View Full Version : Libel Case arising from a message board arguement
A chap has successfully claimed £10,000 damages against a person who was making up fictitious stories about him because of an arguement on a messageboard over the Iraq war.
What do orgers feel about spreading unsubstantiated gossip on this board?:roll:
What do orgers feel about spreading unsubstantiated gossip on this board?:roll:
I would be opposed to any kind of gossip "unsubstantiated" or not, on the board or not.
I can document every thing I say about issues, and express my opinon and question others that I can't... but, why do people bother spreading rumours about other people on messageboards?
Once gossip and rumours have been substantiated, they become facts,and as such, if used to counter arguments, are appropriate, imo. But where they are simply gossip and rumours, they should never be used......because unsubstantiated gossip and rumours are lies...........and as the poster referenced has found out, their use can...and should......lead to repercussions.
A chap has successfully claimed £10,000 damages against a person who was making up fictitious stories about him because of an arguement on a messageboard over the Iraq war.
What do orgers feel about spreading unsubstantiated gossip on this board?:roll:
Has claimed or received, there is a difference, surely no Sheriff, HighCourt Judge would award such an amount only by so called hear- say, or a few lines typed by a man on a mission.
A chap has successfully claimed £10,000 damages against a person who was making up fictitious stories about him ...
Very interesting, Rheghead. Could you provide more details, please?
Yvonne,
Mid Clyth.
Very interesting, Rheghead. Could you provide more details, please?
Yvonne,
Mid Clyth.
why don't you just do a search for it you will probably find it.
Very interesting, Rheghead. Could you provide more details, please?
Yvonne,
Mid Clyth.
Exactly what I was asking in a round about way!
Exactly what I was asking in a round about way!
Following krieve's suggestion, I did a quick search. The following
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1737444,00.html
is maybe what Rheghead was referring to.
lol so did i http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2096902,00.html not sure if this is it .
Yesterday, I was listening to the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 and he had an interviewee who successfully claimed a substantial amount of cash against a fellow messageboarder who conducted a reign of defamation against him. I just wondered if this case had altered the posting tactics of those present on e .org?
EDIT, Michael Smith, that was the case!!!
Yesterday, I was listening to the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 and he had an interviewee who successfully claimed a substantial amount of cash against a fellow messageboarder who conducted a reign of defamation against him. I just wondered if this case had altered the posting tactics of those present on e .org?
EDIT, Michael Smith, that was the case!!!
That,s not what I was asking, to claim or receive, as well you know are two different things.
If the Timesonline report is the incident which led to this thread then what was posted was not gossip.
The posts were unfounded defamatory allegations which were intended to be damaging to the persons reputation.
The belief that gossip is, of necessity, carried out with the intention of causing trouble or hurt is not necessarily well founded.
Can anybody put their hand on their heart and swear that they have never, ever gossiped? I certainly can't!
Of course we all are guilty of gossip, me as well, I just simply asked the question, was it a claim of damages or did he receive any damage payments if so then he would have to of been found guilty.
Gossip is to be expected.
I would never insult or be-little someone deliberately.
It would appear that the allegations were of the person having convictions for, and still being involved in serious criminal activities involving children which, it would appear, was completely false.
It would appear fairly obvious that the person making the allegations had deliberately invented them with the direct intention of seriously damaging the recipients reputation.
A request for a retraction and an apology, which would have stopped any action for damages, was met only with further abuse.
As a result of that, and the fact that the person making the allegations declined to attend court to defend the case, damages were awarded.
The allegations made were well beyond anything you could call gossip and were defamatory statements made with the sole intent of damaging the persons reputation beyond repair in order to affect his standing in society.
I don't think the term Character Assassination would be an over exaggeration.
Had the statements made been of a type more normal for local gossip and a retraction and apology given when requested the matter would have ended at that point.
I don't think there is anybody who posts on this board who is malicious enough to even attempt to make similar allegations nor do I think anybody would be stupid or pig-headed enough to allow things to get anywhere near that far.
I am certain, and I don't think anybody would disagree, that if anybody did try then the Moderators would make sure that as soon as the first such post appeared then it would be the last thing the person ever got the opportunity post on this board.
A chap has successfully claimed £10,000 damages against a person who was making up fictitious stories about him because of an arguement on a messageboard over the Iraq war.
What do orgers feel about spreading unsubstantiated gossip on this board?:roll:
Note it says "successfully claimed".
Note it says "successfully claimed".
