POSTING GUIDELINES/RULES

[POSTMAN]

A bit long winded but important to the smooth running of the board.
The new rules and posting guidelines were always going to come in when we changed over to the updated board.
They are here for a reason,non negotiable,and affects ALL members of the site.
Me,the MODS and many members were not happy with the way some users were using the board so things have to change.

We will now strongly enforce these rules, because, previously some posts went over the top, and became, at times, very boring especially with regard to certain subjects. Many of you will agree with them, some won't which is unfortunate, but this is the way RMC is now going to be..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KNOWN PERSONALITIES WITHIN ROYAL MAIL AND THE CWU

It is fair to say that those in the 'top jobs' come in for a lot of criticism on this forum, please post constructive criticism and nothing else. Any libellous or slanderous posts will be deleted or amended, in no way should these personalities have any abuse aimed at them, period.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please post to the most relevent forum - We provide different forums for different types of discussion - please try to use the right one for your new topic, and don't post duplicates of your topic in more than one forum. Topics in the 'wrong' forum will be moved to a different forum by the moderators.

Please don't use rude, abusive or politically offensive language - Messages which contain excessive and pointless swearing, or insults aimed at other people, or politically offensive language will be removed.

Please don't use rude, abusive or offensive language - Messages which contain excessive and pointless swearing, or insults aimed at other people, or offensive language will be removed.

Please bare in mind we get a lot of queries from our colleagues-Please don't just rant of on one in the thread about who's fault it is or isn't that it's happening ect,please try to answer their query if you can,if you can't then leave it for others who can.

Please quote carefully - Please don't over-use the quoting feature - most replies won't need to quote anything. Lots of unneccessary quoting results in long pages that take ages to download and read. However, do use this function if you are replying to a post several pages higher in the thread.

Please don't start complaint threads about the moderating - If you feel your message has been unreasonably deleted/locked, then please get in touch with the moderators. Don't just start another thread saying 'Why has my thread been deleted/locked?' or complaining about censorship - try talking to us first! Threads complaining about disappearing/locked posts will always be removed/locked.

Attachments and images-Please use these sparingly especially images,too many in one thread slows the loading down.
There is no need to post a reply in important topics with loads of images especially if it is not relevent to the topic.
Excessive images will be deleted and members posting them will be warned.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE RULES:PLEASE READ AND TAKE NOTE.

Ongoing actions that make more work for the Moderators and Administrators or regularly annoy other members and require moderator action will not be tolerated. If banning you is easier than dealing with the problems you are causing, you will be banned.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please remember everyone is welcome on this site. Customers, CWU Officers, Royal Mail Managers, all Royal Mail employees, the General Public, the press, MPs, so please do not resort to abuse if people of a different political persuasion or viewpoint to you, post on a thread.

If someone has a different position to you please respect their right to have differing views, and enjoy yourself when picking holes in their position in a constructive way. We would much rather have a long winded well thought out argument, picking out weak points in someone's position, than have a thread full of 1 line insults.

Please do not in any circumstances resort to name calling or behaviour that could be deemed as bullying or harassment. Specifically, regarding the term 'scab'. It does have an historical meaning in some circles, but it can also be seen as abuse by others. Therefore members are requested to use the more acceptable term of 'Strike Breaker'

Just because someone has a different viewpoint or political position to you, it does not mean that they are a 'Manager' or a 'Union fanatic', any posts making such assumptions or generalisations will be pulled or amended and the poster warned. This also applies to posts that are not aimed at individuals but at groups.

Except for nationally known personalities please do not name any individuals on here, rather use their 'work title' or 'my/a colleague' instead. When posting copies of articles available on the Internet that name individuals please ensure that links are provided to the original article.

If you suspect anyone of trolling do not respond to their posts as this will only encourage them. Most internet trolls post objectionable material or opinions just to get a reaction, if members do not respond then a troll will get bored and leave. If you believe a member is trolling then PM Postman or one of the Moderators.

Try to research information before commenting on a persons position. This can be a grey area and we cannot stifle a persons view on certain things just because we do not agree with it. However, those who hold these views should try to present them in the most constructive way possible.

Do not hijack threads for a flame war and do keep to the original topic, having a lot of off topic posts in the threads is no good to any one. POSTMAN or the Moderators will first post warnings in any thread that does go excessively 'Off Topic' and ultimately may lock it.

