Silly letter from 3

[Russ]

As some of you know, I've set up a website similar to this to protest against the abysmal customer service provided by the third generation mobile network provider 3, called www.3hell.com - and today I received the following letter from them.....


David Russ (chumps - can't they even get my name right??)
1 xxxxxxx Close
Xxxxxx
Port Talbot
Glamorgan, Wales



16 January 2004



Dear Mr Russ

Weââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ve noticed that youââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢re using an adaptation of the 3 logo on your site, www.3hell.com.

The Hutchison Whampoa group of companies owns the rights in the 3 logo and other companies are not permitted to use it without their consent.

As your site is not in any way authorised by 3, would you please remove the logo from your site as a matter of urgency and contact me to confirm this has been done.

I also note that whilst 3 welcomes comment and discussion regarding its services, it wishes to ensure that any sites regarding 3 are accurate and legal. In particular, we believe that 2 of your forum topics are inappropriate as they encourage illegal publications. The forum topic titled [†˜Inside 3â₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢] asks staff to reveal inside knowledge about 3. This amounts to an invitation to staff to breach their confidentiality obligations in their employment contract. Further, the †˜Name and Shameââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ forum section is seeking †˜shamingâà ƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€à …¾Ã‚¢ critical comments about named staff members which will most likely lead to the publication of defamatory comments about individuals. The publication of defamatory content and the solicitation of unauthorised disclosure of confidential information are prohibited by law. We ask that these 2 forum topics are removed from your site.

We trust that as the host of this site forum, you will ensure that the site complies with the law and the users comply with standard web user rules. In addition, if you or any of your users have particular concerns about the conduct of any of our staff, please direct these comments to 3 Customer Services, PO Box No 333, Hemel Hempstead HP2 7YW]

Yours sincerely





Mark Rigby
Corporate Affairs Director



I'm certainly not removing the forum areas they mention but I've modified the 'Inside 3' area (which Mr Rigby if you've bothered to look at the site is actually called Staff Area - chump) to a version which is slightly different and hopefully enough to annoy them.

So my question is this - what do I say back to them? Also for all you artists out there, what logo can I use instead? They have got a point that I need to remove the current one but what I'd rather do it change it slightly, just enough for it to look similar (I want to keep the horns and tail btw) and therefore annoy them, but subtle enough so it no longer is their logo. Can you design a better one? :)

Over to you peeps!! :D

[paulyoung666]

you are ****ting me arent you , btw have you got a good solicitor :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: , seriously though , be careful mate , you dont want the heavyweights landing on you :(

[Lew]

I'm sure that logo is acceptable under parody laws, anyway.

[Russ]

Well I can see the logo will have to be altered but with a few carefully chosen words, the forum areas will stay as they are :)

They might be worried about libelous comments about their staff but it's simple - ensure the staff do their job and there'll be nothing to worry about!

Easy!

[purenuman]

<snip>
:confused:

I'd do as they ask as they seem to be within their rights.

You seem to be doing it to annoy them rather than achieve anything significant for the consumer (Just going off this thread, not looked at the site yet :naughty: ).

You don't need to annoy/wind them up in this way, you should be doing it with reference to the service they provide IMHO.

[Russ]

:confused:

I'd do as they ask as they seem to be within their rights.

You seem to be doing it to annoy them rather than achieve anything significant for the consumer (Just going off this thread, not looked at the site yet :naughty: ).

You don't need to annoy/wind them up in this way, you should be doing it with reference to the service they provide IMHO.


Annoying them certainly does bring out my immature side, but doing so grabs their attation, which is what I want. I really need a logo which people will see and automatically think of that company, so it has to be similar :)

[Neil]

Annoying them certainly does bring out my immature side, but doing so grabs their attation, which is what I want. I really need a logo which people will see and automatically think of that company, so it has to be similar :)

Firstly write back & tell them that their is no 'Mr David Russ' at that address...:naughty:

Secondly, suggest to them that if they made the rest of their staff as quick to act as their legal team, then the site wouldn't appear in the first place. :afire:

ntl tried this with us once yonks ago, it's pathetic. :grind:

Tell 'em to go poke it Russ, they suck & they know it.

