'Reinstate Mad Frankie?'

[Cerddinen]

I've read the thread and still have no real idea why MadFrank was banned. But I did read the link to some of his posts on the Studland Bay Preservation Forum. The one thing I find amazing is that anyone would write a report for £150 a day! Disgraceful, and should be stopped. How will I ever fund my next boat if consultancy rates are driven down to that pathetic level?

 

[late-night-lochin]

I'll be interested to see what Dan says in reply but I don't think it's possible for you to sign away IPC's responsibility for what you post on here, in the same way that you can't avoid your H&S responsibilities as skipper of a yacht by getting your sailing mates to sign a disclaimer when they crew for you...

British libel laws are the envy of litigious individuals everywhere, to the extent that there is the concept of "libel tourism", whereby a rich American or other foreign national can sue a US author in the British courts, even if the book wasn't published in the UK and they don't live here, on the grounds that it nevertheless might be available over here. The damages awarded can be much bigger than those in the US - which is why they do it of course

Hi jhr and All

I understand IPC's responsibility for what is posted and ensuring there is nothing is of an illegal nature i.e. inflamatory, pornographic etc. That's fairly straight forward and most of us will remember tales of publications which have been taken to task and closed down over the years.

The thoughts behind my question were along the following lines.

Everyone posts under a "nom de plume" so are they considered as a person or a cyber entity. OK, I understand that if anyone posted something of an illegal nature, they could be (and should be) tracked down and dealt with.

If MadFrankie (Cyber entity) has a slanging match with ST44 (also a cyber entity), providing non of their posts contain material which could be deemed of an illegal nature, I don't see how how either MadFrankie or ST44 could initiate legal procedings against either each other or IPC any more than Donald Duck could initiate legal procedings against Tom Cat or Time Warner.

If the "owner" of ST44 took exception to the content of MadFrankie's posts and tried to sue the "owner" of MadFrankie, I'd have thought that in court, the "owner" of MadFrankie would genuinely be able to deny that he'd ever exchanged any dialogue with the "owner" of ST44 therefore there was no case.

I'd also have thought that the same would apply if the "owner" on ST44 tried legal action against IPC.

Any thoughts Gentlemen?

 

[Searush]

I've read the thread and still have no real idea why MadFrank was banned. But I did read the link to some of his posts on the Studland Bay Preservation Forum. The one thing I find amazing is that anyone would write a report for £150 a day! Disgraceful, and should be stopped. How will I ever fund my next boat if consultancy rates are driven down to that pathetic level?

I'm sure you understand that consultancy rates are driven by the skills & ability of the consultant & the availability of others to do that work cheaper. I have been paid over £1000/day in the past, but what I do now (in a different field) only generates £200/day - as it happens it suits me because it is a retirement job & the stress levels are low.

MF's "crime" was to identify & publish that Steve Trewellah's wife was commissioned to write a report. If Steve Trewellah is a trustee of the charity that commissioned her, I believe that is illegal because trustees & their families must not gain benefits from their charity.

Edit; I have been checking up on this & it may not necessarily be so; much depends on the constitution of the specific charity

 

[photodog]

If you are serious, how are there any newspaper columnists still working, or even barristers; "I put it to you, you were there and you did steal that car", that would mean every person walking out of court on a technicality would sue for deformation, no?

I fear we are going this way, but I don't think things are quite as bad as you suspect. Anyhow, ST44 said far worse about me than I did him, should I sue them? Will you be suing me for disagreeing with you?

Well newspaper columnists do have to be carefull... and they are usually the source of problems for newspapers...but often the material that they are publishing is satire, and that is a defence... It is unusual for a straight story at a national title to attract problems.. In court if you lie.. then you can be done for perjury... so there is protection in the court.. but of course the proceedings are not being published verbatim...(BTW court reporting is accorded absolute privildge under the Law of Libel Amendment act of 1888... so you cant be sued for publishing material from a court case.)

