On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 02:04:37 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:


After more than six years of supporting Tramlink, Stephen Parascandolo has
been forced by legal threats to remove the Latest News section from the
Unofficial Croydon Tramlink website.

http://www.tramlink.co.uk/news/index.shtml

This is not an issue which causes me particular concern [yet] other than
feeling that the better course of action for the benefit of all webmasters who
produce sites to the same standard of the Unofficial Croydon Tramlink, would
have been at the very minimum for legal advice to have been sought. Clearly
this would have cost money which the webmaster doesn't have, but perhaps an
appeal for donations to a "fighting fund" might have been a route to follow.
If all members of the site's discussion group made a small contribution, about
£35,000 could have been raised. However this was not something that the
webmaster wish do and therefore the News Section of his site was abolished
with all archived material removed.

IMHO it was the archived material that was at the root of the problem since it
provided a searchable database of incidents on the Croydon Tramlink website
and the actions that were taken to restore the service or vehicle[s] back to
normal operational mode. Where there were perceived shortcomings in the
actions taken, and the associated time scales, then editorial comment made was
deemed to be "libellous rubbish" and considered by the suppliers of services
or equipment to adversely affect their reputation and possible orders or
contracts in the future. I think I can see were all of this would have lead
which for someone running a "hobbyist" site, it was not worth the risk of
having substantial damages being awarded against him.

Whether there are any parallels that can be drawn from this with other similar
advocacy sites is uncertain, although I can say I have received complainants
from an organisation about "editorial comment" made on my site
[www.tfwl.org.uk], so I think this is a trend that is likely to escalate in
the future. Indeed we are all 'guilty' by following any policy of objecting
to anything in print which we feel is misinformation on our favourite mode of
transport. Whether we all shut up and say nothing is a matter of further
discussion but it is a warning shot that anything said in print must be the
'whole truth and nothing but the truth'. Pity the newspapers don't adopt the
same levels of responsibility.

David Bradley