To be so upset people think we left without paying?

[ShownOnCCTV]

Went for Sunday Lunch - have been to the pub many times before.

15 of us celebrating a birthday - balloon for the birthday girl.

Spent a lot- three courses, plenty of alcohol as well always do - all this is irrelevant but want to put the whole picture - left a 15% tip- service/food/ everything was excellent as always.

Have just been made aware of a FB post, CCTV picture of a couple standing by our table, all of us in full view - with a big post from the owner of the pub saying that these people left without paying please find them

Below this is text saying how hard it is to run a pub without people doing a runner and in this wall of text it says 'the people at the table are not involved '

Cue loads of people saying- 'its a kids 10th birthday it can't be hard to find them'
'scum, who goes for a birthday and doesn't pay'
'great pictures, easy to find then- and a link to my work page'

I have rung up and asked them to take the post down - they refuse
I have asked them to blur our images they refuse.

My son has just had someone ring him asking him why didn't we pay.

I have posted on the page asking them to remove our images and that we have proof we paid but still nothing.

Owner is responding to other posts on the page so must have seen mine. Just saying how hard it is for people to walk without paying (I'm sure it is, but we are booked for next week- 20 people, but I shall now go elsewhere)

AIBU to be so upset about this- so many comments thinking we are thieves.

Its misleading though. There is absolutely no need to have included the OP and her family and in doing so she's being targeted by strangers and people she knows. The fact they included one line saying they had paid doesn't detract from the fact her families image is alongside the spiel about people not paying.

How can it be libel when the pub have specifically said that the party isn’t involved?!

Because you can commit libel through negligence!

The OP is getting ridiculous advice from people who seem to think they know the law (and don’t).

Jesus it really really isn’t.

what did the pub neglect to do? They specifically say the OP’s party isn’t involved. If thickos don’t read that the court isn’t going to say that makes it libellous.

Oh not only do you know that it is actionable but you’ve assessed the quantum of damages too?!

Exactly! That is why libel is so serious. Perhaps get a solicitor to write and demand a rebuttal of the impression they have given, and an apology. Otherwise s/he will start a libel suit on your behalf (no harm in threatening this).

Take a photo of your receipt and some text that says something to the effect that you are family in the background and not involved and that manager will not respond to you to more clearly state that it was not you. Reply to each post reply with this image! I know it’s work but it should reduce more people responding.

Don’t reasonable readers…read?

It depends on the framing. If it’s a photo and caption saying “these thieving bastards didn’t pay for their meal” that could be a libel. That there’s a clarification in a screed of text doesn’t stop the headline and caption being libellous. Headlines can be libellous even if the content in the story isn’t.

I think you still have a case for libel/defamation even though the posters did specify your family wasn’t the one accused of thieving. The parameters are something along the lines of whether what’s been said causes harm to your reputation or lowers it in the estimation of “right-thinking people”.

You can absolutely argue that many “right-thinking people” have been left thinking you’re a thief. Your place of work has been linked which could have professional ramifications. They included images of you in a post about thieves which has led to hundreds of comments from people thinking you’re involved.

Screenshot the post and screenshot any comments identifying you and your place of work. I’d definitely look into making a case.

They neglected to blur, black out or crop out the images of the OP and her family.

people don’t read every word of every bit of content. That’s just not how we read and why newspapers are designed in the way they are. Are you honestly telling me you’ve never glanced at a newspaper story by skimming the headline and first paragraph and moving on?

Yes, as every ropey advertiser knows, most people just look at a photo and a headline and take on board whatever inplied message you want them to from that.

It doesn't make much difference what actual truths you tell them in the text below, as only a tiny percentage of people will ever actually bother to read it.

People on here telling OP to shout loudly and protest/prove her innocence in the comments underneath the post don't seem to realise that it will make no difference - the few sensible, measured people who would read below have already done so and thus haven't hurled entirely unjustified accusations at OP's group in the first place.

It absolutely is libellous….. courts will understand that most people will read only the headline and the picture…. as very clearly evidenced by the fact the vast majority of comments have assumed it’s your party. It’s very clear to the pub as to the misunderstanding that is happening as they can see the comments.
I would be reporting to the ICO for a breach of GDPR and taking legal advice asap.

