Page 10 | Photo of husband posted on Facebook group with allegation - legalities?

Hattie24 · 2025-07-04T22:35:20+00:00

Earlier I was alerted to a post by a woman on our town’s community Facebook page. It is a rant about a flat in her block being used by a group of prostitutes which is causing issues at unsociable hours and how the landlord isn’t doing anything about it. Under this there are photos of various men at the entrance of the block of flats and one of them is my husband. The insinuation is that these have all been visiting that flat. I want to know the legalities of this woman posting such an allegation as she is outright refusing to remove the post. It is obviously extremely humiliating for me (friends and no doubt colleagues have seen it) and there’s so many comments underneath. We’ve been on a ‘break’ due to various issues but still living together and haven’t been intimate for nearly a year so I don’t need a lecture on how I shouldn’t have married such a man. Is it me or is someone putting up a post like this without any thought for the consequences on various families etc utterly disgusting?

NoWayRose · 05/07/2025 08:26

Hattie24 · 04/07/2025 23:45

He says he was seeing a physio for treatment of a muscle injury linked to his rugby playing.

Show quote history

Is she registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC)?

Shellyash · 05/07/2025 08:26

Too many posts to read them all. Seek legal advice, it isn't allowed to show pictures of people without consent - as far as I am aware. Regardless of what he is, where he was etc, I'm sure what she has posted isn't legal.

Fluffypotatoe123987 · 05/07/2025 08:26

Chat gpt says
Legal Aspects (UK Context)

Defamation: If the Facebook post clearly implies her husband is a client of prostitutes and it’s untrue, this could potentially be libellous (written defamation). Especially if the man is identifiable.

Harassment/Data Protection: Posting pictures of individuals without consent — especially in a defamatory context — may breach privacy or data protection laws.

Facebook T&Cs: Community Facebook pages are subject to moderation and platform rules. The post could violate Facebook’s terms around harassment or false accusations.

However, legal action is often expensive and not guaranteed success unless clear damages can be proven.

AcademicallyAverageTeddy · 05/07/2025 08:27

Katrinawaves · 05/07/2025 08:24

Haven’t read the whole thread just the first page which is full of incorrect advice so thought I’d jump straight in.

You can’t do anything but your husband can.

This post is defamatory and therefore Facebook will remove it if he asks them to do so (as otherwise they would be liable for it under s1 of the defamation act and they don’t want the hassle)

if he wants to also take action against the person who posted it, he’s got two causes of action:

Defamation - if she says it’s true the onus is on her to prove that; and
Misuse of private information - info about someone’s sex life is private even if it’s pretty insalubrious

It’s irrelevant the photo was taken in a public place, what’s actionable is what she has said or inferred about him. The downside is however that taking action can be expensive and she may not have any money to pay his costs and any damages to him even if he wins so he should think hard about that before he starts anything.

It's only defamatory if untrue.

HopscotchBanana · 05/07/2025 08:28

Hattie24 · 04/07/2025 23:50

Arranged through his club apparently 🙄

I have my doubts.

Show quote history

No it wasn't. Unless he's professional. In which case they have their own physio on site.

Come on.

PennyAnnLane · 05/07/2025 08:28

If it’s clear which flat the photo was taken from then that person has put themselves in danger either from a pimp or a disgruntled punter who’s been photographed, I’m not sure I’d be sharing the photos on that basis.

BadLad · 05/07/2025 08:30

Velmy · 05/07/2025 08:22

How are people still getting this so wrong, it's been corrected multiple times throughout the thread?

For one last time...if he sues her for libel, he does not have to prove a thing.

The burden of proof is entirely on her to prove that her statement is true.

Show quote history

Just imagine the tabloids if what people keep saying on here were actually true. That is, to sue someone for libel you had to prove that what they said was not true

They would be able to run riot destroying people’s lives.

They could print all kinds of criminal allegations from decades in the past, knowing that it would be extremely difficult for the person to prove them untrue so many years later.

Thank God the laws are what they are. We do at least have some protections against the press making up whatever the hell they like. But it’s a waste of time trying to get half the people on here to grasp that.

Katrinawaves · 05/07/2025 08:32

AcademicallyAverageTeddy · 05/07/2025 08:27

It's only defamatory if untrue.

Show quote history

Nope - it’s defamatory if it causes people to think less of him.

if it’s true, then the person who posted it has a defence to a libel claim but she has to prove that it is true. And Facebook don’t care whether she has a defence - they will take it down based on meaning. If OP googles there is a form to report (it’s not the admins of the group who decide its Meta themselves by the way)

And even if it is true it’s still a misuse of private information and there is a lot of precedent to say there is no defence to that one. Starting with Max Mosely.