:2up: 3.

[Bifta]

If they'd had a leg to stand on they'd have contacted i-websolutions and asked for the site to be removed, it sounds like they're making silly heavy handed empty threats, NTL never got away with it so you shouldn't let 3

[Sociable]

Annoying them certainly does bring out my immature side, but doing so grabs their attation, which is what I want. I really need a logo which people will see and automatically think of that company, so it has to be similar :)

I agree with others that "version" of their logo cant get you into any real problems as it is clearly not intended to mislead or impersonate them and they can hardly claim the number three as being copyright even if they have spent a fortune getting some designer to make their version look "pretty".

Unless, of course, they have already registered that specific design you are using ready perhaps for an add campaign promoting the dubious use their, and all the other, networks are now used for.

I would be more worried about what they are saying about the responsibility you will have as owner of the site should anybody post information that defames or libels anybody. Discalimers will not save you sadly or even clever wording and it is yourself they will sue not just individual posters.

So just be carefull we don't want you clobbered. :)

[Russ]

So who's going to offer to design a different but identifiable logo to replace it?? :)

I'd do it myself but I'm pants... :(

[Sociable]

So who's going to offer to design a different but identifiable logo to replace it?? :)

I'd do it myself but I'm pants... :(

Ahhh so that one on the site now is theirs?

Sorry shows how little notice I take of adverts. LOL

Will see if I can come up with anything in that case but may take a day or so as up to my ears with some other stuff this weekend.

[Russ]

Thanks, I appreciate it!


I will of course seek legal advice on the matter :)

[Bifta]

So who's going to offer to design a different but identifiable logo to replace it?? :)

I'd do it myself but I'm pants... :(

And I stupidly lost the original layered PSD, I'll keep looking for it, be a lot easier to edit using that than redoing it again from scratch.

[Russ]

Nice one :)

[Flubflow]

There are two main things that distinguish the "3" logo from any old number 3.
You need to change the outline shape of the 3 because theirs is quite unique (as opposed to being from a widely available font).
You also need to alter the inside red spikey part of the design significantly (perhaps you could alter their shape and make them into flames - as in "hell" - perhaps animated).

I might have a crack at it for you if I get chance.

It is all very well people saying that 3 cannot have exclusive rights to the number "3" but if it looks a lot like their logo and your site is about their services then they do have a case.

As far as their claims about releasing supposedly confidential information being illegal, I rather doubt that since BBC Watchdog seem to have no trouble ;). Then again, the BBC have an army of legal boffins to keep them on the straight and narrow.
As sociable says, the defamation angle needs to be well covered but I think you already know that after being involved with this and other sites.
Unlike the UK, hosting the site in the USA often helps to prevent the rug from being pulled unexpectedly but you still need to be careful `cos you can still wind up in court if you fail to remove any offending posts upon request - EDIT: unless of course you can back them up.

[Shaun]

Russ at the end of the day, if they are a company of the same caliber as Ntl, and they look like they are I really wouldn't worry. To be fair, if they had a leg to stand on surely this website and all the other "whinge" site would have been closed a long time ago ;)

[luftys]

Good luck with the site russ

wat about an "S" for the logo,same colour,tail,horn

[Sociable]

I'm thinking along the lines of a "2 1/3" al la the naked gun parodies. :)

[Sipowicz]

What about reversing the "3"?

Just a thought.....

[etccarmageddon]

I dont think Russ should change the logo as they have contacted a Mr David Russ. They havent contacted Russ yet, so how can he be aware of the issue?

I suggest you return the letter as 'return to sender - not known at this address'.

[etccarmageddon]

how about for the logo - instead of 3..... S H I T E using the same font and some green in there but not the same way they use green?

[Graham]

The Hutchison Whampoa group of companies owns the rights in the 3 logo and other companies are not permitted to use it without their consent.

As your site is not in any way authorised by 3, would you please remove the logo from your site as a matter of urgency and contact me to confirm this has been done.

