Print Topic - Archive

Fishy Forum  /  The New Fishy  /  
Posted by: GrimRob, December 26, 2020, 12:35pm
This is reminders to all Posters that they are legally responsible for their own messages. If a complaint is received about a specific message with regard to it being libellous, and that is upheld by the Fishy, then you as the poster may need to take action.

The following is taken from this document and represents my interpretation of it in relation to the Fishy:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269138/defamation-guidance.pdf

The complainant needs to provide an explanation of the reasons why the complainant thinks the statement is defamatory of the complainant. The courts have used a range of tests in deciding what is defamatory (for example, whether the material “tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally”), but broadly speaking the complainant should focus on explaining the harm that the statement has caused or is likely to cause to his or her reputation. Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 requires that for a statement to be defamatory the level of harm caused or likely to be caused to the reputation of the claimant must be serious, and in the case of a body that trades for profit, the harm caused or likely to be caused to that body must amount to serious financial loss.

It is the complainant’s responsibility to ensure that the Notice of Complaint contains the information set out above, and an operator (i.e. the Fishy) may reject it if it does not do so.

On receipt of a valid Notice of Complaint, the Fishy will contact the poster who posted the statement complained of by PM/email within 48 hours (excluding non-business days).

If the poster fails to respond within the specified time period, the Fishy will remove the statement from the locations on the website specified in the Notice of Complaint within 48 hours of the end of that period and will inform the poster. The poster is also free to remove it themselves during the 48-hour window.

If the poster replies within the specified time period, but does not provide all the information requested – ie a) whether the poster wishes the statement complained of to be removed b) If the poster does not wish the statement to be removed, the poster’s full name and details of the postal address at which the poster resides or carries on business c) whether the poster consents to the operator sending those details to the complainant then to keep the defence, the post will be removed. In this situation, it is then for the complainant to engage with the poster direct.

If the poster does not wish the statement to be removed and provides the required contact details but does not agree to these being sent to the complainant, then to keep the defence the operator must contact the complainant in writing within 48 hours of receiving the poster’s response. This communication must inform the complainant: a) that the poster does not wish the statement to be removed b) that the statement has not been removed from the locations on the website specified in the Notice of Complaint, and c)  that the poster has not consented to the release of the poster’s contact details. In this situation, if the complainant wishes to take further action it may be open to the complainant to seek a court order requiring the operator to release the poster’s contact details to the complainant.

Where a statement has been removed following a Notice of Complaint, and the poster reposts the same or substantially the same material, the above process will be repeated on the first such occasion. If the poster continues to make similar statements following a Notice of Complaint then their account may be deleted or disabled so they are unable to post any more.

Posted by: headingly_mariner, December 26, 2020, 12:42pm; Reply: 1
😂😂😂😂 Getyourfactsright or the Fishy will be shut down again.  

A crack legal team of male masturbators and sycophants are monitoring your posts.
Posted by: forza ivano, December 26, 2020, 12:44pm; Reply: 2
John's obviously been on the blower to Rob again!
Posted by: GrimRob, December 26, 2020, 12:48pm; Reply: 3
Quoted from forza ivano
John's obviously been on the blower to Rob again!


Absolutely but we all have our responsibilities and I think there is widespread ignorance of how the defamation laws work.
Posted by: aldi_01, December 26, 2020, 12:49pm; Reply: 4
Quoted from GrimRob


Absolutely but we all have our responsibilities and I think there is widespread ignorance of how the defamation laws work.


Ironic really isn’t it...what’s the phrase? People in glass houses?
Posted by: MidnightMariner, December 26, 2020, 12:57pm; Reply: 5
J S F is a girl private!
Is this defamation of character  🤔  
Posted by: Theimperialcoroner, December 26, 2020, 1:05pm; Reply: 6
I think it would be ok to say “I think JSF is a girl private” but probably not ok to say “I think JSF is a girl private because I’ve seen him drowning kittens in the Freshney” when you have not really seen him with a wriggling bag of kitties near the Barge.
I hope this clears things up.
Posted by: lew chaterleys lover, December 26, 2020, 1:05pm; Reply: 7
He has gone full-on Alan Partridge.

Is self-awareness still a thing?

