So we cant specualate .
We must post facts ?
Rumours are not allowed ?
What ever happened to freedon of speech ?
I guess 95% of posts will need to be removed.
Dare i say fuel is going to continue going up ? is that speculation or will you have to prove that is a fact or remove this post,…
I Think gordon Brown is a pratt now is that a fact or my opinion.
Are opinions allowed ?
26 years an Lgv Trainer:
So we cant specualate .We must post facts ?
Rumours are not allowed ?
What ever happened to freedon of speech ?
I guess 95% of posts will need to be removed.
Dare i say fuel is going to continue going up ? is that speculation or will you have to prove that is a fact or remove this post,…
I Think gordon Brown is a pratt now is that a fact or my opinion.
Are opinions allowed ?
The whole site is ■■■■■■ since Rikki sold it down the river ( 
where’s Terence?). No wonder no-one posts on it anymore. 
Are opinions allowed ?
I [ZB] hope so - a site like this would be pointless otherwise 
There are many posts on here that should be removed then.
Shall we start highliting them for removal.
I heard that ROG is buying everyone a few beers,
Now that must be a down right lies i guess this post will soon be removed.
Did You Sell out Rikki or is ROB K spreading rumours ? i gues his post will be removed soon ?
In the last few weeks have had to defend certain members on here from possible legal action. We have had to instruct our own legal team to defend postings on here by users of this site.
This costs money. I dont see at any point we have asked for anyone here to repay that expenditure, I dont see where we have asked any of you to pay any money at all.
But we cannot and will not pay legal costs because people will not stop talking crap and spreading unsubtiantiated rumours.
It is simple and easy to understand.
IF you can back up a statement with verifiable facts, then post and discuss it
If you want to gossip and spread rumours then go elsewhere (I have list of websites that I really dont care are sued 
)
I dont see anything different on this thread to what the man on the Clapham omnibus sees. Supposition or divination of a takeover will be talked about on ferries, in bars and on the golf course over the next days and weeks.
No-one has posted anything that is not already in the public domain.
Rikki-UK:
In the last few weeks have had to defend certain members on here from possible legal action. We have had to instruct our own legal team to defend postings on here by users of this site.This costs money. I dont see at any point we have asked for anyone here to repay that expenditure, I dont see where we have asked any of you to pay any money at all.
But we cannot and will not pay legal costs because people will not stop talking crap and spreading unsubtiantiated rumours.
It is simple and easy to understand.
IF you can back up a statement with verifiable facts, then post and discuss it
If you want to gossip and spread rumours then go elsewhere (I have list of websites that I really dont care are sued
So i take it those you have defended are aware of this possible legal action.
I dont really want to get involved too much now,but surely if you post something on here it is NOT Trucknet who is saying it…its the individual MEMBER who has a certain amount of anonymity(spelling?)So how can Trucknet MEMBERS be threatened with legal action,if nobody knows who we are??
Trucknet hosts the forum but surely is NOT responsible for its content unless its abusive etc.
Its a DRIVERS forum for ■■■■■ sake,rumour and speculation is part of the job…I hear absolute ■■■■■■■■ everyday from someone or another…its surely upto me what i decide to listen too and take seriously.
Im not one of these people who harps on about human rights or freedom of speech when I dont get my own way…but surely you should be able to discuss something without fear of legal action whether it be rumour,speculation OR NOT,there are always people who know what they are talking about with specific subjects,some people know ■■■■ all about anything,but its all part of the individuals RIGHT to post what they believe and feel fit to do so…and removing this so called rumour is really no business of anyone…if its wrong in the end,then its wrong…the truth always comes out in the end (as they say) so let people say what they feel within reason…cause in the end you’ll have NOBODY left who really wants or can be bothered to post…cause if one of the ‘corporates’ dont like what they read…then they’ll remove it…which is WRONG!!!
Is it because Simon71 has stolen the front page splash from this weeks Reed Publishing titles?
It cant be because Eimskip dont like anyone copying and pasting bits of their website,
So are we supposed to say Alegidly in front of every thing we write.
Or say in my opinion etc …
I think i will add a few words to my signature…
Rikki-UK:
In the last few weeks have had to defend certain members on here from possible legal action. We have had to instruct our own legal team to defend postings on here by users of this site.This costs money. I dont see at any point we have asked for anyone here to repay that expenditure, I dont see where we have asked any of you to pay any money at all.
But we cannot and will not pay legal costs because people will not stop talking crap and spreading unsubtiantiated rumours.
It is simple and easy to understand.
IF you can back up a statement with verifiable facts, then post and discuss it
If you want to gossip and spread rumours then go elsewhere (I have list of websites that I really dont care are sued
I find it strange to read this post about legal action, especially after this post:
Rikki-UK:
There has been various rumours floating about concerning Innovate, TruckNet UK has a very good relationship with Innovate and I am sure that via various means if any of these rumours were true we would be among the first to know.Innovate have released the following statement concerning the rumours.
The Board of Directors would like to clarify that rumours circulated earlier this week regarding the trading position of the Innovate Group of companies are completely false. We would like to reassure our customers, suppliers and competitors that we retain our strong position within the industry and consider our situation to be favourable. We are always working closely with our parent company Eimskip who have pledged their support to the new team at the helm of Innovate; working with the recently appointed Group CEO, Michael Young.
