Ping : Patrick Stevens

[twentysix by twentyfive]

Hi Patrick I see you and Arch have found each other after that rude interuption. Normal service will be resumed I expect!

Wonder if I could pick your solicitor's brains please?

Our Club website has posted two reports of court cases. (One criminal the second a civil case arising from the first). In one of these reports (of the civil case) the writer implies or even states the view that the defendant (a motorist) lied. Indeed the inference from the judgement in the civil case suggests this to be true. After 5 years of these reports sitting happily in a dark corner on our web site the motorist has contacted the club saying that the report(s) are in part libellous (advice from Citizen's Advice Bureau I think) and wishes the articles to be edited or something - and if not he may sue.

Most of us don't want any agro as this guy is a bit of a nutter. We can comply with his wishes - ie remove/edit the reports that cause the problems. But must the club be mindful of what removal/editing the articles might imply to him? ie would such action on our part imply an admission of guilt? If so what can we do to avoid any further problems?

Hope you are able to assist. Please send your invoice in due course.

Thanks

 

[Cycling Naturalist]

A fair report of court proceedings is protected by qualified privilege and would usually be safe. However, there are some subtle points and it is easy to cross over the boundary. For example:

"The prosecution barrister accused him of telling a pack of lies." OK

"I heard him giving evidence and thought it was a pack of lies." Here you'd have to fall back on the defences of justification or fair comment.

Therefore, if there is a doubt about something your club has published, it's best to amend it or remove it. It does not amount to an admission of libel at all.

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

Patrick. Many thanks. I think the webmaster has removed it - assuming the mess that his son made of the operating system over the weekend has been sorted. It's a relief to know that it may all end with the articles disappearing. We'll just have to wait and see what our "friend" thinks of next. He seems to have a large chip on his shoulder wrt cyclists which is what got him in the dock in the first place. No accounting for some folks tho' is there

Now to what address should the club send the cheque

 

[bof]

We'll just have to wait and see what our "friend" thinks of next. He seems to have a large chip on his shoulder wrt cyclists which is what got him in the dock in the first place. No accounting for some folks tho' is there
:

So what non-libellous material can you put on the club website to warn the local population of this dangerous individual?

 

[bonk man]

lets hope he gets himself banned

 

[Cycling Naturalist]

We'll just have to wait and see what our "friend" :?: thinks of next. He seems to have a large chip on his shoulder wrt cyclists which is what got him in the dock in the first place. No accounting for some folks tho' is there :?:
:

So what non-libellous material can you put on the club website to warn the local population of this dangerous individual?

It needs to be strictly factual and true. It's probably best to quote from newspaper reports of cases he's been involved in and let people draw their own conclusions.

 

[Mortiroloboy]

We'll just have to wait and see what our "friend" :?: thinks of next. He seems to have a large chip on his shoulder wrt cyclists which is what got him in the dock in the first place. No accounting for some folks tho' is there :?:
:

So what non-libellous material can you put on the club website to warn the local population of this dangerous individual?

It needs to be strictly factual and true. It's probably best to quote from newspaper reports of cases he's been involved in and let people draw their own conclusions.

Plenty of scope there then, newspapers, have a habit of making stuff up if they can't get at the facts. (hope that wasn't libelous?) as I did not mention any specific paper by name.

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

Well the newspaper reports that I have seen have repeated our nutter's lies - the ones that enabled him to escape a dose of porridge. They were repeated in Patrick's "safe fashion" regarding libel. No doubt our newspaper reporter is very skilled in this unlike our club writer who has had no training at all but who is probably quite safe :?:

Bonk man - I think he already had points on his license and the judge topped them up so as he did get banned :?: - but of course only until the original points wore off .

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

We'll just have to wait and see what our "friend" :?: thinks of next. He seems to have a large chip on his shoulder wrt cyclists which is what got him in the dock in the first place. No accounting for some folks tho' is there
:

So what non-libellous material can you put on the club website to warn the local population of this dangerous individual?

Personnally I'd rather forget the whole thing and move on. Posting more stuff truthful or not is only going to bring more trouble I think. Life is too short. Most of our club folks and the local cycling community will have heard about the whole affair in any case. He's a nutter and ain't nothing anyone can do to change that. :8: Lord knows that he hasn't learned after 3 convictions :?:

Oh dear have I been libellous