Disconnection for abuse

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by darthlinux

me thinks he doesnt like Virgin Media

Me thinks you need a lobotomy to understand his Rant.

[Raistlin]

Me thinks that unless people stop hurling random tit for tat sly comments and digs at each other a lot of people are going to rack up a lot of infractions very quickly.....

It would make a moderator's life much easier if members didn't quote problematic postings in their replies.

[watzizname]

Originally Posted by alferret

Intresting thread this, I think Mr\Mrs Thunderballs should just go to another ISP as they obviously cant be bothered with making an apology. After all its just words you dont have to mean it when you say it.

A troll by any other name

I believe that one of the OP's main points was that, making said apology, would be an admission of guilt.. something he doesn't feel is justfied, and until he understands why, i don't see it happening, anytime soon

[Caster]

Claim temporary insanity and our new communist overlord may spare your account.

[Thunderballs]

[quote=foreverwar;34619257]Or as we call it, being reasonable.

Something that you find acceptable other people may find offensive - my wife finds anything stronger than "damn" offensive, and any of the common four letter euphemisms are strictly verboten in our house (teenagers and adults - one rule for all).

quote]

Exactly.

Which is why you need to understand context before you can "judge" something.

You dont understand context by simply accepting that some random person that filled in an abuse complaint is legitimate or the their complaint is.

It is not reasonable to look at someone elses mail and then claim to be abused by it.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Thunderballs

Exactly.

Which is why you need to understand context before you can "judge" something.

You dont understand context by simply accepting that some random person that filled in an abuse complaint is legitimate or the their complaint is.

It is not reasonable to look at someone elses mail and then claim to be abused by it.

Sorry, but if what you posted is an accurate copy of the email, then context is irrelevant. It contained a swear word. Someone obviously got offended by that and reported it. A lot of people (me included when appropriate) use swear words as part of their everyday language, but a lot don't, and a lot get offended by the word irrespective of the context.

imho, it's the perception / context of the recipient that counts, not the sender - that's what people often forget about email, is that the recipient does not know the state of mind / context of the sender (if it's meant humourously, angrily, facetiously, etc, etc), so they can only read what they received, not what was "meant".

btw, how was it a "random person" that complained - surely it was the person who received and read the email (doesn't sound particularly "random" to me), and was offended by a swear word.

[Kymmy]

Irrelavant when it's copied to this forum, the swear rule is there for one reason only and that is the fact that this is a family forum and with any possibility of minors reading the forum has the obligation of removing content deemed unsuitable.

[MovedGoalPosts]

I find the whole idea that sending an email to a company's group address or distribution list means that it can't offend because it's not addressed to an individual rather a laughable argument. You wouldn't expect to be able to walk down the street shouting abuse to the heavens, without eventually feeling your collar tugged by one of Blunket's bouncers would you? It's the same for the email, and in fact worse. It will be read by real people on behalf of the company, it is those readers that can and will take offence, and since it's sent to a group address, chances are you will offend not just one reader, but a multitude.

[Zhadnost]

Forgive me for being pedantic, but don't you mean Jacqui Smith's bouncers?

Fnarr, fnarr.....

[Thunderballs]

Originally Posted by Rob

I find the whole idea that sending an email to a company's group address or distribution list means that it can't offend because it's not addressed to an individual rather a laughable argument. You wouldn't expect to be able to walk down the street shouting abuse to the heavens, without eventually feeling your collar tugged by one of Blunket's bouncers would you? It's the same for the email, and in fact worse. It will be read by real people on behalf of the company, it is those readers that can and will take offence, and since it's sent to a group address, chances are you will offend not just one reader, but a multitude.

Indeed. If you are shouting abuse in a public place that is not the same issue.

I am not saying an email not addressed to or sent to a specific person is not capable of being seen as offensive. It just cant be deemed offensive under law jusut because it is capable of being seen as offensive.

The issue is whether it constitutes abuse of an individual or harrassment becasue these are the only real contractual issues at stake here and why the clauses exist in the first place which is to protect VM from being culpable as an ISP.

The fact it contains a swear work is substantially irrelevant because it is possible in law to abuse and harrass without using swear words.

It isnt suffiecient in law AFAIK for Virgin to simply invoke wide reaching terminology in their AUP or T&Cs which are unenforceable in law.

As mentioned before as an example - their T&Cs say they can terminate a customers account immediately for any reason. This is not lawful. In court this statement in the T&Cs would be disregarded.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Thunderballs

The issue is whether it constitutes abuse of an individual or harrassment becasue these are the only real contractual issues at stake here and why the clauses exist in the first pplace which is to protect VM from being culpable as an ISP.

Virgin's AUP and T&C don't make any distinction between sending an e-mail to an indivdual or to a company. And that is exactly the reason why the AUP and T&Cs are there, as it is with any other ISP

The fact it contains a swear work is substantially irrelevant because it is possible in law to abuse and harrass without using swear words.

Yes it is and the AUP states "9.2.8. harassment, whether through language, frequency or size of messages sent, is prohibited"

It isnt suffiecient in law AFAIK for Virgin to simply invoke wide reaching terminology in their AUP or T&Cs which are unenforceable in law.

I don't see why it wouldn't be. As long as Virgin prove a breach occured, then they would be enforceable

As mentioned before as an example - their T&Cs say they can terminate a customers account immediately for any reason. This is not lawful. In court this statement in the T&Cs would be disregarded.

Actually their T&Cs say they can terminate an account with 30 days notice normally and immediately if it breaks the AUP. You agree to this when you take their services. So I think as long as Virgin have given the notice required within their T&Cs/AUP, the courts could not do anything about it TBH

[Thunderballs]

Well the story has taken another turn becasue I got another letter from virgin today in response to my complaint to the ISPA.

This is the second letter i have from VM on this where the date on the letter and the postmark and day I received the letter are significantly different.

Essentially the letter i have is dated the same day I filed my compliant to the ISPA - Saturday 9th August. It is postamarked 11th August and I received it today.

It is from someone in their Wythenshaw office but the ydont include a job title tel number and their is no department.

Basically it just says I am in "clear breach of their Terms and Conditions - Section D in General and subsection 4 in particular. You were also in breach of our Acceptable Use Policy - Sections 2, 3 and 9 wit hparticular reference to 3.4"

I have writtne back (funnilty enough) and anyone who is vaguely interested can look up those clauses.

Substantially the yare simply citing their right to terminate if a breach occurs but not specifically detailing what has been breached. Notably Section 9 of the AUP deal wit hemail and this letter does detail a subsection or subsections of that email clause I have apparently breached - which you might reasonably expect them to do given this relates to an email.

Anyway I suspect this fella is going to the Small Claims court where i will be asking for someone that knows about the law to have a look at it and decide if it was lawful for VM to terminate my contract on the basis of this email, and whether or not they should have given me 30 days notice.