1TeaminSX

[Napster]

Ah yes but ISPs have been sued for people posting messages on their message groups. Newspapers have been sued for things their reporters have written.

Don't make the mistake of thinking because you post it, only you are held accountable. Disclaimers are fine for a lot of things, but to accuse the club of lying etc is libellous will lead to things unwaranted.

Don't forget Ron is counter-suing Wignall...

 

[steveh1510]

Ban everyone but 1teaminsx, then he'll have no-one to offend. Simple.

 

[Technician]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ July 16 2004,09:14)]Ban everyone but 1teaminsx, then he'll have no-one to offend. Simple.

Your funny... eating too much soup?

Napster: When I said "I accept full responsibility" I am including the position I could be leaving SZ in, with what I say. I doubt that this issue will be answered now anyway, so I'll let it drop... unless you can answer it of course?

 

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (Technician @ July 16 2004,09:40)]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ July 16 2004,09:14)]Ban everyone but 1teaminsx, then he'll have no-one to offend. Simple.

Your funny... eating too much soup?

1) It's you're not your.

2) No, I haven't had any soup.

3) Chill out!

 

[Technician]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ July 16 2004,09:46)]

Quote[/b] (Technician @ July 16 2004,09:40)]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ July 16 2004,09:14)]Ban everyone but 1teaminsx, then he'll have no-one to offend. Simple.

Your funny... eating too much soup?

1) It's you're not your.

2) No, I haven't had any soup.

3) Chill out!

 

 

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Technician @ July 16 2004,09:40)]Napster: When I said "I accept full responsibility" I am including the position I could be leaving SZ in, with what I say. I doubt that this issue will be answered now anyway, so I'll let it drop... unless you can answer it of course?

I can answer it. Unless every single person posts in every post that they post that they claim full reponsibility for their thoughts, then as hosts of the discussion, we are partly liable for allowing dissemination.

This is publishing law, IIRC, and applicable to websites as well.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Technician - apologies for the lack of response; I have been utterly snowed at work.

Brief response: yes, there has to be an audit of attendances - since attendances = money = tax liability.  As a limited company, they are required by the Companies Act 1985 to publish audited accounts every year, so there will be an independent body auditing the accuracy of those accounts - namely SUFC Ltd's accountants.

BTW, not sure references to "appeared" and "mistake" were that kosher!  

  The safest phrase is usually "it seemed to me as if..."

As to the publishing law issues, listen to Napster.  The man knows what he's on about.

 

[Technician]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ July 16 2004,18:10)]Technician - apologies for the lack of response; I have been utterly snowed at work.

Brief response: yes, there has to be an audit of attendances - since attendances = money = tax liability.  As a limited company, they are required by the Companies Act 1985 to publish audited accounts every year, so there will be an independent body auditing the accuracy of those accounts - namely SUFC Ltd's accountants.

BTW, not sure references to "appeared" and "mistake" were that kosher!  

  The safest phrase is usually "it seemed to me as if..."

As to the publishing law issues, listen to Napster.  The man knows what he's on about.

Cheers for that MtS...

firstly, I was writing that post when I should have been cutting some zzzzzzzzzzz's and it took me a while to write what "seemed to me" [sorry about that, but if I practice it, I'll get it right  

] would be a legitimate post.

Secondly, I assume the audits are periodical [as with an internal audit for example?], but are the accounts published for the general public & if so, how would I go about getting hold of a copy at the appropriate time?

Other than those two points... I'm cool