The PM facility is in no way be used to abuse or spam another member, regardless of who they are or where they work. Some users may also have their e-mail displayed and any abuse sent by this method will be reported to the ISP of the offender. Anyone receiving abusive messages by either method are requested to alert POSTMAN or a Moderator at the earliest opportunity. Please be aware in the case of email abuse all the headers of the email, and the main body of text, will be required to identify and report the culprit.

Do not try to get around the swear filter, it is there for a reason, please keep any swearing to a minimum please.

Please use ordinary English, no 'text talk' or posts entirely in LARGE CAPS which in internet etiquette is known as shouting.

As this board is readily available to the public and therefore minors no images of a pornographic nature are to be posted. Any such occurrence can and will be deleted by POSTMAN and Moderators as soon as it is discovered. Repeated offences of this nature may mean summary removal of your account and your ISP informed.

POSTMAN and the Moderators will address breaches of the above rules and agreements on an individual basis as soon as they are able.
However, members are requested, that if they do come across any posts that they feel breach the spirit and ethos of RMC, then please use the 'report post' function on the site,please use this if any of the above rules have been broken, do not PM or email the Admins or Moderators.
This is because site staff when they log on can deal with any reported posts straight away.
Please explain as best as you can why you feel the post has broken the rules.

Our decision is final when we have to make a ruling on a reported post.
We realise we can't please everyone all the time, but at the end of the day, we have to make a decision whether you agree with it or not.
We can't go round in circles so after careful consideration between the Admins/Moderators the final decision will be posted where it is most appropriate. The matter will then be considered closed.
We would ask members to both understand and respect this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By creating and using an account on Royalmailchat, you agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or other material that may violate any laws be it in your country of residence, the country where Royalmailchat is hosted or International Law. Doing so may result in your account being immediately and permanently banned. For serious breaches of this agreement, your Internet Service Provider may be notified, if deemed required by us. The IP address of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions, and the headers of all offending messages will be supplied if requested by your ISP.

You agree that royalmailchat have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time and without warning, should we see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered to being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent, neither royalmailchat nor phpBB shall be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.

POSTMAN & TEEBS

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Bumped - Post using abuse aimed at RMC members and "known personalities" are creeping back in so please everyone make sure you understand the rules, and if you obey them posts won't be deleted.

Most especially be careful when posting comments about Moya, if you break the law using slander or posting libellous comments then be aware she has sacked people back in Canada for doing the same, and you personally are responsible for your own posts.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

A guide the BBC published for Twitter - however the same applies to this board and hopefully explains why some of the rules are the way they are. Please remember is you commit slander or post libellous comments, or anything of a defamatory nature on here and the individual concerned start legal action there is little RMC can do to protect your anonymity

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20782257#TWEET626600" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People who tweeted photos allegedly of child killer Jon Venables are being charged with contempt of court. It's the latest in a long line of cases that suggest that ordinary social media users need to have a grasp of media law.

Journalists from traditional media are used to going on courses and reading works like McNae's Essential Law for Journalists. Those regularly covering court may have another level of knowledge. But the final resort is always to the expert advice of a media lawyer.

Here are some of the categories of law on which social media users in England and Wales are coming unstuck.

Libel on Twitter

Case: Lord McAlpine falsely accused

Alleged offence: Libel

Outcome: Cases against most tweeters dropped but action still being taken against Sally Bercow, wife of Commons speaker John Bercow

In November, Conservative peer Lord McAlpine announced his intention to seek libel damages from Twitter users over incorrect and defamatory insinuations linking him to child sex abuse.


A tweet is potentially libellous if it damages someone's reputation 'in the estimate of right thinking members of society'”

What can and can't you say on Twitter?

The Conservative peer had already received a substantial damages settlement from the BBC over a Newsnight report falsely suggesting he was a paedophile.

Newsnight did not name him in its report, but it prompted a guessing game on Twitter which resulted in the peer being falsely accused of sex offences.

The law concerning Twitter is clear - if you make a defamatory allegation about someone you can be sued for libel. It is the same as publishing a false and damaging report in a newspaper.

But until the McAlpine case, no one had seriously attempted to exercise that right in the UK.

