03/02/2020 J20 v Facebook Ireland Ltd [2016] NIQB 98 (20 December 2016) (https://www.Facebook.com/#!/pages/Belfast-banter/207797202729326) references to pictures of the applicant, to include all entries and comments on same." This motion was supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff setting out the photographs and posts about which he complained which included all the posts set out in paragraphs 5-7 of this judgment. [56] A further injunction was granted in relation to future publications. [57] As indicated at paragraph 8 above the relevant posts were deleted by 9 October 2013. [58] Thereafter the defendant successfully obtained an order discharging the injunction in so far as it related to future publications, the first injunction being academic given that the relevant postings had been deleted or removed. [59] The defendants are critical of these notices and say they were deficient and did not fix it with "actual knowledge". The defendant did not call any evidence on this point but rather relied on an affidavit sworn by a Mr Mike Gagne on behalf of the defendant on 10 March 2016 and on submissions. [60] In his affidavit Mr Gagne describes himself as a Global Escalations Manager, Community Operations at Facebook Inc. [61] He confirms that Facebook received "a number of letters and legal correspondence from plaintiff's solicitors by fax". This refers to the solicitors' letter of 13 September 2013. He contends that "community operations is unable to discern, let alone review, any particular post (i.e. photograph) based on the vague information provided by the plaintiff. However he goes on to state that the community operations reviewed the following page as a whole namely https://www.Facebook.com/Irishblessings/page, and determined it did not violate Facebook's terms of service. [62] He then goes on to consider the injunction papers which he confirms were received by the defendant on 25 September 2013. Again he is critical of the information provided. [63] In relation to the Irish Blessings page (notwithstanding that it appears Facebook had already determined it did not violate its terms of service), he asserts URL is invalid, likely due to a typographical error, and does not lead to a Facebook page. This obviously refers to a misspelling of blessing. [64] In relation to the Ardoyne Under Siege site again he asserts that this URL is invalid, likely due to a typographical error (the ellipses) and does not lead to a Facebook page. [65] In relation to Belfast Banter he asserts that he was told that this page was not an issue in the litigation. [66] In relation to the alleged online reports allegedly made by the plaintiff and his friends he avers that these posts are not sufficiently described nor is there a URL provided that would allow Facebook to investigate what, if any, reports were made. He did refer to some screen shots provided by the plaintiff in which Facebook Community Operations had reviewed the content complained of and found that it did not violate Facebook policies. [67] In relation to the issue of the online reports and responses from Facebook the plaintiff had already provided in the course of the proceedings a screenshot in response to a report dated 12 September which referred to the Irish Blessings photograph referred to in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim with the following response from Facebook. "This photo wasn't removed. Thank you for taking the time to report something that you feel may violate our community standards. Reports like yours are an important part of making Facebook a safe www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2016/98.html 12/17