IANAL, however they may have a point here. Whilst they almost certainly couldn't get you for "passing off" ie trying to convince people that you are a legitimate 3 site, the fact that the logo is very similar to theirs may well be a violation of their copyright.

As others have commented, if you make a reasonable change to the logo you can probably tell them to get stuffed.

. In particular, we believe that 2 of your forum topics are inappropriate as they encourage illegal publications.

Note the wording "we believe". The translation is very probably "we don't like this, but we can't actually say it *is* illegal so we're going to huff and puff and hope you give in!"

The forum topic titled [†˜Inside 3â₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢] asks staff to reveal inside knowledge about 3. This amounts to an invitation to staff to breach their confidentiality obligations in their employment contract.

See http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-rights-of-workers/whistleblowers/index.shtml for a discussion on "whistleblower" legislation which says:

* * * * *

Aside from the requirements as to reasonable belief and good faith, in order to be protected, the worker must not act for personal gain. The worker also has to show that they reasonably believed that they would have been subjected to detriment by their employer if a disclosure was made internally, or that the evidence relating to the alleged failure would either be concealed or destroyed, or that an internal disclosure has already been made. Additionally, the worker has to show that the external disclosure was reasonable in all of the circumstances. [...]

Where a whistleblower makes a disclosure that is not protected, they are at the mercy of their employer. It is likely that the disclosure will amount to a breach of the duty of confidentiality or fidelity, and the employer can institute disciplinary procedures against the worker. In such cases however, a worker may be able to pursue a general claim for unfair dismissal against their employer.

* * * * *

Further, the †˜Name and Shameââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ forum section is seeking †˜shamingâà ƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€à …¾Ã‚¢ critical comments about named staff members which will most likely lead to the publication of defamatory comments about individuals. The publication of defamatory content and the solicitation of unauthorised disclosure of confidential information are prohibited by law. We ask that these 2 forum topics are removed from your site.

More huff and puff. We *ask* that these are removed. Not *require*, not *demand*... if they had a leg to stand on they'd almost certainly use stronger wording.

In short: nil illegitimi carborundum and the best of luck to you! :)

[Russ]

Thanks everyone for your support - actually I can buy myself a bit more time as an identical letter certainly did arrive this morning addressed to David Russ from them so without opening it, it's going back in a few days with "no-one at this address with that name" written on it :)

[etccarmageddon]

you might be better off not replying to any letters as any correspondence might be used against you if they do try to bully you in court.

by replying you are giving them proof of receipt.

[Bifta]

you might be better off not replying to any letters as any correspondence might be used against you if they do try to bully you in court.

by replying you are giving them proof of receipt.

The court is probably more likely to frown on a lack of communication from the 'defendant', a well worded, polite reply stating the fact's sent to the them will more than likely be seen as due diligence which will definately be seen favourably as opposed to a lack of response to their efforts.

[stamp92]

Thanks for opening the 3hell.com site Russ.

I havent had experience of 3 to comment on their service but I'm sure you had a rough ride to feel it justified to open a site to complain about their bad service.

I have made you a logo. Hope you like it.
I'm sure other will come up with better ideas than me.I'm no artist.
It's more just a bit of fun ;)

[danielf]

The court is probably more likely to frown on a lack of communication from the 'defendant', a well worded, polite reply stating the fact's sent to the them will more than likely be seen as due diligence which will definately be seen favourably as opposed to a lack of response to their efforts.

I think that's a good point. As Bifta says, you will have to think about the wording, but not responding is probably not a good idea. (Should it go to court)

[Sociable]

A simple reply could consist of:

"Thanks for your letter the contents of which have been noted. Appropriate action will be taken in due course."

This should do the trick nicely as it doesn't admit any error or even say what that "appropriate" action will be.

One option for "action" being to add their letter to the "hook" on the wall of Russ's "outhouse" for later "appropriate" use. :naughty:

[Flubflow]

Thanks everyone for your support - actually I can buy myself a bit more time as an identical letter certainly did arrive this morning addressed to David Russ from them so without opening it, it's going back in a few days with "no-one at this address with that name" written on it :)

Still be careful. If they have an ounce of sense then they will probably be doing a bit of fishing aound and may be following this thread too. It might not be a good idea claiming that you you have not read the letter just because the name is slightly incorrect and then coming on here and actually quoting the letter itself.