Posted by: aldi_01, December 26, 2020, 1:07pm; Reply: 8
Quoted from Theimperialcoroner
I think it would be ok to say “I think JSF is a girl private” but probably not ok to say “I think JSF is a girl private because I’ve seen him drowning kittens in the Freshney” when you have not really seen him with a wriggling bag of kitties near the Barge.
I hope this clears things up.


Is that like if a tree falls in the first but nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
Posted by: TAGG, December 26, 2020, 1:08pm; Reply: 9
Quoted from GrimRob


Absolutely but we all have our responsibilities and I think there is widespread ignorance of how the defamation laws work.


At least it shows he's reading how much he is now hated.
Posted by: Theimperialcoroner, December 26, 2020, 1:10pm; Reply: 10
Quoted from aldi_01


Is that like if a tree falls in the first but nobody hears it, does it make a sound?


Exactly like that. If a convicted criminal is invited to a game but no one knows about it........ Oh wait
Posted by: Northbank Mariner, December 26, 2020, 1:55pm; Reply: 11
For god's sake, really, sorry but this is getting silly. Maybe a certain someone should spend more time looking at striking a reasonable deal rather looking through a fans forum to see what people are saying in the hope said someone can pin Deformation of Character on somebody...
Posted by: aldi_01, December 26, 2020, 1:57pm; Reply: 12
As I said, ironic...

Does questioning someone’s morals count as defamation of character?
Posted by: The Old Codger, December 26, 2020, 2:03pm; Reply: 13
Opinion. I think John Fenty has wrecked our football club.
Posted by: thefish, December 26, 2020, 2:06pm; Reply: 14
Fenty out...


See you in court!
Posted by: headingly_mariner, December 26, 2020, 2:07pm; Reply: 15
Maybe you should send this to Lloyd Griffith, he’s just hammered him on Humbo
Posted by: Hagrid, December 26, 2020, 2:09pm; Reply: 16
Pathetic John
Posted by: moosey_club, December 26, 2020, 2:12pm; Reply: 17
Well if Philip Day is acting for JF then given his support of May and the "only stole from financial institutions" defence i reckon anyone could win the case.   ;D
Posted by: Knut Anders Fosters Voles, December 26, 2020, 2:20pm; Reply: 18
Has is not been proved in court on at least one occasion that Mr F is a person of questionable morals and character?
Posted by: earwigo, December 26, 2020, 2:28pm; Reply: 19
I think I’m allowed to think what I like about any tosser. It’s up to anyone else if they think someone’s a tosser
Posted by: HertsGTFC, December 26, 2020, 2:34pm; Reply: 20
I’m amazed that JF and the Board think they can behave like they do and expect people not to express their own “personal opinion” and beliefs.

All I can say is that they’re lucky that supporters aren’t allowed in, I think despite their whinging COVID has probably saved them from a great deal of face to face personal “opinion and feedback”.
Posted by: aldi_01, December 26, 2020, 2:36pm; Reply: 21
If we were living in times without these restrictions I fear the home games recently and for a while yet would have plenty of needle.

Aside from us being flipping awful, those morons that still see the need to stick up for Fenty would have their two penneth and then the rest would. Could get ugly.

Although I suspect a protest would be happening whether home or away...
Posted by: friskneymariner, December 26, 2020, 2:43pm; Reply: 22
As long as it is not abusive, does not incite violence,has some semblance of truth comes under the concept of 'fair comment'
Posted by: The Old Codger, December 26, 2020, 3:02pm; Reply: 23
Rather than this latest threat, perhaps John Fenty ought to explain why Holloway did a runner saying John was selling up yet we are where we are today.
Posted by: TownSNAFU5, December 26, 2020, 3:18pm; Reply: 24
Libel or slander only applies if the comments are shown to be untrue.
Posted by: Knut Anders Fosters Voles, December 26, 2020, 3:30pm; Reply: 25
Quoted from earwigo
I think I’m allowed to think what I like about any tosser. It’s up to anyone else if they think someone’s a tosser


Let’s just say it’s Shrove Tuesday every day in the Fenty household. Pancake plonker
Posted by: Gaffer58, December 26, 2020, 3:38pm; Reply: 26
Quoted from TownSNAFU5
Libel or slander only applies if the comments are shown to be untrue.