Unfortunatley I dont think that you can sue for defamation because like most posters on the site you are anonymous... and as such it the libel can not be reasonably understood to refer to you, because your virtual persona has no connection with your real persona.. though if your identity was widely knowonn by the people on the forum, and this was known to the person making a defamatory comment... then you could take action... this was clearly estabilished in case law... "It is not nessecary that all the world should understand the libel; it is sufficient if those who know the plaintiff can make out that he is the person meant."

Disagreeing with someone is not defamation... or even passing a judgment on a persons actions... (As long as the reporting of those actions was accurate..) so you can say something like... "Those actions are disgracefull" as that is a statement of your opinion and is Fair Comment, which is a valid defence... (This is also why columnists can say so many nasty things.. it is fair comment.)

So, if you said on the forum that I was a tosspot... well that may be fair comment, so I would be ill advised to action it... OTOH, if you said that I was a former Nazi prison guard then I could take action.....
So, if we make factual statements about a conservationist like I mentioned in my post... (Like he wants to run his own zoo..) Then we had better make certain that this is factually correct... we have to have him on record saying that...

It is often the case that what we say here is in fact satire.... you yourself do this on a regular basis.... but if this material is mixed into a serious thread... then we have to be carefull..

I think that you would be surprised how bad things are... fortunatley you can not get legal aid for libel... so that stops most actions in their tracks... but there is no doubt that the Libel laws in this country are onerous.

 

[late-night-lochin]

MF's "crime" was to identify & publish that Steve Trewellah's wife was commissioned to write a report. If Steve Trewellah is a trustee of the charity that commissioned her, I believe that is illegal because trustees & their families must not gain benefits from their charity.

Thanks Searush, I missed that bit. That is potentially very dodgy ground, particularly if MadFrankie is wrong.

 

[photodog]

Hi jhr and All

IEveryone posts under a "nom de plume" so are they considered as a person or a cyber entity. OK, I understand that if anyone posted something of an illegal nature, they could be (and should be) tracked down and dealt with.

If MadFrankie (Cyber entity) has a slanging match with ST44 (also a cyber entity), providing non of their posts contain material which could be deemed of an illegal nature, I don't see how how either MadFrankie or ST44 could initiate legal procedings against either each other or IPC any more than Donald Duck could initiate legal procedings against Tom Cat or Time Warner.

If the "owner" of ST44 took exception to the content of MadFrankie's posts and tried to sue the "owner" of MadFrankie, I'd have thought that in court, the "owner" of MadFrankie would genuinely be able to deny that he'd ever exchanged any dialogue with the "owner" of ST44 therefore there was no case.

I'd also have thought that the same would apply if the "owner" on ST44 tried legal action against IPC.

Any thoughts Gentlemen?

See my above post.... for a defamation action to be successfull a person must prove that it has been reasonably understood to refer to him.

"It is sufficient if those that know the plaintiff can make out that he is the person meant."

This also applies to a corporate entity as well...

In the now famous Walker wingsail V Yacthing world case the company was awarded £1,000,000 and the two directors were awarded £485,000 together... (IIRC)

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Thanks Searush, I missed that bit. That is potentially very dodgy ground, particularly if MadFrankie is wrong.

Dan banned Mad Frankie because he contravened the forum rule, "Thou shalt not reveal personal details on the forum", not because he revealed the facts and even though the people he named can be found all over the web if you google seahorse, studland and other key words.

Anyway, nice to see that Mad Frankie has posted a lovely message on the Studland Bay Preservation Association to all his supporters on here.

 

[photodog]

MF's "crime" was to identify & publish that Steve Trewellah's wife was commissioned to write a report. If Steve Trewellah is a trustee of the charity that commissioned her, I believe that is illegal because trustees & their families must not gain benefits from their charity.

Edit; I have been checking up on this & it may not necessarily be so; much depends on the constitution of the specific charity

I didnt see that in the thread... that would be a potential bomb shell... That is why it would be so difficult to put up an area to just explore this issue... (As suggested by others..) because every fact would have to be substantiated by the publishers before it could be relied upon....

