After more than six years of supporting Tramlink, Stephen Parascandolo has
been forced by legal threats to remove the Latest News section from the
Unofficial Croydon Tramlink website.

http://www.tramlink.co.uk/news/index.shtml

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

After more than six years of supporting Tramlink, Stephen Parascandolo has
been forced by legal threats to remove the Latest News section from the
Unofficial Croydon Tramlink website.

http://www.tramlink.co.uk/news/index.shtml


The site is, of course, available on Google Cache:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:E...ink+news&hl=en

--
MatSav

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

After more than six years of supporting Tramlink, Stephen Parascandolo has
been forced by legal threats to remove the Latest News section from the
Unofficial Croydon Tramlink website.

http://www.tramlink.co.uk/news/index.shtml

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped

From whom?

Why?


Paul

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 02:04:37 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:


After more than six years of supporting Tramlink, Stephen Parascandolo has
been forced by legal threats to remove the Latest News section from the
Unofficial Croydon Tramlink website.

http://www.tramlink.co.uk/news/index.shtml

This is not an issue which causes me particular concern [yet] other than
feeling that the better course of action for the benefit of all webmasters who
produce sites to the same standard of the Unofficial Croydon Tramlink, would
have been at the very minimum for legal advice to have been sought. Clearly
this would have cost money which the webmaster doesn't have, but perhaps an
appeal for donations to a "fighting fund" might have been a route to follow.
If all members of the site's discussion group made a small contribution, about
£35,000 could have been raised. However this was not something that the
webmaster wish do and therefore the News Section of his site was abolished
with all archived material removed.

IMHO it was the archived material that was at the root of the problem since it
provided a searchable database of incidents on the Croydon Tramlink website
and the actions that were taken to restore the service or vehicle[s] back to
normal operational mode. Where there were perceived shortcomings in the
actions taken, and the associated time scales, then editorial comment made was
deemed to be "libellous rubbish" and considered by the suppliers of services
or equipment to adversely affect their reputation and possible orders or
contracts in the future. I think I can see were all of this would have lead
which for someone running a "hobbyist" site, it was not worth the risk of
having substantial damages being awarded against him.

Whether there are any parallels that can be drawn from this with other similar
advocacy sites is uncertain, although I can say I have received complainants
from an organisation about "editorial comment" made on my site
[www.tfwl.org.uk], so I think this is a trend that is likely to escalate in
the future. Indeed we are all 'guilty' by following any policy of objecting
to anything in print which we feel is misinformation on our favourite mode of
transport. Whether we all shut up and say nothing is a matter of further
discussion but it is a warning shot that anything said in print must be the
'whole truth and nothing but the truth'. Pity the newspapers don't adopt the
same levels of responsibility.

David Bradley

http://www.tramlink.co.uk/news/index.shtml

The site is, of course, available on Google Cache:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:E...oydon-tramlink....

Let them sue Google!

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:14:26 -0000, "Paul Stevenson"
wrote:


"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

After more than six years of supporting Tramlink, Stephen Parascandolo has
been forced by legal threats to remove the Latest News section from the
Unofficial Croydon Tramlink website.

http://www.tramlink.co.uk/news/index.shtml

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped

From whom?

Why?

Received this from Stephen:

You are welcome to forward the attached text, which I think answers your
questions, to the newsgroup - it has already been on various Yahoo!Groups
and similar material will be in the Croydon press this week.

Thanks to everyone for their messages of support - my inbox has been filling
all day.

As it is no big secret, the parties that **threatened** to take legal action
we -

Tramtrack Croydon Ltd over "inaccurate" speculation regarding the cause of
several recent incidents.

Bombardier Transportation over "libellous rubbish" that was published on my
site, with fears that some reports (many dating back some time) contained
inaccurate information on tram defects, which may influence other cities
decisions on future tram orders. Any further "inaccurate" comments would
result in letters from their lawyers without warning.