I noted that but has he got the hard cash yet:eyes
the original ducky
26-Mar-06, 19:08
wow thats a lot o dosh, well i would feel that the persons repulation has been ruined really hasnt it. its alright for the other person spreading the lies all i will say is that they wouldnt like it if it was the other way round.
cullbucket
27-Mar-06, 05:07
wow thats a lot o dosh, well i would feel that the persons repulation has been ruined really hasnt it. its alright for the other person spreading the lies all i will say is that they wouldnt like it if it was the other way round.
It sure is a lot of money - how about you start spreading rumours about me and then when you get fined I will split the 10K payment with you......;0)
Whitewater
27-Mar-06, 10:06
Following krieve's suggestion, I did a quick search. The following
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1737444,00.html
is maybe what Rheghead was referring to.
That was very interesting Yvonne, I think it brings home what we can and can not get away with on this forum.
Recently we have all been having a go at the moderators for deleting and locking threads, I now know where they are coming from, they are maybe saving a few necks before things get out of hand.
Yep know exactly what you mean Whitewater I too can see what the moderators are doing but I have to add I have one neck well and truly in hand already!
That,s not what I was asking, to claim or receive, as well you know are two different things.
Chillie, I am lost. I would think that "sucessfully claimed" is self explanatory...?
I noted that but has he got the hard cash yet:eyes
Now I am even more confused. Does it matter in terms of guilt, whether or not the claimant has recieved the money? The defendent was found guilty before being condemed to pay restitution, and will remain so irrespective of when or if the ammount is paid.
I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand. I'm going to tell myself to switch of the computer now....
That was very interesting Yvonne, I think it brings home what we can and can not get away with on this forum.
Recently we have all been having a go at the moderators for deleting and locking threads, I now know where they are coming from, they are maybe saving a few necks before things get out of hand.
Which is tha point I was making in the "ofski" thread last week before this case got into the papers.
There are a lot of people new to the internet who get carried away with their new found freedoms, never before have so many people had the ability to speak freely to so many people and so easily. What they don't realise is that with freedom comes responsibility, you can't have the one without the other. If someone wants freedom of speech they should be prepared to take responsibility for what they say.
But Fred that is about libelling a person or persons. How is a thread on immigration a potentially libellous thread? How is a thread on immigration breaking the law?
There are many threads that sail close to the line and are not removed - the "Violence on Henrietta Street" a classic one, people were identified by nick names but it was clear who was being talked about to many people. That thread is still here. There are whole threads slagging off companies and people that work for them and they are still here. Why leave these potentially libellous threads and not the more general threads about current affairs.
Doesnt make sense to me Fred thats all
But Fred that is about libelling a person or persons. How is a thread on immigration a potentially libellous thread? How is a thread on immigration breaking the law?
There are many threads that sail close to the line and are not removed - the "Violence on Henrietta Street" a classic one, people were identified by nick names but it was clear who was being talked about to many people. That thread is still here. There are whole threads slagging off companies and people that work for them and they are still here. Why leave these potentially libellous threads and not the more general threads about current affairs.
Doesnt make sense to me Fred thats all The thread on immigration wasn't a libel issue, but it could have been a legal one.
I'm no expert on the law, but there were particular posts by particular people which may possibly have been deemed to be "inciting racial hatred". It may possibly have only been sailing close to the line, but the moderators couldn't afford to wait and see if the line had been crossed or not. Let's leave others to face the test cases, shall we, so that we don't have to raise legal funds for orgers facing possible criminal conviction?
(Sorry, Fred, for repeating everything you've already elucidated here and in other threads).
There are many threads that sail close to the line and are not removed -
This is true, squidge. I had to telephone the moderators about a thread that was started to spread defamatory, malicious and libellous rumours about myself and my family.
I would add that the moderators involved removed it immediately, but even so, it was allowed to continue for far too long (i.e., more than one post).
It became clear to me that message board forums have to have a watchful eye kept on them!
Yvonne (real name)
Mid Clyth (real location)
... I think it brings home what we can and can not get away with on this forum.
Yes, Whitewater, and the improvements in the reputation system recently announced by Niall will also help to keep everything above board and open, don't you think?
The posts which brought about the Court Case were not "Sailing close to the wind", they were a blatant attempt at character assassination.
It would appear to have started after a simple difference of opinion.
When one party seems to have refused to change their opinion on a certain matter the attempt at character assassination commenced and continued unremittingly.
It would appear obvious from the description of what occurred that an attempt was made using the tried and tested method of demonising the other person because of their standpoint, rather than just accept that they were entitled to hold a different opinion.
The whole thing was about attempting to stop a person, with perhaps an unpopular point of view, from being heard.
The whole matter was brought about by one person attempting to censor another persons legitimate point of view by humiliating them in public with accusations of extremism and, failing that, criminality.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.