Twitter users may have felt a "safety in numbers", says technology law expert Luke Scanlon, of Pinsent Masons. They assumed they could say anything they liked about public figures because they could not sue everybody.

Lord McAlpine has dropped threatened legal action against Twitter users with fewer than 500 followers and instructed his lawyers to concentrate their efforts on seeking £50,000 in damages from Mrs Bercow, in what is expected to be the first High Court Twitter libel trial.

At the height of the Twitter frenzy, Mrs Bercow tweeted to her 56,000 followers: "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*"

The test: A tweet is potentially libellous in England and Wales if it damages someone's reputation "in the estimation of right thinking members of society". It can do this by exposing them to "hatred, ridicule or contempt".

How it's changing: Under the Defamation Bill, due to become law later this year, litigants in England and Wales will have to show that the words they are complaining about caused "substantial harm" rather than simply "harm" to their reputations.

Website operators may also be forced to remove potentially libellous comments by anonymous "trolls" or hand over their names and addresses to the authorities. Scotland is expected to adopt its own version of the changes.
Reporting sex offences
Finger hovering over Twitter icon on touchscreen phone

The case: Twitter users name the victim of rape by footballer Ched Evans

Offence: Contempt of court

Outcome: Seven men and two women fined by Welsh magistrates

Wales footballer Ched Evans was convicted of raping the 19-year-old woman in April 2012. The case generated more than 6,000 tweets, with some people deciding to name the victim, suggesting she was "crying rape" and "money-grabbing".

All of those who pleaded guilty and were fined said that they did not realise they had broken the law by naming her.

The test: Media organisations are automatically banned from naming the victim of sexual assaults. The same rules apply to social media users.

How it's changing: It's not.
Breaking a court order

The case: Social media users circulate alleged pictures of child killer Jon Venables

Alleged offence: Contempt of court

Possible outcome: Fine or imprisonment

The attorney general is taking legal action against several people who published photographs said to show one of James Bulger's killers. There is a ban on publishing anything revealing the identity of Jon Venables or Robert Thompson.

Images said to show one of them as they are now appeared online earlier in February, and have since been removed. Venables and Thompson were convicted of killing two-year-old James in Merseyside in 1993.

In extremely rare cases, often involving child killers, a judge will make an order banning their identification to protect them from vigilante attacks and allow them to start a new life under a new identity.

The test: The social media users facing prosecution are accused of breaking the terms of a court injunction banning the identification of Venables and Thompson. The terms of the order mean that if a picture claims to be of Venables or Thompson, even if it is not actually them, there will be a breach of the order.

How it's changing: It isn't
Other contempt of court

The case: Juror Joanne Fraill contacts defendant in trial by Facebook

Offence: Contempt of court

Outcome: Fraill is jailed for eight months

In June 2011, 40-year-old Fraill became the first juror to be jailed for contempt over social media after she caused the collapse of a multi-million pound drugs trial after exchanging messages with a defendant.

Sentencing Fraill, the judge at London's High Court said in a written ruling: "Her conduct in visiting the internet repeatedly was directly contrary to her oath as a juror, and her contact with the acquitted defendant, as well as her repeated searches on the internet, constituted flagrant breaches of the orders made by the judge for the proper conduct of the trial."

The test: The main aim of contempt rules is to ensure fair trials by limiting juries' exposure to information that might be prejudicial. Jurors are meant to make up their minds on the evidence presented to them in court, not what they have seen in the media.

How it's changing: The Law Commission believes a new criminal offence will have to be created to prevent jurors looking up information about a case or chatting about it on social media. The government is due to legislate.
Tweeting a bomb threat

The case: Paul Chambers joked on Twitter that he would blow up Robin Hood Airport

Offence: Sending a "menacing electronic communication" under the 2003 Communications Act

Outcome: Found guilty in May 2010 but conviction quashed on appeal

John Cooper QC, who represented Chambers

Paul Chambers was living in Doncaster, South Yorkshire, when he joked on Twitter that he would blow up nearby Robin Hood Airport when it closed after heavy snow - potentially disrupting his travel plans.

He tweeted: "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your s**t together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

His conviction was eventually quashed by the High Court, amid a high profile campaign to defend free speech on Twitter.

The test: It can come down to the judgement of police and prosecutors. Aggravating factors, such as racism and prejudice against religion, disability and sexual orientation will lead to increased sentences.

