Clarification on defamation laws

[paulg]

Thank you for your reply in the other thread Grahame.

It seems from your reply that Gerald was wrong with his defamation laws.

Obviously this needs to be clarified, so could you please give an outline of the defamation laws relating to this website.

I understand webfusion is the host, and they claim to be a 100% uk company, so this should keep everything under one jurisdiction.

[grahameb]

Thank you for your reply in the other thread Grahame.

It seems from your reply that Gerald was wrong with his defamation laws.

Obviously this needs to be clarified, so could you please give an outline of the defamation laws relating to this website.

I understand webfusion is the host, and they claim to be a 100% uk company, so this should keep everything under one jurisdiction.

Hi Paul. I'm afraid I don't know much and we probably need a LEGAL EXPERT (hint hint)  I'm trying to get ngb to post again.

[grahameb]

What I will say though is that I believe we as a forum have been treading on very dangerous ground as any decent person like yourself are aware, especially when it comes to posts about the relatives. I believe the only reason they have not sued us is that they haven't the resources to do it. What ordinary citizen has the money for court costs and legal fees?, which can run into tens of thousands of pounds sometimes. So for legal reasons but more so for moral reasons I think some members should tread more carefully in that direction from now on. I would like this forum to be a place to be respected by all for its equity and fairness to all.

[grahameb]

Paul, I meant to add that you are a very valued member and a brilliant thoughtful contributor. This need a separate post in order to emphasise that. 

[Jackiepreece]

Grahame I don't think it would be fair to ask Ngb to come back unless we can stop John coming back under multiple user names

The anti JB camp can see what an asset Ngb is to the pro JB camp and I am worried that certain people will continue to abuse Ngb if they come back

I stil don't understand why Paul would take Geralds word over Ngb who has more than proved himself

[grahameb]

Grahame I don't think it would be fair to ask Ngb to come back unless we can stop John coming back under multiple user names

The anti JB camp can see what an asset Ngb is to the pro JB camp and I am worried that certain people will continue to abuse Ngb if they come back

I stil don't understand why Paul would take Geralds word over Ngb who has more than proved himself

Jackie, I can't guarantee anything of course. But you have my word that john and john1 or whatever he chooses to call himself next time is under permanent ban with the blessing of Mike as well (by the way he listens to ngb and respects him as he does you) and I will delete him (john lamberton) every time he joins and if he posts I will say on open forum that his posts will be deleted by me personally and I will take full responsibility. I also promise that ngb will be under my personal protection. It must also be known that if someone says abusive things about any of the relatives I will take action on that as well. But as far as ngb  is concerned he is under my personal protection.

[smiffy]

where say a relative, or any witnesss for that matter, has given one account of doing something and then gives a very different account that conflicts in a manner that cannot be passed off as a mistake then a poster is fully justifed in my view to accuse them of lying in one of those accounts..though it may not be clear which account is truthful or whether either of them is.

[grahameb]

where say a relative, or any witnesss for that matter, has given one account of doing something and then gives a very different account that conflicts in a manner that cannot be passed off as a mistake then a poster is fully justifed in my view to accuse them of lying in one of those accounts..though it may not be clear which account is truthful or whether either of them is.

I think it right to challenge them on it. But it could be done in a tactful way. That way we can't be accused of bullying or ganging up on them. Some people we must handle with kid gloves making a difference because some are more sensitive than others.

[hartley]

where say a relative, or any witnesss for that matter, has given one account of doing something and then gives a very different account that conflicts in a manner that cannot be passed off as a mistake then a poster is fully justifed in my view to accuse them of lying in one of those accounts..though it may not be clear which account is truthful or whether either of them is.

I think it right to challenge them on it. But it could be done in a tactful way. That way we can't be accused of bullying or ganging up on them. Some people we must handle with kid gloves making a difference because some are more sensitive than others.

I think Smiffy is referring to evidence in witness statements, not forum posters.

[grahameb]

where say a relative, or any witnesss for that matter, has given one account of doing something and then gives a very different account that conflicts in a manner that cannot be passed off as a mistake then a poster is fully justifed in my view to accuse them of lying in one of those accounts..though it may not be clear which account is truthful or whether either of them is.

I think it right to challenge them on it. But it could be done in a tactful way. That way we can't be accused of bullying or ganging up on them. Some people we must handle with kid gloves making a difference because some are more sensitive than others.

I think Smiffy is referring to evidence in witness statements, not forum posters.

Well of course we mustn't be afraid of challenging anything that doesn't add up.

