simply said that Brent should stump up some cash rather than loan it to the club and charge interest and that he has pulled the club apart enough for his own financial gain. Didnt even get a chance to defend myself either. Got slagged off and then banned. What a childish, pathetic site if they cant take any criticism ! !

KelShacks wrote:

It's got to be a record lol Banned in less than 2 hours of joining and accused of being a troll just because I had an opinion that was different from theirs. All I said was that Brent should maybe make a cash injection, not millions as that would be ridiculous, but just a little. They blamed this seasons budget shortfall on Sheridans misfortune last season ! I think that is a total pile of rubbish to be honest. So I simply said that Brent should stump up some cash rather than loan it to the club and charge interest and that he has pulled the club apart enough for his own financial gain. Didnt even get a chance to defend myself either. Got slagged off and then banned. What a childish, pathetic site if they cant take any criticism ! !

They don't like it up 'em over the road there.

Sod them all, they are the blind leading the blind and there are many Brent admirers on that site. The Stasi of all football forums, that is what ...... is.

They are a joke mate. Looks like its either their way or the highway. Doesnt surprise me to be honest because the club seems to be run in a similar fashion. Maybe they all have more in common with Jimmy than they think lol

Disappointing, but sadly not that surprising.

KelShacks wrote:

It's got to be a record lol Banned in less than 2 hours of joining and accused of being a troll just because I had an opinion that was different from theirs. All I said was that Brent should maybe make a cash injection, not millions as that would be ridiculous, but just a little. They blamed this seasons budget shortfall on Sheridans misfortune last season ! I think that is a total pile of rubbish to be honest. So I simply said that Brent should stump up some cash rather than loan it to the club and charge interest and that he has pulled the club apart enough for his own financial gain. Didnt even get a chance to defend myself either. Got slagged off and then banned. What a childish, pathetic site if they cant take any criticism ! !

Suggesting that Brent should make a cash injection is a banning offence ten times over! Nool told his independent mods to ban you as an obvious subversive, however pledge your undying love for jim and a directors box experience coud be yours!

Moved by me Kel, one of the few mod things we do here is move the Pasoti threads to the Zoo.

Sorry Frank didnt know. Will keep it in mind for the future

Don't apologise mate its not an issue.

Welcome mate, you can have a bust up (sorry I meant debate) and fall out with anybody and everybody on yer and still crack on

This is the reason I have just been emailed as to why I have been banned.


Hi

Your account has been deactivated due to libellous comments made by you
and you are not welcome on Pasoti.

Your libellous comment has been removed - "he has fleeced this club and
stripped it and pulled it apart enough for his own financial gain".

Pasoti Mods

To which this was my reply.....



If that is a libelous comment then why am I not being taken to court ? How pathetic are you guys ? Honestly ? I tell you what take me to court and sue me for 100k and then you can settle for 75k yeah ?

nothing changes over the road.

sad little forum..at least #stripesareback

Careful know kels..banned for libel comment..offer em 100k..but haggle em down to 75k..or your have gouldbergs on your back..

You are confusing Human Libel Law with Pasoti Libel Law. Under the Pasoti version its only libelous if its about Brent or Nool. Under the Pasoti law you can say anything derogatory about enemies of Nool without fear but anything the other way results in bannings and the creation of a dossier.

Minds you though, if you think you are as safe as safe can be here , be a tad cautious.

I once received a letter from a solicitor firm based in Cornwall acussing me of saying libel and slander type comments. The words were said on here too. After sending an email to the firm and stating that it was not me who said the comments, the matter was cleared up. I got a very Luke warm apology from someone over the road there,  via ATD mods, and an invite to share a beer. A no-no on the second and a diabolical attempt on the first It still pees me off to this day, i still have the letter.

I try to keep things football related as much as possible, even though Brent is a |€€¢∆ and appears to be :- 1) sucking the club dry 2) surrounding himself with yes men and wannabe taggers on and  3) has the audacity to tell everyone he is a fan, unbelievable (would this paragraph be considered to be slanderous or libel related, should I remove it/mods remove it/change the way it is wrritten/wait for the shit to hit the fan or not worry about it as it is my right to express an opinion).

Having said that, I believe that Argyle will finish in fifth spot,  just for the record.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

You are confusing Human Libel Law with Pasoti Libel Law. Under the Pasoti version its only libelous if its about Brent or Nool. Under the Pasoti law you can say anything derogatory about enemies of Nool without fear but anything the other way results in bannings and the creation of a dossier.

Don't forget the threat of the boot boys paying a visit, as i have read on here many a time.

It's a case of do as you are told or else from that lot over the road there, Stasi to the feckin core.

VillageGreen wrote:

Minds you though, if you think you are as safe as safe can be here , be a tad cautious.

I once received a letter from a solicitor firm based in Cornwall acussing me of saying libel and slander type comments. The words were said on here too. After sending an email to the firm and stating that it was not me who said the comments, the matter was cleared up. I got a very Luke warm apology from someone over the road there,  via ATD mods, and an invite to share a beer. A no-no on the second and a diabolical attempt on the first. And it still pees me off to this day. I still have the letter.