Neither company identified specific reports which they objected to.
Everything that was published was done so in good faith, based on the
information sent to me. However the site was only as accurate as the
information it received.

The offers of assistance are very welcome, but at the end of the day, I
publish the website and I write the website. If future reports could lead to
legal action without warning, I can't afford to take the personal risk. I
don't have a legal team, or a huge publishing group to fight the claim. And,
I do not want to expose my sources to clear my name.

If people want to write letters of support to magazines or Newspapers,
please do, but nothing short of legal indemnities on past material (edited
if required), and legally binding guidelines on future articles (i.e. If I
follow the guidelines, I won't get sued), will allow a return of the News in
the previous format. I made some changes on Saturday and suggested this
approach to TCL - I had hoped it would have been possible to have reached
some agreement with them. The situation with Bombardier has unfortunately
overtaken that process.

I believe the Croydon Advertiser, and Guardian will be running a story in
their next editions.

I am sorry it has come to this, but I have to protect myself first at the
end of the day.


regards
--
Stephen J. Parascandolo (West Wickham, Kent, UK)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My HomePAGE - http://www.sjp.me.uk
Croydon Tramlink:The Unofficial Site - http://www.tramlink.co.uk
Beckenham and West Wickham MRC - http://www.bwwmrc.co.uk

Please do not publish my email address on the web.

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:42:56 +0000, Marc Brett
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:14:26 -0000, "Paul Stevenson"
wrote:


"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

After more than six years of supporting Tramlink, Stephen Parascandolo has
been forced by legal threats to remove the Latest News section from the
Unofficial Croydon Tramlink website.

http://www.tramlink.co.uk/news/index.shtml

From whom?
Why?

Received this from Stephen:

You are welcome to forward the attached text, which I think answers your
questions, to the newsgroup - it has already been on various Yahoo!Groups
and similar material will be in the Croydon press this week.

Thanks to everyone for their messages of support - my inbox has been filling
all day.

As it is no big secret, the parties that **threatened** to take legal action
we -

Tramtrack Croydon Ltd over "inaccurate" speculation regarding the cause of
several recent incidents.

Bombardier Transportation over "libellous rubbish" that was published on my
site, with fears that some reports (many dating back some time) contained
inaccurate information on tram defects, which may influence other cities
decisions on future tram orders. Any further "inaccurate" comments would
result in letters from their lawyers without warning.

Neither company identified specific reports which they objected to.
Everything that was published was done so in good faith, based on the
information sent to me. However the site was only as accurate as the
information it received.

The offers of assistance are very welcome, but at the end of the day, I
publish the website and I write the website. If future reports could lead to
legal action without warning, I can't afford to take the personal risk. I
don't have a legal team, or a huge publishing group to fight the claim. And,
I do not want to expose my sources to clear my name.

If people want to write letters of support to magazines or Newspapers,
please do, but nothing short of legal indemnities on past material (edited
if required), and legally binding guidelines on future articles (i.e. If I
follow the guidelines, I won't get sued), will allow a return of the News in
the previous format. I made some changes on Saturday and suggested this
approach to TCL - I had hoped it would have been possible to have reached
some agreement with them. The situation with Bombardier has unfortunately
overtaken that process.

I believe the Croydon Advertiser, and Guardian will be running a story in
their next editions.

I am sorry it has come to this, but I have to protect myself first at the
end of the day.

I find this situation utterly appalling. Whatever happened to free
speech, public disclosure and the right to express an opinion? The only
reason why those parties could possibly wish to close down this source
of information is because what is said is true. If it wasn't true then
they'd only need to provide the correct information and I'm sure Stephen
would publish the information by way of correction and balance. I have
seen no hint of malice in anything Stephen has published - he simply
tried to provide a true record of events whether those events are
positive or negative. Tramtrack and Bombardier seem to be saying that
they are not prepared to learn from their mistakes or events and
therefore a source of such information needs to be "shut up". I think
the potential for negative publicity from their actions will say much
about their companies and what potential purchasers of their products or
investors in their constituent companies should be considering.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:02:25 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

I find this situation utterly appalling. Whatever happened to free
speech, public disclosure and the right to express an opinion? The only
reason why those parties could possibly wish to close down this source
of information is because what is said is true. If it wasn't true then
they'd only need to provide the correct information and I'm sure Stephen
would publish the information by way of correction and balance.