Here we go. A recent case involving Dale Vince. Headline and caption found to be libellous even though the story wasn’t.

www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/defamation-based-on-photograph/

@GhostOrchidcourse I have but if I get the wrong end of the stick by doing that it isn’t actionable! Ever heard of the small print in ads? So you can see an advert for mascara and the small print says that the model is wearing fake eyelashes. Guess what? Not actionable. Perfectly legal. Says it on the page.

Here’s chat GPT’s take

Yes, based on the facts you’ve provided, this situation may well be libellous, even if the pub owner included a disclaimer that “the people at the table are not involved”. Here’s a breakdown based on the legal test for defamation (libel) under UK law, particularly under the Defamation Act 2013:

🔍
The Legal Test for Libel (Defamation)

To succeed in a claim for libel, you would need to show:

1.
A defamatory statement was made

A statement is defamatory if it:

• Tends to lower you in the estimation of right-thinking members of society,
• Causes you to be shunned or avoided, or
• Exposes you to hatred, ridicule or contempt.

✅ Likely met. The CCTV image and accompanying post have clearly led to people believing you were involved in theft. The fact that people have commented identifying you and linking to your work supports this.

2.
The statement referred to you (or your group)

Even if you’re not named, a statement can be defamatory if you can be identified, directly or indirectly.

✅ Met. You’re visible in the CCTV still, your group is recognisable, and at least one commenter linked to your work. People have been contacting your family assuming guilt. The “disclaimer” doesn’t prevent identification or suspicion.

3.
The statement was published to a third party

It must have been communicated to someone other than you.

✅ Met. The Facebook post is public and being widely commented on. It’s gone beyond private discussion.

4.
Serious harm to reputation

Under the Defamation Act 2013, a claimant must show that the statement caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation.

• For individuals, this means real reputational damage, not just hurt feelings.
• The link to your work, contact to your son, and widespread comments accusing your group of theft all support serious reputational harm.

✅ Likely met.

❗️Other Potential Legal Breaches

📸
Misuse of Private Information / Data Protection

If your image was used without consent, especially in a way that leads to harm or distress, there may be a claim under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018, particularly if you can show the use of the CCTV footage was excessive or not justified.

• Pubs can use CCTV for security purposes, but sharing footage publicly (on Facebook) without proper redaction goes beyond that purpose.
• The ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) frowns upon misuse of CCTV footage in this way.

✅
Conclusion

Yes, you are not being unreasonable at all. Based on what you’ve said:

• There is a strong argument that the post is defamatory, even if the pub technically said you weren’t involved, because it has clearly implied otherwise and caused real reputational damage.
• You may also have a valid complaint under data protection laws for misuse of CCTV images.

📝 What You Can Do Next

1. Formally write to the pub owner (email or letter) stating:
2. You are not involved in any alleged theft.
3. The post has caused reputational harm and distress.
4. Demand removal of the post and blurring/redaction of your group in the image.
5. Warn that you may pursue a defamation or data protection complaint.
7. Complain to Facebook (report the post as harmful/defamatory and involving personal images).
8. Contact the ICO if the pub continues to refuse to blur or remove your group from the CCTV image:
9. https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/
10. Seek legal advice if you wish to pursue a defamation claim formally. A solicitor’s letter is often very effective.

Not true with defamation - the court looks at the reasonable impression given
very clearly evidenced by the comments and contact OP and her family have had so far!

Here’s some advice from the information commissioner’s office. The pub will be considered a data controller and this brings responsibilities.
ico.org.uk/for-the-public/how-to-make-a-data-protection-complaint/

She hasn't been accused of not paying.
People on the pub's social media page are assuming she hasn't paid and accusing her of it because they lack reading comprehension.
It's quite a common phenomenon....
...apparently.

The pub know she paid, and referred to this in their post, but people aren't reading it properly or at all and seeing dined and dashed and her family and putting 2 and 2 together. The pub are refusing to edit the post to make it clearer or to blur her and her families images. Absolutely distressing to her, but she isnt being accused by the pub of non payment, so I doubt she could sue them for accusing her of it. Or the eejits on Facebook who can't read.
She might have a case for something, but not sure what. Distress?

I feel like the Daily Fail would love this… “Pub slanders and doxes family in publicity stunt gone wrong. Refuses to apologise or remove images.”

@Hameth

I don't think small claims court deals with libel cases.

@Beaniebobbins

It would likely cost £200 ish for a couple of letters and responses to be dealt with. Depending on your finances not an insignificant amount.

Threaten to report them to the ICO for gdpr breach.