How it's changing: The Chambers case appears to have been a turning point. Prosecutors have been urged to consider whether a threat to damage property or harm someone carries real menace before pushing ahead with a case.

"As a general rule, threats which are not credible should not be prosecuted, unless they form part of a campaign of harassment specifically targeting an individual within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997," say the new CPS guidelines.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Considering Career Suicide On RoyalMailChat ? Think Again (Advice in Red)

http://www.employmentlawworldview.com/c ... in/#page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It’s that time of year when we all reflect on the past 12 months and think about what we might want to change and improve. For HR professionals, the lessons can be significant; perhaps Bob in Accounts needs some urgent remedial guidance on what is and is not an appropriate Secret Santa gift? Or maybe it’s time to speak to Sandra in Marketing about suitable office dress? For almost all employees some timely guidance on blogging and social media is highly recommended, given that social media continues to be such fertile ground for Employment Tribunal litigation. Even good old email (just so 2013) continues to throw up the odd “I-can’t-believe-you-actually-wrote-that”, leading almost inevitably, though belatedly, to “I-can’t-believe-you-didn’t-delete-that”.

With the ever-changing landscape of UK employment law and the continuing technological advances that make 24 hour communication not only possible, but expected, it is vital that your employees understand not only what is expected of them in this respect, both inside and outside of work, but also what will happen if they don’t comply.

The case of Justine Sacco just before Christmas highlighted that even senior employees in PR companies might not appreciate the impact an ill-advised Tweet might have. For reasons known only to Sacco, prior to boarding a flight to Africa she posted “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” (A friend is reported as saying that Sacco clearly “made a mistake”, as she was “still figuring out” Twitter. Unfortunately she was able to find the “post” button and as test messages go, if such it really was, it was clearly pretty unthinking anyway.)

No sooner had Sacco posted her Tweet and jumped on the plane than the Twittersphere picked up and ran (nay, sprinted) with the Tweet, resulting in her being both publicly pilloried and jobless by the time she landed a few hours later.

Sacco’s employers may have been able to address the matter quickly, but what about the impact this kind of comment can have on the business in the longer term? The internet has an incredibly long memory; simply asking for a post to be removed does not mean it is forever deleted from the minds of users and, more often than not, the more salacious posts will be found elsewhere anyway, having been re-Tweeted, copied and pasted on Facebook, or reported on various news sites. Nothing is ever lost for good in cyberspace except, if you misuse it, your privacy, dignity and employment prospects.

The old adage “Prevention is better than cure” is never more appropriate than here, so be sure to implement a Social Media and Blogging Policy and ensure all staff are trained on it.

Such policies can run to many pages of explanation and examples, but since they can never anticipate every potential abuse, I quite like the shortest reported policy – “Be smart; don’t be stupid”. Brilliant. To put some flesh on those bare bones, we always advise employees debating whether something is appropriate to email/post/Tweet to consider “Would I be happy reading this out in court?”, “Would I say this in front of my parents?”, “Would I say this to someone of a different race/sexuality/gender/age/religion [delete as appropriate]?” and “Would I like this to attract the attention of the Press?” If you are even asking yourself these questions, then the answer is likely to be “no”, in which case your finger needs to move away from the “post” button and towards the “backspace” button. Quickly.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5sjEW-fIsw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Despite their obvious benefits Social Networks like facebook are causing real issues in the workplace. Emma Dickinson from CWU legal partners Simpson Millar explains some of the pitfalls and how to avoid them.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Social media and libel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/webwise/0/22718822" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Make sure that you know the law about the kind of comments that might get you in trouble.

Using social media - such as social networking sites Facebook and Twitter - can be a great way to interact and communicate with others. But it's worth remembering that we're potentially sharing our thoughts and views with the whole world.

Even if you've secured your account so that only a select few can view it, there's always a risk that something you share could be reposted elsewhere.

And if what you share on social media sites is 'defamatory' (meaning that it could be damaging to someone's reputation), then you could land yourself in hot water, legally speaking…

Think before you post

Print: Social media and libel

Consider the following scenario and think about the possible consequences.

You're watching a TV show and a famous guest is being really obnoxious. You grab your phone and tweet some very cutting remarks about that person.