So can I be done for slander if I say “Mr J Fenty is the best non chairmen a club could wish for” or even, “ I will always believe that Mr J Fenty as always done the best for Grimsby Town Football Club even at the expense of his own personal wealth” I suppose it’s up to each individual to decide if the above comments are true or not.
Posted by: The Old Codger, December 26, 2020, 3:47pm; Reply: 27
Anyone else find it weird supporting the team but not the club?
#IMHOfentykilledmyclub
Posted by: realist, December 26, 2020, 3:54pm; Reply: 28
So the anus Fenty is unhappy with what is being posted about him? Is this the same man that is happy to do business with convicted fraudsters, had to leave office due to possibly questionable actions whilst head of regeneration,failed to pay HMRC income tax which was deducted from employees, and is under investigation for accountancy matters? Now he turns against the fans. intercourse  off John and don’t return
Posted by: The Old Codger, December 26, 2020, 3:57pm; Reply: 29
Quoted from realist
So the anus Fenty is unhappy with what is being posted about him? Is this the same man that is happy to do business with convicted fraudsters, had to leave office due to possibly questionable actions whilst head of regeneration,failed to pay HMRC income tax which was deducted from employees, and is under investigation for accountancy matters? Now he turns against the fans. intercourse  off John and don’t return


Just adds insult to injury doesn’t it?

Season ticket holders not allowed in but he invites his fraudster business associate to three games while we can’t go.…
Posted by: Manchester Mariner, December 26, 2020, 3:58pm; Reply: 30
I've got visions of Fenty spending Christmas doomscrolling through the Fishy and getting a proper benny on.
Posted by: ginnywings, December 26, 2020, 4:07pm; Reply: 31
Being reminded of our conduct is hilarious from a man who goes into business with a many times convicted fraudster.
Posted by: moosey_club, December 26, 2020, 4:08pm; Reply: 32
Considering it's only a "small minority" of people then i am surprised he is even bothered.
Open your e mails and text messages instead John if you dont like what the public outside of your inner circle think.

Or maybe put your fingers in your ears and go LaLaLaLa..

Posted by: The Old Codger, December 26, 2020, 4:11pm; Reply: 33
Quoted from moosey_club
Considering it's only a "small minority" of people then i am surprised he is even bothered.
Open your e mails and text messages instead John if you dont like what the public outside of your inner circle think.

Or maybe put your fingers in your ears and go LaLaLaLa..



Must be a strange world when one minute you’re getting great support, according to Philip Day, and the same week you’re picking fights with a fans forum.
Posted by: HertsGTFC, December 26, 2020, 4:12pm; Reply: 34
Quoted from realist
So the anus Fenty is unhappy with what is being posted about him? Is this the same man that is happy to do business with convicted fraudsters, had to leave office due to possibly questionable actions whilst head of regeneration,failed to pay HMRC income tax which was deducted from employees, and is under investigation for accountancy matters? Now he turns against the fans. intercourse  off John and don’t return


So John’s upset by people’s personal opinion. Like the opinions he had when someone sat in the back of his Mercedes recording him slagging the off all and sundry.  
Posted by: grimsby pete, December 26, 2020, 4:14pm; Reply: 35
He can only complain if the posts are untrue.

As far as I am concerned all the post on here are true.

A man with a big ego goes into business with a convicted fraudster threatens us well balderdash to you Fenty if you don't like it intercourse off and take Day with you.

Not 1p more from me while you cling onto power.

Fenty Out !!!!!!!!
Posted by: Knut Anders Fosters Voles, December 26, 2020, 4:14pm; Reply: 36
Mr Fenty,

What’s it like being best friends with a convicted fraudster? What did you get each other for Christmas?
Posted by: Knut Anders Fosters Voles, December 26, 2020, 4:15pm; Reply: 37
Mr Fenty,

Why do you always act so recklessly?
Posted by: The Old Codger, December 26, 2020, 4:20pm; Reply: 38
Looks like Rob In Grimsby is in charge of the Red Cross button this afternoon 🥳🥳🥳😜🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 4:26pm; Reply: 39
Quoted from MidnightMariner
J S F is a girl private!
Is this defamation of character  🤔  


For it to be defamation it would have to lower his reputation Z

As far as I can see his reputation is in tatters anyway so you’d have to go some to lower it.
Posted by: gtfc98, December 26, 2020, 4:27pm; Reply: 40
Christ alive, what a girl private. Sell up and intercourse off John.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 4:32pm; Reply: 41
So you can start a business with a convicted fraudster, invite him to a public venue when such limits are closed due to Coronavirus regulations*, and introduce said fraudster to the council that n conflict of your duty as a senior councillor, but it’s not IK to point out what a C Unit you are! Marvellous.