 

[Searush]

Thanks Searush, I missed that bit. That is potentially very dodgy ground, particularly if MadFrankie is wrong.

Please see my edit - the legality or otherwise actually depends on the detail in their Articles. i suspect it may not be easy to see them.

 

[Vara]

Am I the only one here that has no idea what everyone is talking about?

No, count me in.

 

[late-night-lochin]

Dan banned Mad Frankie because he contravened the forum rule, "Thou shalt not reveal personal details on the forum", not because he revealed the facts and even though the people he named can be found all over the web if you google seahorse, studland and other key words.

Anyway, nice to see that Mad Frankie has posted a lovely message on the Studland Bay Preservation Association to all his supporters on here.

Cheers Major

I've got nothing against MadFrankie but by breaking that rule, even in my non legal mind, he has moved from a cyber slanging match (a but of fun and would probably never stand up in court) to a real potential libel case.

Even if he only transcribed data from the seahorse huggers website, there is no guarantee that that data is correct, it may be subject to copyright etc and I can understand IPC not wanting to be held responsible for the re-publication of it.

Unfortunately, that's the world we live in these days.

 

[late-night-lochin]

Please see my edit - the legality or otherwise actually depends on the detail in their Articles. i suspect it may not be easy to see them.

I did notice that you had edited your post Searush, the "dodgy" I was referring to was MadFrankie revealing that personel data in the first place.

Cheers

 

[photodog]

Please see my edit - the legality or otherwise actually depends on the detail in their Articles. i suspect it may not be easy to see them.

Actually the legality is besides the point... if MadFrankie posted the material with Malice, and this material was such that it would defame the SHT or Mr Trewella or any identifiable 3rd party in the eyes of a reasonable person, even if the information is correct... then this is actionable and more critically, as it was posted with malice then effectivley there is no defence.....

So, the motivation of MadFrankie is crucial as well...

 

[webcraft]

Actually the legality is besides the point... if MadFrankie posted the material with Malice, and this material was such that it would defame the SHT or Mr Trewella or any identifiable 3rd party in the eyes of a reasonable person, even if the information is correct... then this is actionable and more critically, as it was posted with malice then effectivley there is no defence.....

So, the motivation of MadFrankie is crucial as well...

Dog, I have taken your advice and have carefully collated the rantings of the Vicar et al and put them in a folder marked 'Retirement Fund'

- W

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Cheers Major

I've got nothing against MadFrankie but by breaking that rule, even in my non legal mind, he has moved from a cyber slanging match (a but of fun and would probably never stand up in court) to a real potential libel case.

Even if he only transcribed data from the seahorse huggers website, there is no guarantee that that data is correct, it may be subject to copyright etc and I can understand IPC not wanting to be held responsible for the re-publication of it.

Unfortunately, that's the world we live in these days.

I'm the who is confused now. MadFrankie is not being accused of anything except posting personal details, not of iffy data, as far as I know. He has repeated it elsewhere.

 

[Ubergeekian]

I
MF's "crime" was to identify & publish that Steve Trewellah's wife was commissioned to write a report. If Steve Trewellah is a trustee of the charity that commissioned her, I believe that is illegal because trustees & their families must not gain benefits from their charity.

Edit; I have been checking up on this & it may not necessarily be so; much depends on the constitution of the specific charity

In general you have to ask the Charity Commission for permission to allow a trustee to benefit financially, except, as I recall, for professional services. So, for example, an accountant trustee can charge for auditing the books.

However that's a red herring (or seahorse) in this case, because Mr Trewhella is not a trustee of the Seahorse Trust, as a quick check on the CC website will show. There is therefore absolutely no reason why he or any relative of his should not be employed by the trust without any reference to the CC.

 

[DogWatch]

So, if we make factual statements about a conservationist like I mentioned in my post... (Like he wants to run his own zoo..) Then we had better make certain that this is factually correct... we have to have him on record saying that...