[Russ]

How would they know the guy who set up the site is really me? Could it be proven beyond reasonable doubt?

I think not m'lud :)

[Flubflow]

How would they know the guy who set up the site is really me? Could it be proven beyond reasonable doubt?

I think not m'lud :)

Well, Russ D, if we are already talking about the "m'lud" stage of the proceedings then if you swore an oath on the bible to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you GOD then I'd assume you'd just have to answer a resounding "YES" when asked if the 3HELL website was set up and is run by you and is also the same person who posts here. ;).

http://forum.nthellworld.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5863&highlight=www.3hell.com

[paulyoung666]

How would they know the guy who set up the site is really me? Could it be proven beyond reasonable doubt?

I think not m'lud :)




just be careful :)

[Jon M]

another logo here.. if you want it (psd included)

[etccarmageddon]

nice one

[Sociable]

Work in progress but how about something along these lines Russ?

[Russ]

Hey I like these efforts, keep them coming!! I'm grateful for all your help, and although I don't think it'll get anywhere near court, I have a feeling this isn't over yet...

[Jon M]

ok.. another one .. i can extend it into a full width banner to make the flames look better

[Russ]

OK guys, just had this little gem from them today......

Palmerston Limited
2nd Floor, Sixty Circular Road, Douglas
Isle of Man
c/o 22nd Floor, Hutchison House, 10 Harcourt Road
Hong Kong
Tel: (852)2128-1188
Fax: (852)2128-1705


30 January 2004

Mr David Russ (who the 3hell is David Russ?????)
X XXXXXXX XXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXX XXXXXX
Glamorgan, Wales XXXX XXX



Dear Sir,

Infringement of †œ3âà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â� Logo Trade Mark

We are the intellectual property holding company of Hutchison Whampoa Group and the registered owner of †œ3 Logoâ₠¬Ã‚Â� and other related trade marks in many countries throughout the world, including, CTM Trade Mark Application No.2550796 (certificate of registration in the process of being issued) in classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44 and 45 in respect of the 3 Logo.

As you were previously advised in a letter dated 15 January from Hutchison 3G UK Limited, the Hutchison Whampoa Group provides 3G telecommunication services and related products under the 3 Logo. We have made extensive investment in advertising and promoting our 3G business. Through such extensive sale and promotion, we have acquired substantial goodwill and reputation of our 3 Logo in the UK and throughout the world for our 3G business.

We are very concerned to discover that you are displaying our 3 Logo on your website (www.3hell.com) without our consent or authorization. The unauthorized use of our 3 Logo constitutes an infringement of our registered trade mark, takes unfair advantage of our 3 Logo and is detrimental to its distinctive character or repute.

You will doubtless be aware of the substantial and valuable reputation and goodwill which we enjoy in the UK, Italy, Australia and elsewhere in respect of the 3G business under our 3 Logo. The public are likely to be confused by your use of our 3 Logo. In each case, such confusion is likely to damage our valuable reputation and goodwill. Your unauthorized use of our 3 Logo therefore amounts to a violation of our trade mark rights.

In the circumstances, we require you to cease immediately use of our 3 Logo, and give appropriate undertakings to protect our intellectual property rights in future.

Unless you comply with our request by 11 February 2004, we will consider taking legal action against you forthwith. In such event we will seek injunctive relief to restrain infringement of our registered trade mark, ask for damages and recovery of all costs incurred.
Also as previously mentioned by Hutchison 3G UK Limited, we are concerned that your forum on your website encourages the posting of defamatory comments relating to employees of Hutchison 3G UK Limited and confidential information relating to our 3G business. We put you on notice that we would treat the publication of such defamatory comments or confidential information very seriously and that we would take appropriate action against you.

In the meantime, we reserve all of our rights.