Well as Monday is not a business day I guess I’ve got 72 hours 😂😂😂

* I wonder if Humberside police are aware of this
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 4:33pm; Reply: 42
Oh you can also take your brother into an away game too. I wasn’t aware he was a club official.

Cheltenham in case you’re wondering. I screenshotted the confession. 😆😆😆😆
Posted by: Knut Anders Fosters Voles, December 26, 2020, 4:35pm; Reply: 43
Mr Fenty,

Why are you trying to profit on shares that were ‘gifted’ to you by the Trust?

How did you acquire the shares from the Trust? Was it under duress?
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 4:39pm; Reply: 44
Mr Fenty,

Why are you trying to profit on shares that were ‘gifted’ to you by the Trust?

How did you acquire the shares from the Trust? Was it under duress?


Which ‘keyboard warrior’ red crossed this? What’s up Fenty - scared of a question?
Posted by: The Old Codger, December 26, 2020, 4:40pm; Reply: 45
Quoted from KingstonMariner


Which ‘keyboard warrior’ red crossed this? What’s up Fenty - scared of a question?


See above!
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 4:40pm; Reply: 46
Quoted from KingstonMariner
So you can start a business with a convicted fraudster, invite him to a public venue when such limits are closed due to Coronavirus regulations*, and introduce said fraudster to the council that n conflict of your duty as a senior councillor, but it’s not IK to point out what a C Unit you are! Marvellous.

Well as Monday is not a business day I guess I’ve got 72 hours 😂😂😂

* I wonder if Humberside police are aware of this


Come on. Haven’t you got the balls to say why you red crossed this? Scared of the truth?
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 4:45pm; Reply: 47
Quoted from The Old Codger


See above!


Why doesn’t he admit it?

Wonder if it was Rob from Grimsby’s post I screenshotted? Can’t remember now. 😆😆😆
Posted by: Eastendmariner, December 26, 2020, 5:02pm; Reply: 48
When you have 5 minutes John have a look at the Div 2  table that's reality it's not made up  stop taking us Town fans for granted
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 5:04pm; Reply: 49
GrimRob, can you share any correspondence that you have received to date on the subject of defamation? I might want to take advice on it. Genuine question.
Posted by: rancido, December 26, 2020, 5:11pm; Reply: 50
Quoted from Manchester Mariner
I've got visions of Fenty spending Christmas doomscrolling through the Fishy and getting a proper benny on.


Yeah, spanking the monkey while making a monkey of the club and its fans.
Posted by: malkamalka, December 26, 2020, 5:12pm; Reply: 51
You know the Boris Johnson song that's at Number 5 in the current charts?

Can you think of any other person's name who would fit in well?

(Asking for a friend)
Posted by: rancido, December 26, 2020, 5:15pm; Reply: 52
Mr Fenty,

What’s it like being best friends with a convicted fraudster? What did you get each other for Christmas?


His and His matching ball and chains! (allegedly)
Posted by: Stadium, December 26, 2020, 5:22pm; Reply: 53
Quoted from KingstonMariner
GrimRob, can you share any correspondence that you have received to date on the subject of defamation? I might want to take advice on it. Genuine question.


Interesting article especially re. Blackpool

When the UK Defamation Act 2013 came into force in January 2014, Shailesh Vara, the justice minister, publicly expressed the hope that the revised laws would discourage claimants from filing “trivial” claims that waste courts’ time and harm freedom of speech.

“The introduction of these measures will make it harder for wealthy people or companies to bully or silence those who may have fairly criticised them or their products,” said Mr Vara.

“As a result of these new laws, anyone expressing views and engaging in public debate can do so in the knowledge that the law offers them stronger protection against unjust and unfair threats of legal action.”

The act also tightens the test for claims with little connection to England and Wales being brought before courts there, in an attempt to end the trend of so-called “libel tourism” that has made London the world’s capital for such cases.