For those who have said data protection, that’s not relevant so far as the poster is concerned but could be as far as Meta is concerned

AcademicallyAverageTeddy · 05/07/2025 08:33

BadLad · 05/07/2025 08:30

Just imagine the tabloids if what people keep saying on here were actually true. That is, to sue someone for libel you had to prove that what they said was not true

They would be able to run riot destroying people’s lives.

They could print all kinds of criminal allegations from decades in the past, knowing that it would be extremely difficult for the person to prove them untrue so many years later.

Thank God the laws are what they are. We do at least have some protections against the press making up whatever the hell they like. But it’s a waste of time trying to get half the people on here to grasp that.

Show quote history

I think you have misunderstood what Velmy is saying? I read it as Velmy making the same point as you.

PinkyFlamingo · 05/07/2025 08:34

Hattie24 · 04/07/2025 23:39

It’s not about him. It’s his family who will suffer the consequences of the post

Show quote history

Well that's his responsibility then not the person who posted it!

BadLad · 05/07/2025 08:36

AcademicallyAverageTeddy · 05/07/2025 08:33

I think you have misunderstood what Velmy is saying? I read it as Velmy making the same point as you.

Show quote history

No, you have misunderstood my post, probably because I didn’t phrase it well. I completely agree with Velmy. I was expressing sympathy with her frustration and hopefully providing some explanation for the people she is correcting as to why the law is the way it is and not the why they think it is. Velmy is completely correct.

Codlingmoths · 05/07/2025 08:36

sneeziseason · 05/07/2025 08:22

So if he didn’t have kids and a wife it would be okay to post this?

It’s either wrong to post it or it’s not.
You can’t escape consequences of seedy behaviour because you have a family.

The effect on the women and children in the block of flats is still the same whether he has kids or not.

Why should the residents not do what they can to make their environment safer ? Why is the embarrassment of OPs kids more important than the safety of women, children and vulnerable adults?

Show quote history

Exactly. It’s flats, the families living there clearly do not have gardens, their kids need to go outside to play, I would not like my kids unsupervised around men coming in to use prostitutes one bit. Just ewwww. (Yes op, that is your ex husband we are talking about)

Velmy · 05/07/2025 08:39

Katrinawaves · 05/07/2025 08:24

Haven’t read the whole thread just the first page which is full of incorrect advice so thought I’d jump straight in.

You can’t do anything but your husband can.

This post is defamatory and therefore Facebook will remove it if he asks them to do so (as otherwise they would be liable for it under s1 of the defamation act and they don’t want the hassle)

if he wants to also take action against the person who posted it, he’s got two causes of action:

Defamation - if she says it’s true the onus is on her to prove that; and
Misuse of private information - info about someone’s sex life is private even if it’s pretty insalubrious

It’s irrelevant the photo was taken in a public place, what’s actionable is what she has said or inferred about him. The downside is however that taking action can be expensive and she may not have any money to pay his costs and any damages to him even if he wins so he should think hard about that before he starts anything.

Are you sure that's correct RE Facebook? - S10 of the act provides companies like META protection from defamation claims bought against them for posts by their users, as long as the users are identifiable (which I assume this woman is).

They should remove the post as per their community guidelines however.

Itallcomesdowntothis · 05/07/2025 08:42

Velmy · 05/07/2025 01:33

This isn't how libel works at all.

Firstly, OP cannot sue for libel on behalf of her husband. Her husband is the one being defamed, he would have to bring the action.

Secondly, the person bringing the action does not have to prove anything. The person accused of libel (in this case the woman who posted on FB) has to defend themselves using one or more of several set defences, one of which is that their statement is materially true.

Show quote history

I wasn’t suggesting that the OP bring a case on behalf of her husband but more together generally but thanks for the clarification.

Yeah it kinda does work like that…

In a libel case, the claimant (the person bringing the case) has the initial burden of proving that the statement was defamatory, while the defendant (the person accused of libel) typically has the burden of proving any defences.

We aren’t arguing this here so the OP should contact a solicitor.

Katrinawaves · 05/07/2025 08:44

Velmy · 05/07/2025 08:39

Are you sure that's correct RE Facebook? - S10 of the act provides companies like META protection from defamation claims bought against them for posts by their users, as long as the users are identifiable (which I assume this woman is).

They should remove the post as per their community guidelines however.

Show quote history

Sorry can see I mistyped in my original post. It’s s5 of the Act which covers Meta not s1

s10 is for distributors - shops, lorry drivers, etc who previously were liable for the contents of the books and publications they sold or shipped but have had a defence since 2013

SardinesOnGingerbread · 05/07/2025 08:44

Cheesystick · 04/07/2025 23:56

Thanks chatgpt.

I would have to be DAMN SURE my husband was telling the truth.. otherwise you'll look even stupider. Or edit to remove 'there is no truth' - doesn't actually matter if it is or isn't true if she can't PROVE that it is.

Dear xx

I’m writing to express serious concern about your recent post implying that my husband has visited a prostitute at [location/block of flats]. The post includes a photograph and insinuations that are not only completely unfounded but also highly damaging to his reputation.

I want to make it clear that there is no truth whatsoever to this allegation. More importantly, under English law, publishing statements—direct or implied—that could seriously harm someone’s reputation without evidence can constitute defamation, specifically libel, which is a civil offence.

You should be aware that the law considers not only the words used, but also the inferences and innuendo drawn from context. Even if you haven’t named him explicitly, if people can identify him from the post, this may still be actionable.

We would prefer not to take this matter further, but if the post is not removed and no clarification issued, we may have no choice but to seek legal advice to protect my husband's reputation.

I trust you’ll understand the seriousness of this and act accordingly.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

Just ... why?

Itallcomesdowntothis · 05/07/2025 08:45

Geez I wasn’t giving legal advice so calm down.

In a libel case, the claimant (the person bringing the case) has the initial burden of proving that the statement was defamatory, while the defendant (the person accused of libel) typically has the burden of proving any defenses.

So yeah it is on the claimant bringing the case and no I didn’t suggest the OP bring the case as it isn’t hers to bring.

Maybe everyone on Mumsnet shouldn’t be so passive aggressive and accusatory either.

Pedallleur · 05/07/2025 08:46

Is there a physio/masseur there? Is there a receipt? They would have a website or registered address or it just someone providing 'services' for cash? Can't be difficult to find out. The club will have details.

LBFseBrom · 05/07/2025 08:48

TryingAgainAgainAgain · 04/07/2025 23:38

His using prostitutes is utterly disgusting. Do you really think he deserves anonymity?

Yes, so are the prostitutes allowed anonymity. People outside a building are not necessarily going to be entering it anyway, we could all be caught on camera outside somewhere that turns out to be a bit dubious.

Posting a picture like that on social media is deliberately nasty.

What next, filming people coming out of the STD clinic?

Katrinawaves · 05/07/2025 08:48

SardinesOnGingerbread · 05/07/2025 08:44

Just ... why?

Show quote history

Yeah don’t send that letter. For a start there is no such thing as “a civil offence”’ so it’s going to be obvious you don’t know what you’re doing and have used Chat GPT to create something and haven’t a lawyer behind you.

GhislaineDeFeligondeRose · 05/07/2025 08:48

Hattie24 · 04/07/2025 23:45

He says he was seeing a physio for treatment of a muscle injury linked to his rugby playing.

Show quote history

Does it say on Google maps it's a physio there?

Kateb12 · 05/07/2025 08:48

That is funny 😆 even if you get it taken down at this stage though surely the damage has been done now anyway.

I have no sympathy for your husband as that is the risk you take when you do things like that (unless there is some innocent explanation to this) but at the same time it is a bit harsh to be pictured online for that. As prostitution is legal in the uk between 2 consenting adults.

Shenmen · 05/07/2025 08:50

Pirating55 · 05/07/2025 00:21

Poor woman trying to earn a living. Just so you all know - a woman by herself can use her body for business. It's legal. If she has another woman there then it's not legal. Google it. Leave her alone

It's shit living near a brothel. I've had to several times. The sort of men who use brothels are obviously vile and they are constantly near your house.
Not great for a those us with teenage daughters.
I was propositioned putting rubbish in the bin once and once wearing head to toe waterproofs and a cycling helmet.
No one wants misogynistic sad fucks near their front door.

Shenmen · 05/07/2025 08:51

LBFseBrom · 05/07/2025 08:48

Yes, so are the prostitutes allowed anonymity. People outside a building are not necessarily going to be entering it anyway, we could all be caught on camera outside somewhere that turns out to be a bit dubious.

Posting a picture like that on social media is deliberately nasty.

What next, filming people coming out of the STD clinic?

Show quote history

Nothing shameful about getting an STD or sex. Paying someone for sex is shameful.

Needtosoundoffandbreathe · 05/07/2025 08:53

The photo of him was taken in a public place. It's the allegation about why he's there that's the issue. Being perfectly honest OP, it's for him to defend, not you and you don't believe what he's told you anyway. I would message the page admin and say the allegations are unsubstantiated and for that reason the post shouldn't stand. Don't message the poster again - once you've done that she can forward what you've sent elsewhere.