Yours faithfully,
For and on behalf of
Palmerston Limited




________________________
Edith Shih
Director


(yawn)

So I encourage the use of defamatory comments on my site? Even though I say such comments will be removed?? I encourage people to post confidential information??? Has 'Edith' actually read my site?

NO!

Chumps!

[paulyoung666]

watch what you are doing my mate , i hear prison food isnt too good :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Sociable]

Think now may be a good time to go with one of the "revised" images we supplied Russ as that is the only legitimate gripe they have right now.

Then just write to them confirming no more than †œappropriateÃÃ⠀šÃ‚¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚Â� action has been taken to prevent any possibility of confusion over the logo.

Leave to them to re-check the new logo and write another silly letter if they are still unhappy.

Then if they do send same letter back having selected the next logo on the list. We can keep you supplied with †œnewâà ƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ÂÂ� versions for as long as they want to play this game. :naughty:

[Bifta]

OK guys, just had this little gem from them today......




(yawn)

So I encourage the use of defamatory comments on my site? Even though I say such comments will be removed?? I encourage people to post confidential information??? Has 'Edith' actually read my site?

NO!

Chumps!

Thinking about it, apart from the logo (possibly) they have absolutely no leg to stand on, if they for one minute thought they could have you up in court and win for defamatory comments about them on your site then you'd be in court by now, also, how many times has NTL taken nthellworld.com, nthellworld.co.uk and all the other ntl 'protest' site's to court .... how about none .. and I've seen plenty of defamatory comments about the company/employee's over the years on all of them.

[zoombini]

OH, the staff section, can I suggestthat this does not need registration, so that they can post completely anonimous of name too..

[Flubflow]

OK guys, just had this little gem from them today......




(yawn)

So I encourage the use of defamatory comments on my site? Even though I say such comments will be removed?? I encourage people to post confidential information??? Has 'Edith' actually read my site?

NO!

Chumps!

I suppose comments about individual 3 staff would have to be seen to be dafamatory in a court i.e. you have to prove that they are true because without that proof then they are defamatory. If the actual poster of such comments is not willing to back you up in any court case then you stand a good chance of losing. When push comes to shove, most people who vent on such forums are probably not as willing as you are to go all the way (especially if it means travelling to and fro to a court possibly hundreds of miles away).
A compromise would be leave such posts in tact but just take out the names of the 3 staff.
In future you could perhaps insist that if a poster really wants to "name and shame" a person then they must record the phone conversation and supply it so you have evidence ready if you need it.

What you also have to consider when naming and shaming is that some random nutter, after seeing a name posted on your site, might decide to do some detective work and enact some of his own brand of really nasty revenge on this person. Could you live with that?

[Russ]

Think now may be a good time to go with one of the "revised" images we supplied Russ as that is the only legitimate gripe they have right now.

Yeah, I've been waiting more than a week now for s1lv3r to get back to me with a new logo he's promised me.....

I suppose comments about individual 3 staff would have to be seen to be dafamatory in a court i.e. you have to prove that they are true because without that proof then they are defamatory. If the actual poster of such comments is not willing to back you up in any court case then you stand a good chance of losing. When push comes to shove, most people who vent on such forums are probably not as willing as you are to go all the way (especially if it means travelling to and fro to a court possibly hundreds of miles away).
A compromise would be leave such posts in tact but just take out the names of the 3 staff.
In future you could perhaps insist that if a poster really wants to "name and shame" a person then they must record the phone conversation and supply it so you have evidence ready if you need it.

I've said on the site I'm willing to listen to 3 employees' complaints if they find their name on the site, however if they can't prove what the poster is saying is false, they might have difficulty in persuading me to edit the post. I'm always been a strong believer in naming and shaming people who provide bad service.

What you also have to consider when naming and shaming is that some random nutter, after seeing a name posted on your site, might decide to do some detective work and enact some of his own brand of really nasty revenge on this person. Could you live with that?

Good point but so far it seems the majority of names on the site are based hundreds of miles away in India, how many such nutters would go all the way out there in the hope of tracking them down?