But, despite lawmakers’ good intentions, cases of libel or slander seem to be on the increase. Research published by Thomson Reuters in October 2014 showed a 23 per cent rise in the number of reported defamation cases in the UK over the past year, up from 70 to 86.

At the heart of this growth, it seems, is a sharp rise in claims brought in response to online postings on social media, review sites and blogs. These more than quadrupled, rising from six to 26, the research says.

“The instant nature of social media is certainly changing the face of defamation law,” says Ian Birdsey, a senior associate at Pinsent Masons, the law firm. “More and more people use social media to communicate, and often with people beyond their immediate social sphere. Sometimes, they do that without really thinking through the possible consequences of their words.

“All this brings with it a number of challenges — and one of those would appear to be a rise in the number of defamation claims relating to derogatory online posts.”

A number of recent cases bear this out. Jason Page of Telford in the UK, for example, faces a legal bill of £100,000 after he groundlessly called US-based lawyer Timothy Bussey a “scumbag” who “loses 80 per cent of his cases” on Google Maps. The anonymous review was defamatory of Mr Bussey and his firm, ruled High Court judge Mr Justice Eady.

Several fans of Blackpool Football Club, meanwhile, face libel actions after criticising the club’s owners, Karl and Owen Oyston, on Facebook and on an internet forum, backhenrystreet.co.uk. Other Blackpool fans have rallied round to help one defendant, pensioner Frank Knight, to meet the £20,000 in damages he had already agreed to pay the club.

And US-based stock shortseller Gotham City Research was sued for libel last year by Quindell, the Aim-quoted insurance claims processor, after tweeting a link to a highly critical report it produced about the company, claiming its stock was “uninvestable”. Quindell obtained a default judgment after Gotham did not defend the claim in London.

So what do these cases mean for other individuals who use the internet to express opinions about a company or its services, particularly if the target of their criticism might find those views unpalatable?

‘In defamation law, honest opinion is a defence to any claim. So, you are able to express any opinions you want, as long as they are honestly held and based on some sort of fact or experience’

Harry Kinmonth, a solicitor at RPC, a media law firm, insists that customers still have the right to air their views, but they have to adopt a reasoned approach. “In defamation law, honest opinion is a defence to any claim. So, you are able to express any opinions you want, as long as they are honestly held and based on some sort of fact or experience,” he says.

“People shouldn’t be too worried, on that basis, about reviewing a restaurant for example, unless that review contains, for reasons of malicious intent, opinions that are exaggerated or that cannot be justified.”

Companies that publish customer reviews, meanwhile, are careful to guide their contributors in the right direction and often moderate reviews carefully before publishing them.

BazaarVoice, for example, a user-generated content engine that helps companies capture, manage and respond to customer input, collects, moderates and publishes online customer reviews on behalf of retailers and consumer brands, including Halfords, Philips and Estée Lauder.

Dylan Hoeffler, BazaarVoice’s manager of authenticity and fraud, says: “Laws that define ‘defamation’ vary. However, we believe the critical elements are false or misleading statements that are made with the intent to harm reputation.


“In that sense, a review that states: ‘This television didn’t display as good a picture as I would have expected for the price’ may be perceived as negative, but it wouldn’t be considered [libellous],” he says. “Conversely, one that states: ‘This television spontaneously caught fire and burnt my wall” could be [libellous if] that circumstance proves to be demonstrably false.”

Similarly, TripAdvisor, the travel review site, cautions users not only against “profanity, threats, prejudiced comments, hate speech and sexually explicit language”, but also against “second-hand information” and “hearsay”, which it defines as “unverified information, rumours, or quotations from other sources or the reported opinions/experiences of others”.

Mr Birdsey of Pinsent Masons, meanwhile, offers this advice to online commentators: “If you’re going to criticise, be explicitly clear about the core facts and be as balanced as possible. Don’t exaggerate and don’t speculate beyond the immediate details of your experience. And don’t be deliberately provocative in order to elicit a response.”

