# Libellous/defamatory posts



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Please be warned that we have recently added an infraction specifically for libellous/defamatory posts.

Infractions act essentially as warnings; the weight and duration of these infractions depends on the severity of the offence. If they accumulate on a members profile they result in an automatic ban.

Thanks


----------



## Greenspin (Dec 27, 2010)

"Libellous"

This word is new to my vocabulary :lol:


----------



## BettySwallocks (Aug 1, 2012)

even google couldnt help me with those words, what do they actually mean?


----------



## Beklet (May 13, 2005)

What is classed as libellous though?


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

BettySwallocks said:


> even google couldnt help me with those words, what do they actually mean?


Talking sh!t without proof lol


----------



## Beklet (May 13, 2005)

Well that's most of the forum banned then..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A1183394


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Beklet said:


> What is classed as libellous though?


'The communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, product, company etc.' This new infraction is in response to some members making defamatory remarks about companies which could harm their business. As the forum publishing these remarks we need to act responsibly. (Also, I don't like it when we get letters from solicitors instructing us to remove a defamtory thread...or else :scared: )


----------



## Ackee&amp;Saltfish (Mar 18, 2011)

i thought we called it banter? everyone knows what @resten @jon-kent and @sckeane get up to when they meet up no need for proof there :whistling:


----------



## Paisleylad (Jan 22, 2013)

Id hazard a guess at the accusations labelled at a certain pre workout company would have been damaging.

I know if i was the owner id have been going off my head.


----------



## huarache (May 28, 2012)

Paisleylad said:


> Id hazard a guess at the accusations labelled at a certain pre workout company would have been damaging.
> 
> I know if i was the owner id have been going off my head.


The information in the thread I made was available all over the Internet, i was regurgitating what is already out there for those who didn't know, no issues there


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

Ackee&Saltfish said:


> i thought we called it banter? everyone knows what @resten @jon-kent and @sckeane get up to when they meet up no need for proof there :whistling:


See you in court !!!


----------



## Paisleylad (Jan 22, 2013)

Mibbe so mate and i dare say your intentions were good.

Sadly though it was proven to be incorrect and damaging to the company.

For the record i dont think anything you done was wrong as we all spout stuff over the web we aint sure about all the time.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

The introduction of this infraction was introduced to enable us, the forum used to publish member's posts, to act responsibly.

Rather than getting into a huge debate over what constitutes 'libellous'/'defamatory', I advise that people just think before they post and not make unfounded slanderous remarks about companies/businesses or individuals.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

sckeane said:


> The information in the thread I made was available all over the Internet, i was regurgitating what is already out there for those who didn't know, no issues there


Slanderous remarks being made 'all over the internet' aren't an issue unless they're being made on our forum.


----------



## Chelsea (Sep 19, 2009)

Just to confirm I can still call @Sharpy76 an old cnut and @R0BLET a cnut yea?


----------



## huarache (May 28, 2012)

Katy said:


> Slanderous remarks being made 'all over the internet' aren't an issue unless they're being made on our forum.


what are you quoting me for? Nice patronising manor you've taken there.

So informing people that there was a potentially dangerous pre workout is wrong because it may damage the companies rep - what a joke, I received that email from a UK supplement company, go hassle them


----------



## huarache (May 28, 2012)

Paisleylad said:


> Mibbe so mate and i dare say your intentions were good.
> 
> Sadly though it was proven to be incorrect and damaging to the company.
> 
> For the record i dont think anything you done was wrong as we all spout stuff over the web we aint sure about all the time.


Meh, it did say that the lab tester wasn't legit or something after the initial email was sent out how many days later. But still, whether it was legit or not I know where I stand with it, not like it hasn't been done before and I rather not use sh!te like that.

can't help anyone out these days on here cause you get bitten in the ass for it


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

sckeane said:


> what are you quoting me for? Nice patronising manor you've taken there.
> 
> So informing people that there was a potentially dangerous pre workout is wrong because it may damage the companies rep - what a joke, I received that email from a UK supplement company, go hassle them


was the pre workout called `**** rage` made by the cringe worthy merkin crew :lol:


----------



## huarache (May 28, 2012)

ewen said:


> was the pre workout called `**** rage` made by the cringe worthy merkin crew :lol:


Haha I can't think of a fat joke so your lucky


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

sckeane said:


> what are you quoting me for? Nice patronising manor you've taken there.
> 
> So informing people that there was a potentially dangerous pre workout is wrong because it may damage the companies rep - what a joke, I received that email from a UK supplement company, go hassle them


I was quoting your comment that justified slanderous remarks because they're 'all over the internet'. It wasn't a personal attack in any way but a point that I felt needed clarified for members.


