wattsy Posted July 1, 2009 Share #61 Posted July 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) You mean all style and no substance ? I was being sarcastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Hi wattsy, Take a look here Warning about The Classic Camera shop in London. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Goldie Posted July 1, 2009 Share #62 Posted July 1, 2009 Well. well yet another thread about The CC. The CC was quite definitely dropped as an authorized dealer about two years ago and my understanding is that the decision was backed at the highest level in Solms. That means that any new Leica products sold since then have been obtained with the help of 'friendly' dealers within the EU. Whether such trading is breaking any laws I do not know, but certainly from a customer's point of view I find it disingenuous and opaque. I wonder whether they are still taking non-returnable 10% deposits on out of stock orders? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted July 2, 2009 Share #63 Posted July 2, 2009 What have you seen in this thread that's not factual Kenneth? I haven't read all the comments but I am saying factual representation on the matter needs to be taken into consideration before posting otherwise Classic Camera would be quite justified in taking any misrepresentation made seriously Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiralx Posted July 2, 2009 Share #64 Posted July 2, 2009 I haven't read all the comments but I am saying factual representation on the matter needs to be taken into consideration before posting otherwise Classic Camera would be quite justified in taking any misrepresentation made seriously Well, misrepresentation is certainly something they seem to take very seriously... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted July 2, 2009 Share #65 Posted July 2, 2009 Well, misrepresentation is certainly something they seem to take very seriously...Here is an example of casual comments that could be construed as libelous. I think we are heading into dangerous waters with this sort of comment Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 2, 2009 Share #66 Posted July 2, 2009 Here is an example of casual comments that could be construed as libelous. I think we are heading into dangerous waters with this sort of comment Kenneth, I disagree; the statement is so ambiguous that it could either be viewed negatively or positively. You appear to have viewed the comment in a negative way but the way I read it Akiralx is saying that TCC is careful not to misrepresent itself. There's no context to indicate either way so it could not be construed as libelous. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted July 2, 2009 Share #67 Posted July 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Kenneth, I disagree; the statement is so ambiguous that it could either be viewed negatively or positively. You appear to have viewed the comment in a negative way but the way I read it Akiralx is saying that TCC is careful not to misrepresent itself. There's no context to indicate either way so it could not be construed as libelous. Pete. But this is exactly how comments can be mis interpreted. Can you not see that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 2, 2009 Share #68 Posted July 2, 2009 But there's nothing to stop one from giving ones own opinion, is there? One could for example say that in ones opinion it is an abysmal shop which one personally would not recommend to others, given the choice of authorised Leica dealers to choose from instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 2, 2009 Share #69 Posted July 2, 2009 I haven't read all the comments but I am saying factual representation on the matter needs to be taken into consideration before posting otherwise Classic Camera would be quite justified in taking any misrepresentation made seriously Perhaps you can read the posts on this thread and let us know which you consider to be incorrect or libelous. Thanks. Moderators will the deal with them appropriately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 2, 2009 Share #70 Posted July 2, 2009 But this is exactly how comments can be mis interpreted. Can you not see that? No, you're missing the point - the golden thread that runs through British justice: that you're innocent until proven guilty. For a charge of libel to succeed the prosecution would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the statement was libelous, which is impossible because of the existence of the positive and therefore non-libelous interpretation. To think, or even show, that something *might* be libelous is not enough. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted July 2, 2009 Share #71 Posted July 2, 2009 But there's nothing to stop one from giving ones own opinion, is there? One could for example say that in ones opinion it is an abysmal shop which one personally would not recommend to others, given the choice of authorised Leica dealers to choose from instead. I agree entirely James everyones opinion has to be valid after all it is that persons right. It is however important to state that within the message body. Having said that my late mother always had a saying "If you can't think of anything good to say about anyone then don't say anything" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 3, 2009 Share #72 Posted July 3, 2009 I agree entirely James everyones opinion has to be valid after all it is that persons right. It is however important to state that within the message body. Having said that my late mother always had a saying "If you can't think of anything good to say about anyone then don't say anything" But then how would any sort of critic make their living? Or politicians for that matter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted July 3, 2009 Share #73 Posted July 3, 2009 But then how would any sort of critic make their living? Or politicians for that matter James- I really don't mind, or for that matter care. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted July 3, 2009 Share #74 Posted July 3, 2009 No, you're missing the point - the golden thread that runs through British justice: that you're innocent until proven guilty. For a charge of libel to succeed the prosecution would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the statement was libelous, which is impossible because of the existence of the positive and therefore non-libelous interpretation. To think, or even show, that something *might* be libelous is not enough. Pete. Defamation isn't a crime. In the civil courts the standard is "on the balance of probabilities", Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roydonian Posted July 3, 2009 Share #75 Posted July 3, 2009 We need to remember that The Classic Camera is a UK company, so UK law would apply in the event of a complaint. I’m not a lawyer, but as a magazine editor I did a training course on libel several years ago, and was taught that under UK law if a publication is charged with libel, in practice its only defence is to prove that the contested report was 100% accurate. It is my understanding that there is no “balance of probabilities” or "reasonable doubt" under UK libel law. If the prosecution can find the tiniest error in the report, they win the case. The result is that libel cases are so easy to win in the UK that we are seeing what is being referred to as 'libel tourism'. Wikipedia will describe this better than I can, but I'll quote one sentence: "It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defences for those accused of making derogatory statements." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted July 3, 2009 Share #76 Posted July 3, 2009 Is the suggestion that if you walk into a camera store and are treated with snooty indifference, you must keep this a lifelong secret, in case the store late decides to sue you for libel? My own description of my own experience of the Classic Camera is as follows - I was there a couple of years ago, and was completely ignored when I stood beside the man sitting at the counter clicking away on his computer. The two men in the store evidently thought that a person dressed in tee-shirt and jeans (the only attire I can think I was wearing on a visit to the British Museum), couldn't possibly be worth even talking to. I certainly don't see that anyone can sue me for passing on this tiny snippet of information about my own experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister35mm Posted March 15, 2010 Share #77 Posted March 15, 2010 I was in the CC shop on Saturday and only male shop assistant there was trying to persuade a lady customer to buy a Zeiss lens over the Leica by some rather unusual arguements. I asked to look at some Leica M3's, and CC had four. Camera 1 -jammed film transport Camera 2. misty viewfinder Camera 3. Fungus Camera 4.Fungus with white spots all over the shutter. The lady shop assistant tried to scrape the white spots off with her fingernail. Meanwhile I had brought back my Leica R8 (Purchased from CC two weeks previously) )because the flash electronics appeared to be faulty. I asked to try one of their Metz flashguns (I wanted to buy one anyway) and after a bit of time, the lady assistant found the cabinet, and got a tiny metz flash out of a box. I said "do you have any test batteries" Lady shop assistant "yes, but they are all sealed".....and declined to go any further. No batteries or flash or tested camera I walked out the shop...dazed...! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeed1 Posted March 15, 2010 Share #78 Posted March 15, 2010 I was in the CC shop on Saturday and only male shop assistant there was trying to persuade a lady customer to buy a Zeiss lens over the Leica by some rather unusual arguements. Please elaborate. I would be persuaded by the argument that certain Zeiss lenses offer equivalent performance at a significantly reduced price. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 15, 2010 Share #79 Posted March 15, 2010 The shop, which has a "reputation" amongst forum members here, obviously wants to sell Zeiss lenses over Leica ones, as they are not an official Leica dealer. One can only assume that they make more money through selling Zeiss lenses than their grey import Leica ones. Not that there's anything wrong with Zeiss lenses, per se. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 15, 2010 Share #80 Posted March 15, 2010 Bit of a circus really. Seems Frank would have been out of luck with passport, not being a resident, so it didnt do him any good to walk away on the basis of Authorised/Passport. Walking away on the basis that they got up his nose is altogether another issue.One does not have to be a resident. The only qualification is buying at an UK authorized dealer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.