[Graham]

OK guys, just had this little gem from them today......

Again, do what I always do: read carefully exactly what has *actually* been written.

They "require" you to "to cease immediately use of our 3 Logo, and give appropriate undertakings to protect our intellectual property rights in future."

But then they say it's a *request*...

"Unless you comply with our request by 11 February 2004"

And if you don't they will *consider* "taking legal action against you forthwith."

So basically it's more huff and puff and I wouldn't worry, however I think Sociable's suggestion is right. Put the new logo up, tell them you've fixed it and leave the ball in their court.

[Flubflow]

Yeah, I've been waiting more than a week now for s1lv3r to get back to me with a new logo he's promised me.....



I've said on the site I'm willing to listen to 3 employees' complaints if they find their name on the site, however if they can't prove what the poster is saying is false, they might have difficulty in persuading me to edit the post. I'm always been a strong believer in naming and shaming people who provide bad service.



Good point but so far it seems the majority of names on the site are based hundreds of miles away in India, how many such nutters would go all the way out there in the hope of tracking them down?

The burden of proof is not on them. They don't have to prove their "innocence".

[Shaun]

I can't think they will go ahead with anything, if that was the way it all worked then www.liquidgeneration.com just wouldn't exist as all they do is rip it out of celebs and brands. :erm:

[craigchilds.co.]

Hi guys,

Having read through this post and had a look at the site I thought I would throw my t'pence in, I work for another large telco (not NTL!) in a non customer facing area so I have a little knowledge in this field.

In reality 3 aren't likely to take you to court over this, not because they are unsure about how clean the case is or how expensive it is but simply because the press wouldn't look good for them. They are a progressive techy company and they understand the power of the internet (in fact they are relying on it for commercial success), they know it would only cause ill feeling from people who they see as potential customers.

On the other hand they can make life really difficult for you, taking your site down and making sure any new ventures don't last is well within their grasp.

I believe you have an opportunity at this point to show you are a reasonable guy, change the logo to something 'midway' and promise to moderate the forum should soften them up a bit.

You have kicked off the first big '3' related community, making it last is probably a little more tricky, the fact that they have involved their design company in the discussion shows you have their back up at the moment, is that really what you want to acheive or would a more symbiotic relationship be more beneficial to you?

These comments are all IMHO, I am posting because I know you have put a lot of time and effort into creating the community you have here and over there, it would be a shame to see all that effort go to waste and an opportunity passed up.

Take care,

Craig :)

[Flubflow]

I can't think they will go ahead with anything, if that was the way it all worked then www.liquidgeneration.com just wouldn't exist as all they do is rip it out of celebs and brands. :erm:

That's satire and parody which is a completely different kettle of fish. Even that can sometimes get you into hot water though (Punch magazine always seemed to be in court over something or other).

[Chris]

In our newspaper law lectures we used to be told not to fear the lengthy letters of complaint, alleging libel and making all kinds of noise. Those letters - like the one Russ has received - try to make up for the lack of a hard legal case with bluster. Fear only those letters that are two lines long and say something like 'sort this out now or we'll see you in court'.

The letter from 3 isn't even from their legal department. It's from the head of Corporate Affairs - that's Public Relations, plus some other stuff. They haven't even bothered to get the lawyers involved.

The risk that defamation might occur is not legal grounds for asking that a publication be suspended. If it were, no newspapers would ever be printed. Russ, if you reply at all, agree to modify the logo (it is a bit too similar, I think) but refuse to alter anything else. Invite them to point at specific breaches of the law for your consideration.

[Sociable]

Well said Towny.

[Flubflow]

In our newspaper law lectures we used to be told not to fear the lengthy letters of complaint, alleging libel and making all kinds of noise. Those letters - like the one Russ has received - try to make up for the lack of a hard legal case with bluster. Fear only those letters that are two lines long and say something like 'sort this out now or we'll see you in court'.

The letter from 3 isn't even from their legal department. It's from the head of Corporate Affairs - that's Public Relations, plus some other stuff. They haven't even bothered to get the lawyers involved.