He adds: “Most companies today are actively monitoring their online reputation and, while many welcome honest customer feedback, they will also take steps to protect and defend that reputation if they feel it’s been unfairly maligned.”
Posted by: davmariner, December 26, 2020, 5:23pm; Reply: 54
Oh John just get a grip you absolute loser. Leave the club.
Posted by: thefish, December 26, 2020, 5:24pm; Reply: 55
John, stop reading this with an aim to take people to court and get back to Shutes with cap in hand as this club will go to the wall with you in charge... meaning you won’t see a penny!
Posted by: Knut Anders Fosters Voles, December 26, 2020, 5:24pm; Reply: 56
Hi John,

We have done a quick poll in our family and we have concluded that you look sh1t in a turtle neck.

Due to your neck being shorter than that of a normal male, the top of the cashmere rides up over your tanned double chin like a pre-pubescent teen with a dangerously tight foreskin.

Please don’t wear one again.

Cheers
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 5:28pm; Reply: 57
Quoted from Stadium


Interesting article especially re. Blackpool

When the UK Defamation Act 2013 came into force in January 2014, Shailesh Vara, the justice minister, publicly expressed the hope that the revised laws would discourage claimants from filing “trivial” claims that waste courts’ time and harm freedom of speech.

“The introduction of these measures will make it harder for wealthy people or companies to bully or silence those who may have fairly criticised them or their products,” said Mr Vara.

“As a result of these new laws, anyone expressing views and engaging in public debate can do so in the knowledge that the law offers them stronger protection against unjust and unfair threats of legal action.”

The act also tightens the test for claims with little connection to England and Wales being brought before courts there, in an attempt to end the trend of so-called “libel tourism” that has made London the world’s capital for such cases.

But, despite lawmakers’ good intentions, cases of libel or slander seem to be on the increase. Research published by Thomson Reuters in October 2014 showed a 23 per cent rise in the number of reported defamation cases in the UK over the past year, up from 70 to 86.

At the heart of this growth, it seems, is a sharp rise in claims brought in response to online postings on social media, review sites and blogs. These more than quadrupled, rising from six to 26, the research says.

“The instant nature of social media is certainly changing the face of defamation law,” says Ian Birdsey, a senior associate at Pinsent Masons, the law firm. “More and more people use social media to communicate, and often with people beyond their immediate social sphere. Sometimes, they do that without really thinking through the possible consequences of their words.

“All this brings with it a number of challenges — and one of those would appear to be a rise in the number of defamation claims relating to derogatory online posts.”

A number of recent cases bear this out. Jason Page of Telford in the UK, for example, faces a legal bill of £100,000 after he groundlessly called US-based lawyer Timothy Bussey a “scumbag” who “loses 80 per cent of his cases” on Google Maps. The anonymous review was defamatory of Mr Bussey and his firm, ruled High Court judge Mr Justice Eady.

Several fans of Blackpool Football Club, meanwhile, face libel actions after criticising the club’s owners, Karl and Owen Oyston, on Facebook and on an internet forum, backhenrystreet.co.uk. Other Blackpool fans have rallied round to help one defendant, pensioner Frank Knight, to meet the £20,000 in damages he had already agreed to pay the club.

And US-based stock shortseller Gotham City Research was sued for libel last year by Quindell, the Aim-quoted insurance claims processor, after tweeting a link to a highly critical report it produced about the company, claiming its stock was “uninvestable”. Quindell obtained a default judgment after Gotham did not defend the claim in London.

So what do these cases mean for other individuals who use the internet to express opinions about a company or its services, particularly if the target of their criticism might find those views unpalatable?

‘In defamation law, honest opinion is a defence to any claim. So, you are able to express any opinions you want, as long as they are honestly held and based on some sort of fact or experience’

Harry Kinmonth, a solicitor at RPC, a media law firm, insists that customers still have the right to air their views, but they have to adopt a reasoned approach. “In defamation law, honest opinion is a defence to any claim. So, you are able to express any opinions you want, as long as they are honestly held and based on some sort of fact or experience,” he says.

“People shouldn’t be too worried, on that basis, about reviewing a restaurant for example, unless that review contains, for reasons of malicious intent, opinions that are exaggerated or that cannot be justified.”

Companies that publish customer reviews, meanwhile, are careful to guide their contributors in the right direction and often moderate reviews carefully before publishing them.

BazaarVoice, for example, a user-generated content engine that helps companies capture, manage and respond to customer input, collects, moderates and publishes online customer reviews on behalf of retailers and consumer brands, including Halfords, Philips and Estée Lauder.