In the eyes of the law, you're allowed to express honestly-held opinions. However, if your comments go beyond cutting remarks and become serious allegations, then you could face legal repercussions - especially if what you are saying is based on unfounded claims.

The legal viewpoint

An online comment, such as a tweet, is potentially libellous in England and Wales if it damages someone's reputation "in the estimation of right-thinking members of society". It can do this by exposing them to "hatred, ridicule or contempt".

It is a civil offence (rather than a criminal one) so you won't go to prison, but you could end up with a large damages bill. These rules also apply to a 'retweet' - which is when you share or forward someone else's message on Twitter.

You may not have made the original allegation, but retweeting it could be seen as an endorsement. You could be accused of making a defamatory statement, and you could be sued.

You can also be sued even if you do not name a person in a defamatory statement. Basically, if the person you are talking about can be identified from what you have said, then you can be sued.

Scotland has a different legal system to England and Wales, but the same principles broadly apply when it comes to defamation.

Word of warning

In a court of law it would be down to you to prove that what you've said is true or to use one of the other defences to defamation, such as truth (ie what you can prove to be true) and honest opinion.

And don't think that if you delete a defamatory post then you can't be sued - you can. The length of time it is visible could affect the amount of damages you would have to pay, but just because you've deleted it doesn't mean others haven't already reposted it. Once it's out there, you can't always take it back.

Any material published in the UK - including online content - is subject to defamation, privacy and contempt laws and could even be a racism or terrorism offence.

So if you're a national newspaper editor, a bedroom blogger or just a quick-fire tweeter, you do need to think before you post. The only way to be completely safe is to avoid posting gossip unless you know for a fact that it is true.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Bump:

A reminder to every member. Please read the whole thread as we will Moderate based on the advice given here. But also because Royal Mail and the law do not accept ignorance as a defence.

Remember if you post something that breaks Royal Mails policies or the law, and managers have seen it, and produced a hard copy, before a Moderator can take action, then you have no one to blame but yourself. Even calling a celebrity something that you think is a harmless, could be construed as breaking the law or damaging their reputation so please be careful.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

The law applies to everyone. Any tweet, facebook status, or RoyalMailChat Post could potentially provoke a prosecution or a civil lawsuit, such as a libel writ. So how can you avoid getting arrested for your Posts?


1. Don’t people post offensive things online all the time? Why do only some people get convicted?

This is a very good question. Basically, you can’t say anything – in an electronic form or otherwise – that is “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”, according to the Communications Act 2003.

That doesn’t mean you can’t say anything nasty. Grossly offensive means something that is likely to shock most people, like gloating about the murder of a much loved and respected teacher.

Context is everything: an Appeal Court judge in 2006 said that the “same content may be menacing or grossly offensive in one message and innocuous in another”. For example, quoting offensive dialogue from a film is different to using the same words to annoy someone.


2. Does someone have to complain to the police for someone to be arrested for Posting?

No. Crown Prosecution Services guidelines for prosecutors, issued in 2013, are clear that “there is no requirement that any person sees the message or is offended by it”.


3. If someone is only a minor, isn’t that a defence?

Nope. A 17-year-old was arrested for sending offensive tweets to Olympic diver Tom Daley in 2012. People aged 10 to 17 are usualy dealt with by youth courts and given different sentences but there’s nothing to exempt them from this legal threat.


4. What if I was really, really drunk?

Judges and magistrates don’t tend to like that line of defence very much.

Isabella Soley, one of the two people convicted of sending abusive messages to feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez admitted she was “highly drunk” when sending them, as was Michaela Turner, who received a suspended sentence for Facebook messages about murdered solider Lee Rigby.

5. If I defame someone who can’t afford to sue me, is that risk-free?

Ah, no. So then there’s the risk of defamation and social media. Anything you say that is “likely to cause serious harm” to someone or “expose them to hatred or ridicule” could potentially see you appear at the High Court, or more likely see you make a grovelling apology. This applies whether it’s Facebook, Twitter, RoyalMailChat, in print, or you wrote it on a wall somewhere.

The best defence is that the allegation is true, and in the context of “slagging someone off”, it’s going to be hard to convince a court that someone definitively is a “bellend”. Plus, defending yourself in court is a very costly business.

You could say there’s more chance that a rich, famous person will have the resources to sue, but there are “no win, no fee” conditional free arrangements these days that mean that ordinary Joes can start libel proceedings.

