CWU UPDATE

[guardianangel]

[X_hamster]

Brilliant

[Slim2none]

Well played my friend. Well played!

[LouBarlow]

Pretty sure that is libel. Might not want to be admitting creating it.

[guardianangel]

Pretty sure that is libel. Might not want to be admitting creating it.

Just reposted from another site ,not me sunshine.

[Rommagic]

I guess the Friday update.

[miles_peters]

finally a bit of honesty...

[worktotime]

f***ing brilliant the best update we have had ,

[Poppyellie69]

Bang on time too yeeeoooh!!!!

[LouBarlow]

Pretty sure that is libel. Might not want to be admitting creating it.

Just reposted from another site ,not me sunshine.

I’m not sure how the law works in that regard. You could be liable for just posting it. It was funny but I don’t want to see you get into trouble.

[steve2zaf]

Nice one

Pretty sure that is libel. Might not want to be admitting creating it.

Get a life you miserable weasel. You must be so much fun at social events - Not.

[miles_peters]

Pretty sure that is libel. Might not want to be admitting creating it.

Just reposted from another site ,not me sunshine.

I’m not sure how the law works in that regard. You could be liable for just posting it. It was funny but I don’t want to see you get into trouble.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Jack1960]

Best thing on this site in ages

[yellowbelly]

Pretty sure that is libel. Might not want to be admitting creating it.

Just reposted from another site ,not me sunshine.

Be careful, apparently that's no defence, operator(s) of the original website and this one could also be in hot water:

Defamation Act 2013:

There is a long-standing common law rule that it is no defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to prove that he or she was only repeating what someone else had said (known as the “repetition rule”).

Operators of websites
(1)This section applies where an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.
(2)It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website.
(3)The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that—
(a)it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement,
(b)the claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint in relation to the statement, and
(c)the operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint in accordance with any provision contained in regulations.

[LouBarlow]

Pretty sure that is libel. Might not want to be admitting creating it.

Just reposted from another site ,not me sunshine.

Be careful, apparently that's no defence, operator(s) of the original website and this one could also be in hot water:

Defamation Act 2013:

There is a long-standing common law rule that it is no defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to prove that he or she was only repeating what someone else had said (known as the “repetition rule”).

Operators of websites
(1)This section applies where an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.
(2)It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website.
(3)The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that—
(a)it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement,
(b)the claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint in relation to the statement, and
(c)the operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint in accordance with any provision contained in regulations.

Exactly. Not only is the OP risking action the forum is too and I don’t want to see either jeopardised frankly. Sorry to be the party pooper aka the weasel or whatever else you want to throw at me. This is the world we live in. Words still have consequences.