The risk that defamation might occur is not legal grounds for asking that a publication be suspended. If it were, no newspapers would ever be printed. Russ, if you reply at all, agree to modify the logo (it is a bit too similar, I think) but refuse to alter anything else. Invite them to point at specific breaches of the law for your consideration.

Good point.
I still think that anyone publishing comments from the public about specific persons should go to reasonable lengths so verify the source and the story because if does go all wiggy then you will need that evidence.

[Russ]

Thanks for the advice everyone - this is the letter I've sent to Mark Rigby....


Dear Mr Rigby

Re: www.3hell.com

Thank you for your recent letter dated 19th January 2004, although for the purposes of goodwill I shall disregard its rather juvenile content.

I am willing to come to a mutually beneficial agreement with you regarding my website however it would be on the basis that we communicate as adults.

I wish to make it clear, and this is my official stance on the matter, that the two forum areas you object to (including the one you refer to as †œInside 3â₠¬ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂÂ� which is actually called †œStaff Areaââ‚ ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ�) shall remain. I am willing to accept that the original wording of the forum sub-title of †œStaff Areaââ‚ ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ� would give the impression that I am encouraging 3 employees to break the terms of their employment (which, you no doubt will be aware of is of no concern or consequence to myself). This is not the case and in the interests of goodwill I have changed the wording accordingly.

However I wish to bring to your attention what is referred to as the †œWhistleblower Lawââ‚Âà ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� which allows employees to post certain documentation if he/she believes that:

†¢ A criminal offence has been, is about to be, or is likely to be committed.
†¢ A person has, or is about to fail to comply with a legal obligation imposed upon them. This includes an obligation imposed upon them by your contract of employment.
†¢ The health and safety of any person has been, or is being or is likely to be endangered.
†¢ A miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur.
†¢ The environment has been, or is being, or is likely to be damaged.
†¢ Information tending to show that one of the above matters has been, or is likely to be deliberately concealed.

If one of your employees wishes to use my forum as a platform to publishing such information (referred to in UK law as a 'protected disclosure') and it is done in good faith and without any personal gain, you are no doubt aware that you would have no legal recourse against myself as webmaster of 3hell.com or the employee concerned.

As for the forum titled 'Name and Shame', I can only assume you have not actually read it. Nowhere do I encourage users of the site to post 'defamatory' comments about 3 employees. I am merely asking that if anyone manages to record the name of such a staff member who lies to a customer or gives them false/incorrect information (as has happened to me on occasion so I am aware of this happening) to report the incident and post that person's name on the site. I fail to see what you object to regarding this. Surely if a 3 employee does not wish for their name to appear on the site they should just do their job correctly? In any case have you not explored the possibility that I may be willing to remove a person's name from the site if they contacted me directly?

Please remember that free speech will not be silenced.

My personal feeling of this matter is one of a 'school bully': instead of talking and discussing the greivance like mature adults, I instead recieve 2 letters with an incorrect version of my name plus legal threats which will not hold up in court. I am not an unreasonable man, I can be negotiated with. As it is apparent you have not fully read my website, you probably are not aware of the notice which states quite clearly, †œPlease note that the 3hell.com webmaster accepts no responsibility for defamatory comments posted however we will take every effort to keep such comments off the website.ââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�

With regards to my use of 3's logo you should be aware that as a journalistic website dedicated to reporting the misgivings of 3, I am permitted some leeway to use the logo to inform readers of who I am referring to. However again, as a gesture of goodwill, I am prepared to get my people to replace the logo currently used with one which does not infringe copyright laws. This is currently being looked in to.

I anticipate a rapid response from yourself.

Best regards







Russ David.

[Chris]

Sheesh ... don't beat about the bush, will you Russ? ;) :rofl:

[Russ]

You gotta know how to talk to these people!!

Anyway, go have a look at the new logo I'm now using: I get the impression my idea of 'discussing it like adults' is about to go up in smoke....