6. So does the law essentially say, “Don’t have any fun online” ?

The CPS’s guidelines say prosecutors should “have regard to the fact that the context in which interactive social media dialogue takes place is quite different to the context in which other communications take place”.

It goes on: “Access is ubiquitous and instantaneous. Banter, jokes and offensive comments are commonplace and often spontaneous. Communications intended for a few may reach millions.”

So “banter” is fine – for a prosecution to go forward, it can’t just be: “Offensive, shocking, or disturbing; satirical, iconoclastic or rude; an unpopular or unfashionable opinion … even if painful to those subject to it”. For it to be malicious it has to go beyond those definitions.

7. Which subjects should I avoid?

The law doesn’t clarify any specific subjects that any more dangerous to post about than any others – but there’s a clear trend towards convicting people who say disgusting things about high-profile people and news events, such as the Ann Maguire killing and the murder of the solider, Lee Rigby.


8. But hang on, my posts aren’t the same as the front page of a newspaper, are they?

You may have a point, but that’s not how the law sees it.

Media law expert and journalist David Banks, co-author of MacNae’s Essential Law for Journalists tells BuzzFeed: “It’s considered a form of publishing, but it’s not the same as the front page of the Daily Mail. Newspaper editors have done far more to jeapordise the legal process and the last time any of them were jailed was in 1948,” he says.

“It’s a major issue for the lawmakers and also the platform providers, in terms of what guidance they are giving people. It’s not in their interests to create a platform that can get people criminalised.

“It does seem that social media is providing a constant challenge to the way the law operates in this country.

“The conflict is that the social media is conversational in its nature – it’s a social medium and people get used to its banter-laden expressions of opinions. It’s the saloon, but it’s all on the internet.

“But the point is that when people said something in the saloon it wasn’t a problem. On Twitter they are having the same conversations, but they are are being repeated and retweeted and can be seen by anyone. That’s the real challenge and it’s one that the government is ducking.”


9. What if I just retweet or repost something someone else said?

That’s no defence either. The CPS, in its guidelines for prosecutors, makes clear that retweeting and repeating something should be treated in same way as the original post.


10. Isn’t there a free speech law protecting us all anyway?

Yes and no. There’s no specific free speech law in the UK, but we are covered by the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression.

Much of media law is concerned with finding the balance between Article 10 and other legislation governing what we can and can’t say, including defamation laws and the Communications Act, and every case is slightly different.

Article 10 makes clear that each European country will have laws that to some degree curtail freedom of expression in some way, “the protection of the reputation and rights of others”. In short, you have no right to expose someone to substantial hatred and ridicule or anything that’s grossly offensive.

11. If I have broken the law, is it OK if I just say “sorry”?

It can certainly help you.

In deciding whether something is malicious, prosecutors are told to decide whether the poster has shown “genuine remorse” and if they’ve taken swift steps to remove or block the post from public view.

This can also have a big effect on the kinds of damages that would be paid out in the event of an unsuccessful libel case.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Just a quick reminder to ALL members. Just because people say they are Posties on here don't forget they may be lurking managers looking for ammunition to discipline YOU.

Before you press the submit button ask yourself if you have posted information which could help to identify you.. This may not sound a big deal but if you post on holiday this week, finished 2 hours late or at my office we have a new manager, then you have narrowed down the possibilities.

Then you come on one day after a few sherberts and post something that could land you in big trouble.................

You'll only have yourself to blame. Think I am kidding we had at least 3 people suspended in Bristol for posting on here early in RMCs history, and since then at least 4 people have been sacked for posting "sensitive" material on here, all because they posted identifiable information.

Be safe, be internet savvy.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... e-off.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stockbroker sacked after tweeting: 'Think I just hit a cyclist. But I'm late for work so had to drive off lol'

A spokesman for the Bristol-based employee said: "One of our employees has failed to conduct themselves to the standards we expect of our staff.
"We find these online comments totally unacceptable.
"Upon becoming aware of this issue we have terminated this person's employment with immediate effect."

[TrueBlueTerrier]

To tweet or not to tweet - offensive tweets and unfair dismissal

http://www.williamfry.ie/publication-ar ... issal.aspx

An employee in the UK was dismissed after he posted non-work related offensive and derogatory tweets on his private Twitter account outside of work time. This is understood to be the first case to deal with the issue of unfair dismissal in such circumstances.