Dylan Hoeffler, BazaarVoice’s manager of authenticity and fraud, says: “Laws that define ‘defamation’ vary. However, we believe the critical elements are false or misleading statements that are made with the intent to harm reputation.


“In that sense, a review that states: ‘This television didn’t display as good a picture as I would have expected for the price’ may be perceived as negative, but it wouldn’t be considered [libellous],” he says. “Conversely, one that states: ‘This television spontaneously caught fire and burnt my wall” could be [libellous if] that circumstance proves to be demonstrably false.”

Similarly, TripAdvisor, the travel review site, cautions users not only against “profanity, threats, prejudiced comments, hate speech and sexually explicit language”, but also against “second-hand information” and “hearsay”, which it defines as “unverified information, rumours, or quotations from other sources or the reported opinions/experiences of others”.

Mr Birdsey of Pinsent Masons, meanwhile, offers this advice to online commentators: “If you’re going to criticise, be explicitly clear about the core facts and be as balanced as possible. Don’t exaggerate and don’t speculate beyond the immediate details of your experience. And don’t be deliberately provocative in order to elicit a response.”

He adds: “Most companies today are actively monitoring their online reputation and, while many welcome honest customer feedback, they will also take steps to protect and defend that reputation if they feel it’s been unfairly maligned.”


Thanks Stadium. Interesting article. It suggests that it’s a high standard to prove defamation. Honestly expressed opinions, and based on truth aren’t defamation.

I would suggest that raising questions is not defamatory either, subject to the wording.

Quite frankly I’m not going to be bullied into silence.
Posted by: aldi_01, December 26, 2020, 5:44pm; Reply: 58
Can I call him a girl private? I appreciate it is a lie as girl privates are, on the whole, useful but can I still call him one?
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 6:30pm; Reply: 59
Quoted from aldi_01
Can I call him a girl private? I appreciate it is a lie as girl privates are, on the whole, useful but can I still call him one?


Quite frankly as a lover of girl privates (I’m self-censoring there to give the profanity checker a break) I find that quite insulting to  women.
Posted by: Boris Johnson, December 26, 2020, 6:38pm; Reply: 60
Quoted from GrimRob


Absolutely but we all have our responsibilities and I think there is widespread ignorance of how the defamation laws work.


some people might be about to find out
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 6:51pm; Reply: 61
Quoted from Boris Johnson


some people might be about to find out


Tell us more BJ? Sounds like you are in the know.
Posted by: Boris Johnson, December 26, 2020, 7:01pm; Reply: 62
Quoted from KingstonMariner


Tell us more BJ? Sounds like you are in the know.


Not at all, obviously John has spent today perusing the site, cant see any other reason why the OP has appeared.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 7:03pm; Reply: 63
I’d love him to try claiming defamation. It will cost him quite a lot in legal bills.
Posted by: friskneymariner, December 26, 2020, 7:17pm; Reply: 64
Au contraire Rob I am reasonably conversant with the implications of the Defamation Act 2013 and there 3 conditions that have to be met to successfully argue a fair comment defence. Without boring you with a lot of legalise perhaps the most pertinent is the authority set by the ruling in Joseph v Spiller.In brief the  2013 Act made it much easier for the respondent to have a common law defence of ''Fair Comment'.Your call.
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 7:39pm; Reply: 65
Quoted from friskneymariner
Au contraire Rob I am reasonably conversant with the implications of the Defamation Act 2013 and there 3 conditions that have to be met to successfully argue a fair comment defence. Without boring you with a lot of legalise perhaps the most pertinent is the authority set by the ruling in Joseph v Spiller.In brief the  2013 Act made it much easier for the respondent to have a common law defence of ''Fair Comment'.Your call.


To be fair to Rob he did show the responsibilities of both respondent and claimant.
Posted by: Knut Anders Fosters Voles, December 26, 2020, 7:48pm; Reply: 66
If Fenty took any of us to court he would have no chance:

In the Blue corner, weighing in at £2m pounds, John ‘Reckless’ Fenty...

A man who caused the club to pay compensation as a result of ‘accidentally’ tapping up employees of another company via an untrustworthy agent
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 7:50pm; Reply: 67
That’d be the icing in the cake. Further humiliation for him. All self-inflicted.
Posted by: marinerdazza, December 26, 2020, 7:58pm; Reply: 68
Quoted from KingstonMariner
I’d love him to try claiming defamation. It will cost him quite a lot in legal bills.


Yes, not something one of his mates could do. And even if he wins he would realistically only claim back 60% of his costs.
Posted by: grimsby pete, December 26, 2020, 8:04pm; Reply: 69
If Fenty took any of us to court it would cost him more than its worth.

We could go in our hundreds and testify the things Fent y has done over the years to warrant all this name calling .I

Bring it on sucker !!!!!!
Posted by: KingstonMariner, December 26, 2020, 8:35pm; Reply: 70
Quoted from marinerdazza


Yes, not something one of his mates could do. And even if he wins he would realistically only claim back 60% of his costs.


It’s a tall order proving defamation if you’ve already traduced your own character by forming a redevelopment business partnership with a known fraudster, then introducing him to the council where you were a senior member of cabinet responsible for redevelopment, then considered accepting the same fraudster’s money at a company that you controlled. You’d think that you wouldn’t want to highlight cases where you might have broken conflict of interest principles. Much less give someone the opportunity in a public forum like a court to answer accusations that you had breached public safety regulations by inviting a member of the public to an event from which members of the public were banned.

Only an idiot would want to draw that to the attention of the courts and have your actions scrutinised again.

Of course it might not be ‘Honest’ John bringing a case of defamation. Imagine if you were a person who’d spent his whole career in the legal profession, and were now the director of a high profile local public company, trying to prove defamation when you’d defended doing business with a convicted fraudster on the basis that ‘no individuals were victims only banks or building societies’. Imagine what a laughing stock you’d make of yourself in court.

Imagine what an idiot either of those people would be to try this.
Posted by: lew chaterleys lover, December 26, 2020, 8:38pm; Reply: 71
Quoted from KingstonMariner


It’s a tall order proving defamation if you’ve already traduced your own character by forming a redevelopment business partnership with a known fraudster, then introducing him to the council where you were a senior member of cabinet responsible for redevelopment, then considered accepting the same fraudster’s money at a company that you controlled. You’d think that you wouldn’t want to highlight cases where you might have broken conflict of interest principles. Much less give someone the opportunity in a public forum like a court to answer accusations that you had breached public safety regulations by inviting a member of the public to an event from which members of the public were banned.

Only an idiot would want to draw that to the attention of the courts and have your actions scrutinised again.

Of course it might not be ‘Honest’ John bringing a case of defamation. Imagine if you were a person who’d spent his whole career in the legal profession, and were now the director of a high profile local public company, trying to prove defamation when you’d defended doing business with a convicted fraudster on the basis that ‘no individuals were victims only banks or building societies’. Imagine what a laughing stock you’d make of yourself in court.

Imagine what an idiot either of those people would be to try this.


Very good. They never, ever think things through, do they?
Posted by: Kris2, December 28, 2020, 12:57pm; Reply: 72
Again certain people show their true colours by attacking the voice of the fans over and over. Tell us which parts were not facts John, what has anybody said here that isn't true, and if so show us why you go out your way to bully the fans into keeping quiet? No amount of shutting down websites and dragging fans into your office for a "chat" will save you. Not this time.

These are not the actions of somebody dealing with false rumours about them, this is somebody with skeletons in the closet that have been exposed and now they are getting desperate. Let us remember that John Lydon was once censored for defamation when exposing Jimmy Saville on the BBC decades before his career was tarnished. Demonising the whistle blowers is not a good look when the truth comes out and some people are left with egg on their face.
Posted by: lukeo, December 29, 2020, 5:48pm; Reply: 73
A few people have written personal insults which is uncalled for, less just move forward now.

I personally wouldn't be against anyone getting banned who's deemed to be sending personal insults on here. The fishy is a well known, active forum in England let alone Grimsby. Let's not ruin that please.
Utm
Posted by: Civvy at last, December 29, 2020, 6:40pm; Reply: 74
This thread needs to be removed.

IT IS NO LONGER RELEVANT 😄😄👍👍⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️😄😄😄 UTM
Print page generated: May 22, 2022, 2:07am