----------



## Sharpy76 (May 11, 2012)

Chelsea said:


> Just to confirm I can still call @Sharpy76 an old cnut and @R0BLET a cnut yea?


Fvck off minger, you're putting me off my food


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Just to clarify, this isn't the result of any one remark. Legal complaints are thankfully fairly infrequent, however, after I returned from my honeymoon to find three seperate legal emails regarding posts made on our forum we decided that a new rule and infraction was necessary.


----------



## resten (Apr 4, 2012)

ewen said:


> was the pre workout called `**** rage` made by the *cringe worthy *merkin crew :lol:


Infraction! That's libel right there


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

Its all really just common sense, you can have a personal opinion about a product due to an experience in your use of it. For example, it did not work because of ABC or it was the dogs b0llox and I cannot live without it.

But mindlessly repeating rumours or posting an unqualified opinion which could be detrimental to a product could be an issue.

or worst case scenario posting negative things about a product that are outright false that has a detrimental effect upon that Company would be text book libel.

And last of all remember that Katy and Lorien could get sued as a result, and they in turn may sue you for the damages.

Think of twitter, twitter does not usually have to foot the bill where someone is sued for damages, they quickly pass that cost to the one who posted the comment.


----------



## BodyBuilding101 (Mar 8, 2006)

Beklet said:


> What is classed as libellous though?


Im wondering the same :confused1:


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

BodyBuilding101 said:


> Im wondering the same :confused1:


Basically any written comment that has judged to be false and or malicious that has a detrimental effect upon the reputation or financial dealings of another.

it is not a criminal offence it is a civil offence so it only has to be proved within the remit of balance of probabilities, which is far less than the criminal proving of beyond reasonable doubt.

You also get no legal aid in defending the allegation.

Legal costs could be 20000 plus.


----------



## Dr Manhattan (Jan 8, 2012)

Just a query, but as most of the individuals on here are anonymous, then there can't be libel against them as they aren't identifiable by the person making the comment or the person(s) reading it.

So am I right in thinking that this new rule has only really be introduced for the protection of the board sponsors?

And to clarify, so long as there is evidence to support any negative comments or opinions, they are still welcomed in reviewing member's experiences with any companies?


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Dr Manhattan said:


> Just a query, but as most of the individuals on here are anonymous, then there can't be libel against them as they aren't identifiable by the person making the comment or the person(s) reading it.
> 
> So am I right in thinking that this new rule has only really be introduced for the protection of the board sponsors?
> 
> And to clarify, so long as there is evidence to support any negative comments or opinions, they are still welcomed in reviewing member's experiences with any companies?


Not just board sponsors...I frequently get complaints from companies I have never heard of but who have been slated on the forum. I have also received complaints from individuals who have had their reputation affected by comments on the forum.

In practice, this infraction will most likely be issued for comments that are likely to/or have caused emotional or financial damage to an individual or company/business.

It is important to bear in mind that our infractions are simply our efforts to maintain a smoothly run forum and doesn't reflect what could result in legal action...that's for each indivual to bear in mind when they make comments about others on here or anywhere.


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

Dr Manhattan said:


> Just a query, but as most of the individuals on here are anonymous, then there can't be libel against them as they aren't identifiable by the person making the comment or the person(s) reading it.
> 
> So am I right in thinking that this new rule has only really be introduced for the protection of the board sponsors?
> 
> And to clarify, so long as there is evidence to support any negative comments or opinions, they are still welcomed in reviewing member's experiences with any companies?


If a company wants to find you they will. IP address etc and other means. Katy and Lorien could be issued a high judge order to hand over any details they have.

As for evidence of use of a product, if it is fair and experienced then there should be no issue. it is the outright false and deflamitry that is the issue.

For example, if a company launches a whey powder stating that if you take this for two weeks you will gain 14 pounds of muscle.