[Flubflow]

The problems is that you DO have responsibility for what YOU publish. If it was something submitted to the letters page of a newspaper then the newspaper are the publishers and are responsible for it. It does not matter what you officially "do not encourage" and it is what actually happens that counts.
There was a test case a few years ago which had ISPs and webhosts etc scrambling to edit their T&Cs. I think it was Daemon Internet who would not remove a defamatory posting from a newsgroup when requested. It went to court, they lost and were ordered to pay the guy compensation ( £10,000 or something like).
Anyway, just be careful, OK.

[Chris]

You gotta know how to talk to these people!!

Anyway, go have a look at the new logo I'm now using: I get the impression my idea of 'discussing it like adults' is about to go up in smoke....

Boy, do you like life on the edge or what! Is that a genuine pic of the man himself?

[Russ]

The problems is that you DO have responsibility for what YOU publish. If it was something submitted to the letters page of a newspaper then the newspaper are the publishers and are responsible for it. It does not matter what you officially "do not encourage" and it is what actually happens that counts.
There was a test case a few years ago which had ISPs and webhosts etc scrambling to edit their T&Cs. I think it was Daemon Internet who would not remove a defamatory posting from a newsgroup when requested. It went to court, they lost and were ordered to pay the guy compensation ( £10,000 or something like).
Anyway, just be careful, OK.


Thanks for the info!


I've already sought legal advice and as long as I make 'reasonable effort' to keep such comments off the site, I am pretty well protected. If someone posted "Mr XYZ is a rampant horse-fiddler" then I would be required to remove it as soon as possible, which of course I would. These aren't the kind of comments I'm wanting anyway.

Boy, do you like life on the edge or what! Is that a genuine pic of the man himself?

No, just a random picture. And anyway, my mate from school also called Mark Rigby told me he endorses the site ;)

[etccarmageddon]

you cant put 'officially endorced by Mark Rigby'!!!!

[etccarmageddon]

And anyway, my mate from school also called Mark
Rigby told me he endorses the site ;)

oh my god!



it's all looking very "mark thomas"!

[SMHarman]

The problems is that you DO have responsibility for what YOU publish. If it was something submitted to the letters page of a newspaper then the newspaper are the publishers and are responsible for it. It does not matter what you officially "do not encourage" and it is what actually happens that counts.
There was a test case a few years ago which had ISPs and webhosts etc scrambling to edit their T&Cs. I think it was Daemon Internet who would not remove a defamatory posting from a newsgroup when requested. It went to court, they lost and were ordered to pay the guy compensation ( £10,000 or something like).
Anyway, just be careful, OK.

http://www.demon.net/pressreleases/2000/pr2000-03-31a.shtml

[paulyoung666]

cant wait to see the reply to this :D :D :D :D :D

[Flubflow]

Thanks for the info!


I've already sought legal advice and as long as I make 'reasonable effort' to keep such comments off the site, I am pretty well protected. If someone posted "Mr XYZ is a rampant horse-fiddler" then I would be required to remove it as soon as possible, which of course I would. These aren't the kind of comments I'm wanting anyway.


Unless perhaps it was one of the bosses of 3 and you had the photo's of him with the horse ;).


No, just a random picture. And anyway, my mate from school also called Mark Rigby told me he endorses the site ;)

If that is true then I think you might have to put in some small print to indicate such, otherwise any reader would reasonably assume you meant the guy from 3.

[Russ]

If that is true then I think you might have to put in some small print to indicate such, otherwise any reader would reasonably assume you meant the guy from 3.

OK, check the site footer :)

[Sociable]

How about a very very small "a" in front of the "Mark Rigby" just to distinguish it from "The" Mr Rigby. Or for comic effect make it a pic of the character created by Leonard Rossiter of "Rising Damp" fame but with a very small "s" instead?

[Richard M]

As some of you know, I've set up a website similar to this to protest against the abysmal customer service provided by the third generation mobile network provider 3, called www.3hell.com - and today I received the following letter from them.....



... We trust that as the host of this site forum, you will ensure that the site complies with the law and the users comply with standard web user rules.


Huh?
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't notice that they control the world-wide-interweb now.

I hate that BS, companies marching in and giving orders like they own the place. :upyours: