On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:42:56 +0000, Marc Brett
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:14:26 -0000, "Paul Stevenson"
wrote:


"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

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

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped

From whom?

Why?

Received this from Stephen:

You are welcome to forward the attached text, which I think answers your
questions, to the newsgroup - it has already been on various Yahoo!Groups
and similar material will be in the Croydon press this week.

Thanks to everyone for their messages of support - my inbox has been filling
all day.

As it is no big secret, the parties that **threatened** to take legal action
we -

Tramtrack Croydon Ltd over "inaccurate" speculation regarding the cause of
several recent incidents.

Bombardier Transportation over "libellous rubbish" that was published on my
site, with fears that some reports (many dating back some time) contained
inaccurate information on tram defects, which may influence other cities
decisions on future tram orders. Any further "inaccurate" comments would
result in letters from their lawyers without warning.

Neither company identified specific reports which they objected to.
Everything that was published was done so in good faith, based on the
information sent to me. However the site was only as accurate as the
information it received.

IANAL, but.... In the midst of everything, these two paragraphs speak
volumes. A phrase like "libellous rubbish" seems too emotive to be
included in a proper legally-considered letter - as opposed to a mere
scare tactic - while the lack of any specific objections suggests they
haven't really got a leg to stand on. If they had said, "Your report
of XX/XX/0X is inaccurate for X, Y or Z reason," then you have
something to work with, but essentially it sounds like Tramlink and
Bombardier are saying, "You have libeled us on your site, but we're
not going to tell you where, when and how, so you'll have to take the
whole thing down."

uk.legal added

The offers of assistance are very welcome, but at the end of the day, I
publish the website and I write the website. If future reports could lead to
legal action without warning, I can't afford to take the personal risk. I
don't have a legal team, or a huge publishing group to fight the claim. And,
I do not want to expose my sources to clear my name.

If people want to write letters of support to magazines or Newspapers,
please do, but nothing short of legal indemnities on past material (edited
if required), and legally binding guidelines on future articles (i.e. If I
follow the guidelines, I won't get sued), will allow a return of the News in
the previous format. I made some changes on Saturday and suggested this
approach to TCL - I had hoped it would have been possible to have reached
some agreement with them. The situation with Bombardier has unfortunately
overtaken that process.

I believe the Croydon Advertiser, and Guardian will be running a story in
their next editions.

I am sorry it has come to this, but I have to protect myself first at the
end of the day.


regards

--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War, and in Films & TV:
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk/