"Shutting down" discussion

All very disturbing.

Can hardly think the thread would have been used in legal proceedings!
Perhaps should close the one about the North Korean leader too......

All smacks of "Big Brother" brandishing the big stick of censorship. one wonders why ?

It simply doesn't Do to Rude about Royalty.

One rule for us and no rules for them. It's not the fact that he may be guilty that rankles it's the fact that we are not allowed to talk about it.

Where's Freedom of Speech, now?

I have been pondering this.
As I said on the now deleted thread, it can come down to who can affird the best lawyers.
This site is small, and any legal team they could afford, is in no way going to match that of the Royal Family, or the Government.

Guess we'll need to be ultra cautious in future if discussions involve a named person, just in case ?

We'll have to think up code names.

But not say to whom they refer on the website?

Free speech is a myth though. It never existed. I am not sure why people ever thought it did.

The deleted thread on here did say something about, he can be discussed, but not accused of being guilty?

I suppose that would be slanderous for the site?

It would be good to know exactly what made them decide to take it down - so we can avoid treading on legal toes.

Hypothetically, if someone is not actually accused of something in another country, there is nothing that can be done to clear their name.

BUT if something was written or said in their own country that could just possibly be judged as slander or libel, then that can be used in a legal action as a means of clearing that person's name.

Therefore all the media are being warned not to put themselves in that position. I have that from a Very Reliable Source.

So he could be cleared because he was being talked about in a possible slanderous way?
Does that work with "ordinary" people too?

There is a pic in today's Guardian of a very well known person, but younger looking, standing next to a young woman with his arm around her waist.

Oh, please. If it was anyone else, the thread would have been permitted to run and run. It's what we do! It's a chat forum.

It's nonsense, I'll just go on Twitter to read what people think (if I could be bothered). Mind you, apparently "hashtag the person in question" was trending on Twitter over the weekend, but that somehow also disappeared.

Maybe we should refer to him as "Voldemort" or "He who shall not be named"

All the newspapers are running the story in great detail, but none that I can see has opened any article to public comments.

They and GNHQ have to play safe I suppose.

I should have said standing next to the young woman in question with his arm around her waist.

Tedious, predictable and whilst I understand base control has to keep an eye on threads I feel deleting it may just possibly infringe our right to free speech. To the point I'd read the thread, no one was suggesting Prince A had committed any legal crime so why the deletion?

petallus - if it's the same photograph, his arm was resting nicely on her bare midriff. Not illegal, of course.

I dont think that the right to free speech is enshrined in law anywhere.

Justine afraid, again, of losing her millions. Anyone remember the Gina Ford thing on Mumsnet?

#thereismoneyatstake

Discussing the behaviour of celebs, royals and the powers-that-be is not against the law. It isn't libellous to refer to what has been alleged. Private Eye has this off pat, these days. Twitter and the media are busily gushing out opinions and allegations, with lots of links to other notorious stories.

I trust that Gransnet isn't being threatened by royals' lawyers - that would make an even hotter story than the current ones about programmes being prevented from airing and a prince being friendly with a registered sex offender who was convicted for procuring under-age girls!