I try it for two weeks and I gain naff all, I could post a comment saying that I tried this for two weeks and I gained nothing.

This is fact, I have tried it according to their instruction and I did not gain anything. I have therefore given an informed and experienced opinion.

The Company that made the whey would be hard pressed to take any action against me.

Another scenero.

Company A produces a compound where it has been proved to increase work out intensity.

I then post on ukm that it is a load of sh!te, made me ill, never worked and was a total waste of money.

But I had infact never used it and I made it up. This would be libel, as my comment has detrimented their reputation and could lead to a financial loss.

The above are very simplistic examples and there are loads of ifs and buts.


----------



## Dr Manhattan (Jan 8, 2012)

Katy said:


> Not just board sponsors...I frequently get complaints from companies I have never heard of but who have been slated on the forum. I have also received complaints from individuals who have had their reputation affected by comments on the forum.
> 
> In practice, this infraction will most likely be issued for comments that are likely to/or have caused emotional or financial damage to an individual or company/business.
> 
> It is important to bear in mind that our infractions are simply our efforts to maintain a smoothly run forum and doesn't reflect what could result in legal action...that's for each indivual to bear in mind when they make comments about others on here or anywhere.


Ok thanks.

If you've received legal complaints, I appreciate you can't discuss details of them. But as libel is something the layperson won't have knowledge of, I don't know if it might be useful if you could post examples of the sort of thing that isn't acceptable.

Eg, whether it was an individual talking about an individual, or an individual talking about a company, and the nature of what was said. Obviously mentioning no names and not a carbon copy of what has been previously posted...but I'm assuming the offending posts will have been removed by now anyway?

Just a thought that it might help provide clarification so people know what to watch their step for


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Dr Manhattan said:


> Ok thanks.
> 
> If you've received legal complaints, I appreciate you can't discuss details of them. But as libel is something the layperson won't have knowledge of, I don't know if it might be useful if you could post examples of the sort of thing that isn't acceptable.
> 
> ...


To be honest, the complaints we get are very varied and by now it would be very hard to find the now removed posts amongst the huge number of posts on the site.

Bascially, to keep it simple, it's best just to not make false and unfounded statements about companies and individuals. For starters, it's not a very nice thing to do and secondly, it can cause emotional damage and financial loss.

This thread isn't meant to scare people or create an atmosphere of 'oh I can't write anything' and libellous posts haven't really been a big issue for us at all...just every so often we get a solicitors letter or someone just kindly asking us to remove such posts. This thread is just to make members aware that there is now infraction for this.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

Basically if you act a **** expect repercussions .

Nothing wrong with feedback whatever that may be but to spout sh1t from non validated internet sources and adding a bit extra can actually land you in sh1t .

Thats how I see it .


----------



## JANIKvonD (Jul 7, 2011)

so if i use a product...& its shyte.....can i tell ppl i think it shyte?


----------



## James s (Sep 18, 2010)

JANIKvonD said:


> so if i use a product...& its shyte.....can i tell ppl i think it shyte?


Yup, this is more if you go out of your way to attack with obvious spite, without backing up what you're saying


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

JANIKvonD said:


> so if i use a product...& its shyte.....can i tell ppl i think it shyte?


As far as I understand it, that isn't libellous..that's just your opinion after trying something.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

its simple really, either say 'in my personal opinion ' this product is shyte , or add scientific evidence from a recognized body to show it does ****all as proof .


----------



## TELBOR (Feb 20, 2012)

Chelsea said:


> Just to confirm I can still call @Sharpy76 an sexy [email protected] and @R0BLET a double sexy [email protected] yea?


Too kind mate, fire away :wub:


----------



## Chelsea (Sep 19, 2009)

R0BLET said:


> Too kind mate, fire away :wub:


Hahahahahahahahahaha :lol:

That'll be the day!


----------



## resten (Apr 4, 2012)

Seems @sckeane's comments weren't far off the mark...


----------



## huarache (May 28, 2012)

resten said:


> Seems @sckeane's comments weren't far off the mark...


Oooo I want to ask why, but we may end up in the dog house lol


----------



## HAWKUS (Jan 11, 2012)

jon-kent said:


> Talking sh!t without proof lol


So i guess im gonna have to stop calling you a nazi til i see you at the annual hitler rememberance march? :lol:


----------