Rumours regarding the current trading position of the company are completely untrue, and we have instructed lawyers to commence action against any individual or company which is found to be spreading malicious comments about the group.
And this one:
Rikki-UK:
Actually if you read the statement its nothing that has been posted on here that has lead to this statement being released. Rather a lot of gossip going around at the CV show. the statement was released to the press en masse including us.As there has been “Some” speculation on here I felt it appropriate to
- Publish their statement
- Remind members here that they are still responsible for the content of their posts
I have not been asked to stop comments about Innovate or any other company, nor was I asked to post the above press release, I am not stopping any comment about Innovate either. Comments have been made and as always I feel Innovate have the right to reply… the statement above I believe covers that
and this:
Space Monkey wrote,
What relationship is that? I have never seen any input from them into these forums nor have i seen anything productive from
followed by this:
You never know who is who when they are using an alias,
I never said they used the forums though, but as I suspect you can imagine with the comments posted on here about many companies I have a lot of contact and discussion with those companies regarding what has been posted.
Innovate I have found is one of the more accessable companies and understanding of the nature of user generated content.As part of my job within RBI I also have resposibility for user generated content on other RBI websites. and as part of that role I regularly speak with many companies, and try to ensure that TruckNet UK is promoted to them at the appropriate times.
But then again its a very strange world we live in
26 years an Lgv Trainer:
I heard that ROG is buying everyone a few beers,
Now that must be a down right lie…
Nice Tel
Rikki-UK:
Im sorry if I wasnt clear enough.for clarification.
Rumours that cannot be verified and are potentially damaging to a company/individual will in future be removed.
While we may not write those rumours, it can be said that we are the publishers when they appear on these forums. as such if we knowingly allow something that is untrue and potentially damaging to remain on the forums or not corrected we leave ourselves open to action against us.
That I am afraid is a fact of life
Any forum owner that doesnt protect itself is in danger of making a very costly mistake.
once again the shnide digs re legal aciton…
give it a rest.
Terry,
If you really dont know the dangers of allowing potentially damaging rumours to remain in the public domain, then as the owner of the other drivers forum you mention, you are leaving yourself very open.
On the other hand you could of course remove any comments that may give you problems, I believe that quite sensibly you did that last week. and have done previously in the past.
26 years an Lgv Trainer:
So are we supposed to say Alegidly in front of every thing…
Or you could try “ALLEGEDLY” … 
Rikki-UK:
Rumours that cannot be verified and are potentially damaging to a company/individual will in future be removed.
When I post something as bland as which is the most damaging, the difference between rumours that become truth and the truth that is hidden and you remove it because it’s off topic it beggars belief.
How else can a rumour be verified but by airing in the public domain. Or would you rather all rumours be suppressed and all truths be hidden.
Burma and Zimbabwe are living proof of how that works.
Stan
It doesnt really matter what I think, the fact remains that if we allow a rumour that we cannot prove is true at the time of the posting to be published, then we could be liable if the person/organisation that the rumour is about decides they have suffered hurt or damage beacuse of it being published on othis website . It doesnt matter if we refute that rumour totally, the rumour still has been published.
As the law stands currently it is not for them to show the rumour has no truth, they only have to show that they have been hurt or damaged in some way. Our only real defence in court is to show the rumour is true. or to remove it from the website within a reasonable amount of time. It doesnt matter at all if in a few weeks/months the rumour is found to have substance.
Do I think the law is an ■■■ as far as forums go… yes personally I do. The law is trying to fit a set of rules that apply to journalists who are bound to research and post facts before publication to internet on-line discussions by individuals who probably dont have as good understanding on media laws. this is totally unrealistic but unfortunatly until the law is defined more via case law this is the situation we are in.
Your post was removed from that thread as it was off topic to the post, it is on topic in here and still remains.
obviously dame A P has got her foot in rbi,s arse here.
i understand your having to bow to your bosses re this trikki.
nothing like t/net of yrs ago eh…
Rikki-UK:
It doesnt really matter what I think, the fact remains that if we allow a rumour that we cannot prove is true at the time of the posting to be published, then we could be liable if the person/organisation that the rumour is about decides they have suffered hurt or damage beacuse of it being published on othis website . It doesnt matter if we refute that rumour totally, the rumour still has been published.As the law stands currently it is not for them to show the rumour has no truth, they only have to show that they have been hurt or damaged in some way. Our only real defence in court is to show the rumour is true. or to remove it from the website within a reasonable amount of time. It doesnt matter at all if in a few weeks/months the rumour is found to have substance.
Do I think the law is an ■■■ as far as forums go… yes personally I do. The law is trying to fit a set of rules that apply to journalists who are bound to research and post facts before publication to internet on-line discussions by individuals who probably dont have as good understanding on media laws. this is totally unrealistic but unfortunatly until the law is defined more via case law this is the situation we are in.
Your post was removed from that thread as it was off topic to the post, it is on topic in here and still remains.
I suggest you start looking at all the threads and posts and get to work as there are loads than need removing if that above is correct.