Sunday Times story today about Mumsnet having to reveal posters' names

[BIWI]

Without going into specific details, obviously, there's clearly a huge issue here about libel/responsibility for our posts.

I wonder if it would be a good idea for MNHQ to reiterate the current situation, so that people appreciate what they shouldn't (and what they can) post?

I've read it's exceedingly expensive to bring a libel case before the courts. I wonder how much money he's prepared to chuck at this?

It's likely to cost him more than the average person has in the bank.

Defamation is not the same as libel

Defamation we have to prove that we did not (in effect)

I'm assuming the posters in question had some personal experience of this doctor and weren't happy? Not sure as I never saw the thread. But if so it's a bit shit to sue your former patients if they weren't happy with results.

I thought defamation was the general overall word and under that you have two types - libel and slander.

www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/libel-and-slander/5047889.article

www.farrer.co.uk/Global/Briefings/-06%20Private%20Client/Fair%20comment%20to%20honest%20opinion%20-%20whats%20new.pdf

There are certainly a lot of cases www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/libel-cases-prompted-by-social-media-posts-rise-300-in-a-year-9805004.html and a lot of damage is done by untrue posts on line. People's lives can be destroyed so thankfully we have the legislation to protect us all.

Anyway we all agree that the more posters know to be careful what they say the better.

So, if you say, 'I felt Mrs Y was a berk' - is that ok?
Or, 'I felt Mrs Y was behaving like a berk' - is that just personal opinion and therefore ok?

The trigger for defamation is that the statement is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013
I can't imagine any circumstances in which a judge would find that someone saying "I think X is a berk" would cause serious harm to X.

The kind of statement that you could sue for would be:
"X's serious negligence in carrying out their professional duties caused me disastrous damage"
"X claims to be a lawyer but actually got their degree out of a cracker"
"X used to work as a prostitute"
"X has sex with farm animals"
"X claims that her husband was killed by a burglar but I think that she killed him herself"

I was told a story by my father, once. A matelot on a battleship - if I recall HMS Xxxx -was caught by his shipmates in flagrante delicto with a local sheep. Near Scapa Flow.

Nothing was said on his return to the ship but when it returned to Portsmouth, every man in every ship at anchor there, lined the yard arms and the battleship slowly made her way to her berth to the sound of thousands of sailors all going Baaaaaaaaaa!
Never made the papers that story but then I guess it was wartime. 
Sorry - it was just your remark about the 'farmyard animals'. 

And I guess he didn't sue either.

This is always the issue with defamation. If you sue you can draw more attention to the original allegedly defamatory comment and sometimes you also lose as Andrew Mitchell did and have to pay a lot of costs. It is a very risky business. However on line comment can cause millions of financial losses these days so you can see why people want things they regard as defamatory removed.

The other route I sometimes advise clients is paying or doing it yourself to have the search result on Google/Yahoo etc come low down on a search because of a large volume of other content you or the person you pay generates about your business. That works too as a second solution. A third solution which I suppose is part of the defamation one is the new right to be forgotten in an EU case which only works in the EU but with Google you can fill in a form and have stuff removed on defamation and other grounds. So 3 routes, defamation, the right to be forgotten (which does not always apply of course) and the generation such large volume new content that the original stuff does not appear until about page 20 of a search.

Just came across this through another thread.

It seems worrying that the court has ordered MN to hand over members details and PMs without their comments being found to be libellous? And without the members being asked if their posts can be deleted first (so that bit of law wasn't relevant).

Does this mean the court can order MN, who won't contest it, to hand over anyone's user name without evidence they have done anything wrong?

It seems worrying that the court has ordered MN to hand over members details and PMs without their comments being found to be libellous? And without the members being asked if their posts can be deleted first (so that bit of law wasn't relevant)

YY. I thought that too. In previous cases I thought poster were given the option to either have their posts removed, or to provide their details. In this case a different "method" was used, and the deletion option was not available - MN had to provide their details.

In my case the court threat - just a lawyers letter - went to MN requesting details. We then has the option of removal of posts. As the defamation has then ceased they would have had a harder time proving damage, which is why it went no further.

This chap was very silly running to the press because as Enormous so rightly says, he has a beggar of a job getting rid of the google searches.

QE must regret their one as most recent MN posts start with "I found the thread and wondered what they wanted deleted"
Tee hee

Hi, all!

We appreciate your concerns about this.

Just to clarify, users do have the option to stand by their comments or to have them withdrawn.

Please do take a look at this post, where Kate explains the process of libel.

Hope this clears things up a bit.

Can I add to what @LornaMumsnet and @KateMumsnet both say

When I was on the receiving end, MNHQ were absolutely and utterly brilliant.

They explained and linked to the law, explained what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing.

There were lots of emails at the end of which we all felt safe in our positions and actions.

I know in this case the whole thread went but I'm sure that the posters with valid points to make will have been treated as considerately as I was.

They do try.