I try to keep things football related as much as possible, even though Brent is a |€€¢∆, who is sucking the club dry and not moving the club as forward as we would all like.

While I understand that, I think that it is wrong and unfair how people aren't aloud freedom of speech and the right to say what they want. I f what is being said is untrue, then simply correct whats been said. There is much more adult, respectable ways to deal with the matter. I think it is just disrespectful to send their comment and then ban you so you cant respond. Very playground like and to behave in such a way is, quite honestly, embarrassing to the club

Pasoti...sigh

Just as a reminder this is the current libel laws not pasoti laws.

Thought everybody(Mods Included) should be aware that new libel laws come into effect from tomorrow.




There are a lot of things in this that certain individuals who constantly threaten libel actions will not like.




Defamation Act 2013

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted




The new laws are aimed at giving better protection to people expressing their opinions are to come into force in England and Wales on Jan 1st 2014




Claimants will now have to show they have suffered "serious harm" before suing, under the Defamation Act 2013.




The government said the law would reverse the "chilling effect" current libel laws have had on freedom of expression and legitimate debate.




Various individuals have faced unfair legal threats for fairly criticising a company, person or product in the past, the Ministry of Justice said.




It said the Act would provide "clearer, better protection for people publicly expressing opinions", while campaigners said it was "good news for free speech".




Under the Defamation Act, a statement can be said to be defamatory if its publication "caused or is likely to cause serious harm" to individuals' or businesses' reputation. However, only if businesses have suffered, or are likely to suffer, "serious financial loss", can they bring a claim of defamation against commentators.




The authors of defamatory comments can avoid becoming liable for damages if they can show "that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true" or, if the comments took the form of an opinion, that the opinion is one which "an honest person could have held the basis of any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published; anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of".




Authors shown not to have held the opinion themselves will lose their right to rely on this 'honest opinion' defence.




Under the Act website operators can be pursued by those who claim they have been defamed as a result of comments on their site even if they are not the author of those comments. The new Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations sets out the process operators have to adhere to in order to escape liability for comments complained of.




Upon notification, authors of the comments would have five days to issue a written response outlining whether they consent to the removal of the comments from the site. A failure to respond would place website operators under the obligation to delete the comments within 48 hours of that five day deadline expiring if they are to avoid exposure to liability.




When notifying authors that their comments are subject to defamation complaints, website operators would have to conceal the identity of the complainant from those authors if such anonymisation is sought by the complainants.




In cases where the authors do not consent to the removal of their comments, those individuals or businesses would be required to inform website operators of their name and address and tell the operator whether or not they consent to the handing over of their details to the complainant. A complainant would have to be informed by the operator within 48 hours of an author's response and of the content of that response.




Website operators would be required to delete comments from their site within two days of receiving a notice of complaint if it has "no means of contacting the poster" through a "private electronic communication" channel, such as via email.




If authors that do respond to website operators' notifications of a complaint fail to provide details of their full name and address, the operators would have to remove their comments within two days of that response. If a "reasonable website operator" believes that details given by an author are "obviously false" then they must also delete the comments within the 48 hour deadline.




In cases where authors of defamatory comments repost the same or substantially similar comments after they have been removed twice before from the site, website operators would be obliged to remove the comments within 48 hours of receiving a notice of complaint.

Terrible site pisspotty its just not nitty gritty enough for my liking..lol

Frank Bullitt wrote:

You are confusing Human Libel Law with Pasoti Libel Law. Under the Pasoti version its only libelous if its about Brent or Nool. Under the Pasoti law you can say anything derogatory about enemies of Nool without fear but anything the other way results in bannings and the creation of a dossier.

Couldnt have put it better myself frank talk about hitting the nail bang on the head mate

I only signed up to ATD because I read on Pasoti they published porn links and taboo material.

It didn't turn out to be true but i accidentally ended up joining in the forum debates.

As for the Pasoti moderating, I always thought Nazism found its beginnings in mental illness that got out of control. I wouldn't be surprised if Pasoti moderating culture did either.

Quote KelShacks:

'While I understand that, I think that it is wrong and unfair how people aren't aloud freedom of speech and the right to say what they want. I f what is being said is untrue, then simply correct whats been said. There is much more adult, respectable ways to deal with the matter. I think it is just disrespectful to send their comment and then ban you so you cant respond. Very playground like and to behave in such a way is, quite honestly, embarrassing to the club.'


This is where it all started about 8 years ago, down on Napoleon's Farm, when I and a select few other visionaries were banned for, 'Not trusting in Stapes and his lovely family'. The brown nosing of anyone in control at HP has now become endemic among the tent/gazebo dwellers and bucket rattlers. Reluctant Jim spotted this weakness and is using them as a thick, janner shield. 

Maybe the order to ban Kelshacks came directly from the REAL owners of Pasoti.