You'd find it just as appalling if there was no law controlling
defamation etc.

But having looked at some archived pages on http://www.archive.org/ I
can't see anything terribly offensive. Did he start ranting more
strongly recently? Have you been following the site?

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:42:56 +0000, Marc Brett
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:14:26 -0000, "Paul Stevenson"
wrote:


"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

After more than six years of supporting Tramlink, Stephen Parascandolo has
been forced by legal threats to remove the Latest News section from the
Unofficial Croydon Tramlink website.

http://www.tramlink.co.uk/news/index.shtml

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped

From whom?

Why?

Received this from Stephen:

You are welcome to forward the attached text, which I think answers your
questions, to the newsgroup - it has already been on various Yahoo!Groups
and similar material will be in the Croydon press this week.

Thanks to everyone for their messages of support - my inbox has been filling
all day.

As it is no big secret, the parties that **threatened** to take legal action
we -

Tramtrack Croydon Ltd over "inaccurate" speculation regarding the cause of
several recent incidents.

Bombardier Transportation over "libellous rubbish" that was published on my
site, with fears that some reports (many dating back some time) contained
inaccurate information on tram defects, which may influence other cities
decisions on future tram orders. Any further "inaccurate" comments would
result in letters from their lawyers without warning.

Neither company identified specific reports which they objected to.
Everything that was published was done so in good faith, based on the
information sent to me. However the site was only as accurate as the
information it received.

IANAL, but.... In the midst of everything, these two paragraphs speak
volumes. A phrase like "libellous rubbish" seems too emotive to be
included in a proper legally-considered letter - as opposed to a mere
scare tactic - while the lack of any specific objections suggests they
haven't really got a leg to stand on. If they had said, "Your report
of XX/XX/0X is inaccurate for X, Y or Z reason," then you have
something to work with, but essentially it sounds like Tramlink and
Bombardier are saying, "You have libeled us on your site, but we're
not going to tell you where, when and how, so you'll have to take the
whole thing down."

uk.legal added

The offers of assistance are very welcome, but at the end of the day, I
publish the website and I write the website. If future reports could lead to
legal action without warning, I can't afford to take the personal risk. I
don't have a legal team, or a huge publishing group to fight the claim. And,
I do not want to expose my sources to clear my name.

If people want to write letters of support to magazines or Newspapers,
please do, but nothing short of legal indemnities on past material (edited
if required), and legally binding guidelines on future articles (i.e. If I
follow the guidelines, I won't get sued), will allow a return of the News in
the previous format. I made some changes on Saturday and suggested this
approach to TCL - I had hoped it would have been possible to have reached
some agreement with them. The situation with Bombardier has unfortunately
overtaken that process.

I believe the Croydon Advertiser, and Guardian will be running a story in
their next editions.

I am sorry it has come to this, but I have to protect myself first at the
end of the day.


regards

--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War, and in Films & TV:
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk/

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:57:03 GMT someone who may be
(Nick Cooper) wrote
this:-

As it is no big secret, the parties that **threatened** to take legal action
we -

Tramtrack Croydon Ltd over "inaccurate" speculation regarding the cause of
several recent incidents.

Bombardier Transportation over "libellous rubbish" that was published on my
site, [snp]

IANAL, but.... In the midst of everything, these two paragraphs speak
volumes. [snip] essentially it sounds like Tramlink and
Bombardier are saying, "You have libeled us on your site, but we're
not going to tell you where, when and how, so you'll have to take the
whole thing down."

Personally I would put any threatening e-mails, letters and
transcripts of telephone calls on the web site. Bullies don't like
daylight being shone on their activities.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54