Ok, I understand that, but what you say leaves zero wriggle room for opinion. While writing I did consider there must be protection for conjecture in a law court, much like parliament, but decided to keep it as I couldn't find a better example off the cuff.

But, reading your post made me think of art and media critics, how do they get away with disagreeing with the content of a book for example, surely the opinion of a critic is still allowed, even if biased, I have seen and enjoyed media that has been slated by critics.

I have read through that thread again, people backed up their comments with quotes from the author, or as I did extracts from pdf files hidden around the SHT website. I quoted from facebook verbatim what Mr T. was writing to his 'friends', until he took it down. Neil from the trust quickly distanced himself from Mr T suggesting Mr T has no association other than some voluntary work for the trust... yet the trust appears to be willing to finance legal proceedings on behalf of mr T. Is this in their remit of publicly funded charity?

Added to this, comments on mr T wanting a personal playground or menagerie are opinion rather than statements of fact, I think you want the bbc closed down for personal gain is not telling the world this is a point of truth, rather my opinion based on evidence of reading posts. It is not ill will, nor dislike, it is conversational.

What you are suggesting is happening in the media is horrifying, it means we can no longer question motives, without this, well I don't want to be part of that world.

 

[photodog]

Opinion is perfectly fair if it is a opinion based upon truth/fact... this is fair comment... So, if you say.... "Mr T wants to ban anchoring, and I think that is despicable" Then that is a fair comment based upon fact...

If OTOH you say, "Mr T wants to ban anchoring so that he can run his own personal zoo" then that is imputing a improper motive... This is a common cause of libel actions.

So, in the BBC reference... if you say... "Photodog wants to close down the BBC and I think that is despicable" then that is fair comment... but if you say "Photodog wants to close down the BBC for personal gain " then that may be actionable if a reasonable person thinks that personal gain is a improper motive.

So, a art critic can pass comment on art, as it is fair comment based upon his opinion.

So opinion is perfectly reasonable, as long as it is based on fact and does not ascribe a improper motive.... The defamation comes from the imputing of a improper motive in this case....


Just a little addendum.... Libel law is a continuously evolving area of law... as it is very much based upon the concept of the opinion of a reasonable man... which of course is changing all the time.

Eg; In the past it was libelous to publish that people were Catholic and attended mass... clearly that is not something that a reasonable man would find issue with now....

So, in the BBC example above 50 years ago a reasonable man may have considered personal gain as a bad thing... but since Thatcher and her "Greed is Good " credo... that may no longer be the case...

It may now also be arguable that comments posted on a web forum are not defamatory as no reasonable man would base their opinions on something read on a internet forum.. (Though this is just conjecture about the future...)

So, the whole thing is just one big festival-o-lawyers....

 

[late-night-lochin]

I'm the who is confused now. MadFrankie is not being accused of anything except posting personal details, not of iffy data, as far as I know. He has repeated it elsewhere.

Sorry Major, I was using the term "data" in an all encompassing sense.

In your previous post you stated ---"Dan banned Mad Frankie because he contravened the forum rule, "Thou shalt not reveal personal details on the forum", not because he revealed the facts and even though the people he named can be found all over the web if you google seahorse, studland and other key words."---

What I meant was that even if the people he named and any other details relating to them were already on other websites and effectively in the public domain, there was no guarantee that that those details were current and correct also, some of that information may have be subject to copyright etc. I could therefore understand IPC not wanting to be held responsible for the re-publication of it and taking some protective action.

I hope that's cleared up any confusion.

All the best

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Opinion is perfectly fair if it is a opinion based upon truth/fact... this is fair comment... So, if you say.... "Mr T wants to ban anchoring, and I think that is despicable" Then that is a fair comment based upon fact...

If OTOH you say, "Mr T wants to ban anchoring so that he can run his own personal zoo" then that is imputing a improper motive... This is a common cause of libel actions.

I have this vision of a certain person licking the point of his pencil and furiously writing notes based upon your posts.