The employee, Mr. Laws, who worked as a risk and loss prevention investigator for Game Retail Ltd. (Game) created a private Twitter account (which did not specifically link him to Game) to follow other Game stores’ Twitter accounts. This was for the purpose of monitoring them for inappropriate content. He permitted approximately 65 Game stores to follow his account and made no attempt to restrict tweet visibility. In his private capacity, he posted a number of offensive and abusive non-work related tweets. This was reported by a co-worker and an investigation ensued during which 28 tweets were identified as offensive. Mr Laws was suspended during the investigation and, following a disciplinary hearing, he was dismissed for gross misconduct on the basis that the tweets offended “dentists, caravan drivers, golfers, the A&E department, Newcastle supporters, the police and disabled people”.

Mr Laws brought a claim for unfair dismissal. At the first hearing, the Tribunal held that Mr Laws had been unfairly dismissed because he had tweeted the offensive material in his own time and no employees or customers of Game would have seen the tweets. On appeal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) disagreed and held that it was wrong to assume that Mr Law’s followers were restricted to his social acquaintances. The stores following Mr Laws would have seen the offensive material and, furthermore, Twitter was freely accessible to customers. The EAT was particularly influenced by the fact that Mr Laws had made no attempt to use restriction settings and had failed to open two separate Twitter accounts (one for work purposes and one for purely personal use).
A William Fry survey carried out in 2014 showed that employees spend on average 39 minutes per working day on social media accounts. Accordingly, it is vital for employers to have a social media policy in place. Employers should remind employees that even if tweets are posted outside of work hours and are not principally directed at co-workers, such tweets may have an impact on their employment and, accordingly, could result in disciplinary action.
Click here for our Employment Snapshot 2014 – Social Media in the Workplace.http://www.williamfry.ie/Libraries/test ... .sflb.ashx

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Fair dismissal for derogatory comments made against employer on Facebook

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail. ... &utm_term=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The EAT found that a dismissal was fair where an employee had made derogatory comments about his employer on Facebook, even though the dismissal was two years after the comments were made (British Waterways Board v Smith).

In addition to the derogatory comments on his Facebook page, Mr Smith had also made comments about drinking while on standby for work, which was against company policy. His manager had known about the drinking comment in 2012, but no action was taken. Mr Smith raised various grievances in 2013 as a result of which his manager flagged up the Facebook comments, to demonstrate in the investigation that the issues were not all one-sided. He was, as a consequence, summarily dismissed. The EAT found that the dismissal was fair.

This demonstrates that, whilst it is advisable to act without unnecessary delay in cases of misconduct, an employer that has failed to do so will not necessarily lose the opportunity to take action at a later date.

[POSTMAN]

Slight change...

POSTMAN and the Moderators will address breaches of the above rules and agreements on an individual basis as soon as they are able.
However, members are requested, that if they do come across any posts that they feel breach the spirit and ethos of RMC, then please use the 'report post' function on the site,please use this if any of the above rules have been broken, do not PM or email the Admins or Moderators.
This is because site staff when they log on can deal with any reported posts straight away.
Please explain as best as you can why you feel the post has broken the rules.

Please don't use rude, abusive or offensive language - Messages which contain excessive and pointless swearing, or insults aimed at other people, or offensive language will be removed.

[POSTMAN]

Another change...

Our decision is final when we have to make a ruling on a reported post.
We realise we can't please everyone all the time, but at the end of the day, we have to make a decision whether you agree with it or not.
We can't go round in circles so after careful consideration between the Admins/Moderators the final decision will be posted where it is most appropriate. The matter will then be considered closed.
We would ask members to both understand and respect this.

[POSTMAN]

UPS employee fired for allegedly posting racist comment on WSB Facebook page...

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/ups-em ... /763671437" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SOUTH FULTON COUNTY, Ga. - After Channel 2 Action News posted a story on Facebook about an officer being fired for an incident involving a black man, a message appeared in the comment section that read:

“Thugs deserve it. If a family member so be it. However, I do no have any thugs in my family that I am aware of. Seems to be people of color who are the problem.”

Now, a United Parcel Service Inc. human resources supervisor accused of posting the racially insensitive comment is off the job.