[ngb1066]

Thank you for your reply in the other thread Grahame.

It seems from your reply that Gerald was wrong with his defamation laws.

Obviously this needs to be clarified, so could you please give an outline of the defamation laws relating to this website.

I understand webfusion is the host, and they claim to be a 100% uk company, so this should keep everything under one jurisdiction.

Hi Paul. I'm afraid I don't know much and we probably need a LEGAL EXPERT (hint hint)  I'm trying to get ngb to post again.

Grahame - I am happy to help with some guidelines on this as I agree that any website ought to take seriously the possibility of legal action being taken against the host, the forum owner and individual posters.  Even though the risks of such action are for various reasons in my view low, they are nevertheless risks and moderators should be in a position to step in if a line is crossed in a particular post.

One of the problems is that it is not hard to give a lengthy summary of the key aspects of libel law in the UK but that is not really going to help the moderators much in deciding on the risk posts by an individual post.  There are different mixtures of fact and law in any problem, and when I was advising publishers there were often heated arguments about individual articles and the way in which they could be reworded in order to eliminate or at least reduce the risk of action.  A great deal depends upon the person who is being attacked in a post.  What is said about individual A might be a serious potential risk, but the same said about individual B might carry minimal risk.  I will not reopen past arguments but I have given reasons why I believe it is highly unlikely that Julie Mugford would sue for libel as a result of anything posted here to date.  There are different reasons why other individuals  would be reluctant in my view to take action. However if the same or similar allegations are made against some other individuals who have featured in this case the position could be very different.

I am not trying to be cryptic here but I am trying to get the point across that this issue cannot readily be reduced to a simple yes/no to a post by reference only to a short summary of the legal framework.  There will have to be an element of subjective judgement and I suspect that moderators may have to confer in some borderline cases in order to decide whether to intervene.  I am happy to give input by PM or openly if any moderator wants an opinion.  Overall I would urge a light touch with intervention only where a clear line has been crossed.  As a separate matter, unconnected with any legal issues, the moderators will no doubt decide what is acceptable in terms of personal abuse or bullying.  That would rarely amount to libel, but it would be proper grounds for deleting posts or even banning a member.
 

[grahameb]

Thank you for you open advice ngb. I and no doubt other moderators will be very watchful of any posts. But I don't want to put a straight jacket on the forum. Although we may need help or advice from time to time.

[chochokeira]

Thank you for your reply in the other thread Grahame.

It seems from your reply that Gerald was wrong with his defamation laws.

Obviously this needs to be clarified, so could you please give an outline of the defamation laws relating to this website.

I understand webfusion is the host, and they claim to be a 100% uk company, so this should keep everything under one jurisdiction.

Hi Paul. I'm afraid I don't know much and we probably need a LEGAL EXPERT (hint hint)  I'm trying to get ngb to post again.

Grahame - I am happy to help with some guidelines on this as I agree that any website ought to take seriously the possibility of legal action being taken against the host, the forum owner and individual posters.  Even though the risks of such action are for various reasons in my view low, they are nevertheless risks and moderators should be in a position to step in if a line is crossed in a particular post.

One of the problems is that it is not hard to give a lengthy summary of the key aspects of libel law in the UK but that is not really going to help the moderators much in deciding on the risk posts by an individual post.  There are different mixtures of fact and law in any problem, and when I was advising publishers there were often heated arguments about individual articles and the way in which they could be reworded in order to eliminate or at least reduce the risk of action.  A great deal depends upon the person who is being attacked in a post.  What is said about individual A might be a serious potential risk, but the same said about individual B might carry minimal risk.  I will not reopen past arguments but I have given reasons why I believe it is highly unlikely that Julie Mugford would sue for libel as a result of anything posted here to date.  There are different reasons why other individuals  would be reluctant in my view to take action. However if the same or similar allegations are made against some other individuals who have featured in this case the position could be very different.

I am not trying to be cryptic here but I am trying to get the point across that this issue cannot readily be reduced to a simple yes/no to a post by reference only to a short summary of the legal framework.  There will have to be an element of subjective judgement and I suspect that moderators may have to confer in some borderline cases in order to decide whether to intervene.  I am happy to give input by PM or openly if any moderator wants an opinion.  Overall I would urge a light touch with intervention only where a clear line has been crossed.  As a separate matter, unconnected with any legal issues, the moderators will no doubt decide what is acceptable in terms of personal abuse or bullying.  That would rarely amount to libel, but it would be proper grounds for deleting posts or even banning a member.

Thank you for your advice, ngb.