New libel laws from tomorrow.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    New libel laws from tomorrow.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=4855969
    I offer no guarantee that anything I say is correct. wysiwyg

    #2
    So get it off your chest today, and ready to launch tomorrow.
    Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

    Comment


      #3
      For those who do not wish to join a site, complete with giving out your email address, just to read a basic news item . . . .

      Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25551640
      Where you don't have to sign up to anything.

      But yet again, it's all about "How much money have you lost ?"

      - so you can lose your case because no money was lost,
      but you could be banned from sites, jobs, housing, after a court states, you lost no money, therefore no damage done, case dismissed, thereby showing the alledged defamatory statement, although untrue, is shown by the court to be true because the case was dismissed because no money was lost !

      Comment


        #4
        It's not only about financial loss.

        The actual Defamation Act 2013 states that a publication must have caused, or is likely to cause, serious serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.
        Being banned from jobs or housing seems serious harm, indeed.

        "serious harm" must include serious financial loss only if claimant is a business.

        Comment


          #5
          The Law needs changing / clarifying, and IS being seen to be made better
          However, nuff said.......... as it's a good move by the courts.

          Happy new year.

          Comment


            #6
            I am not a legal person but I d like to see the effect of new Laws on science and tech publications. I read " Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements", but this is not all.
            There are qualifications to this however and the Law is not a blanket. As I understand the courts will consider how reasonable is a belief and the nature of person who says or writes things that reach a wider public. One expects an ordinary person to have fewer sources of information and so they might become excused. However, one expects experts to be accurate in their judgement.
            "I'll be back."

            Comment


              #7
              I suffered serious financial loss due to a dodgy builder (£7K+). I wrote an accurate review on a review site. I have been awarded a ccj against the business. I named the directors of the ltd co. on the review site. Is this the kind of thing that would get me 'done'?

              Or is more along the lines of just saying nasty person things such as 'Mr D Builder is a robbing B***AR*', even if it is true.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Berlingogirl View Post
                Is this the kind of thing that would get me 'done'?.
                No. It was true, and you could prove it

                As with all cases, you have to have proof.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Berlingogirl
                  Did the builder do shoddy work in your own property or at another one adjacent? Such loss you mention is scary. Building works and alterations can have consequence on any structure underneath or next to it.
                  "I'll be back."

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The subtle difference is stating that he failed to do a b c etc resulting in zxy. That can be defended, truth being an absolute defence.

                    It is the opinion element, that he is a robbing bar steward, or giving them a 1 star or zero rating, which as an opinion, is therefore harder to prove and more easily defended.

                    On the website front wonder if LLZ will review their policy - poor Mod2 !
                    Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                      On the website front wonder if LLZ will review their policy - poor Mod2 !
                      I can’t see that much needs to change because these points still apply;
                      • In the vast majority of cases where people have included details of companies or individuals, those details have little or no impact on the question or the answers given. If removing the details reduces risk of liability and still leaves the question basically intact then that is what I will do.
                      • LLZ are not in a position to check the truth / accuracy / fairness of a post.
                      • Competitors have/will try to use these forums to attack each other, those posts/threads are removed when recognised but it’s not always easy to tell the difference between these and posts by people with legitimate grievances.
                      • Much of the new law relates to how a case might be defended, we don’t want to get that far, who would cover the costs for LLZ as a third party?


                      The requirements on LLZ to provide personal details of posters need to be considered, I might for example reconsider how I deal with potentially libelous posts from a member who has clearly taken steps to try to hide their identity by using throw-away e-mail addresses, proxy servers etc.
                      I also post as Mars_Mug when not moderating

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                        It is the opinion element, that he is a robbing bar steward, or giving them a 1 star or zero rating, which as an opinion, is therefore harder to prove and more easily defended.
                        Depends on which specific aspects of standards are being rated. Sometimes rating can be seen in inverse by some people. Some services can be valued more than others, depending on need etc. We must not forget that price is also important consideration. Higher ratings of some services come with a premium price which could make them unaffordable so some people may wish move down a notch from triple A so as to afford certain things
                        "I'll be back."

                        Comment

                        Latest Activity

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X