Without prejudice
This morning sorting through my inbox, I came across a comment added to one of my previous postings. Now this claims to come from a political party association, however I have my doubts since the comment is headed with the phrase 'without prejudice' which I understand, is often used in correspondence between lawyer's when negotiating contracts, meaning information referred to is not binding and worthless until agreed otherwise.
So just to recap 'without prejudice' means that although you have stated something, you're not prepared to back it up. Any how I have contacted, this political party to seek clarification, as to whether the comment posted on my blogsite, is indeed from them and since their phone was not answered at 9 o'clock this morning, I rang their local MP who surprisingly wasn't available.
I also spoke with someone at the Daily Mirror, who originally published the story, to which I had earlier referred, who pointed out to me that they have good legal advice.
I don't wish to sound to pious, but in general I try not to distort facts, although clearly I have an opinion, also I will withdraw or delete comments which are libellous as and when that situation arises.
However I won't be bullied, into withdrawing comments based on an article, in the Daily Mirror, which itself was a report on the tribunal ruling in a case for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
I have now contacted the political association, in question, to verify whether the comment received, is as it says on their behalf or merely from some mischief maker, additionally I have asked them to be specific, if this is from the organisation in question.
This morning sorting through my inbox, I came across a comment added to one of my previous postings. Now this claims to come from a political party association, however I have my doubts since the comment is headed with the phrase 'without prejudice' which I understand, is often used in correspondence between lawyer's when negotiating contracts, meaning information referred to is not binding and worthless until agreed otherwise.
So just to recap 'without prejudice' means that although you have stated something, you're not prepared to back it up. Any how I have contacted, this political party to seek clarification, as to whether the comment posted on my blogsite, is indeed from them and since their phone was not answered at 9 o'clock this morning, I rang their local MP who surprisingly wasn't available.
I also spoke with someone at the Daily Mirror, who originally published the story, to which I had earlier referred, who pointed out to me that they have good legal advice.
I don't wish to sound to pious, but in general I try not to distort facts, although clearly I have an opinion, also I will withdraw or delete comments which are libellous as and when that situation arises.
However I won't be bullied, into withdrawing comments based on an article, in the Daily Mirror, which itself was a report on the tribunal ruling in a case for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
I have now contacted the political association, in question, to verify whether the comment received, is as it says on their behalf or merely from some mischief maker, additionally I have asked them to be specific, if this is from the organisation in question.
Must have been a Thanet Tory who tipped off one of their Sevenoaks brethren about your blog article. They must be rattled.
ReplyDeleteThey say:
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest that in publishing this story you are repeating a libel
Er, has it been to court then? Have libel proceedings been initiated? It wouldn't appear so. In which case I suggest your response to them should include a variation on the word 'testicles'.
I am at this moment seeking urgent clarification, since I've now spoken to the the political parties office twice, spoken with the MP's office twice, left a couple of messages, and no one from the organising question confirm or deny whether the threat of legal nastiness is genuine or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteAs long as you take reasonable steps to remove any potentially libellous comments from your website, once notified, you have nothing to worry about Tony. There's a post on Thanetlife from a month or so ago which explains the whole thing in a little more detail.
ReplyDeleteEr, Simes, I don't think that's what Tony was talking about. He's concerned about a comment that claims he's posted something potentially libellous. Not a libellous comment per se. Besides, if we all took 'reasonable steps to remove potentially libellous comments' we'd end up with something very bland indeed, wouldn't we?
ReplyDeleteAs I said in my first comment, Tony, tell them to stick their 'libel' where the sun doesn't shine.
As a layman, rather than a lawyer, I understand that "notification" forms a principal part of the argument. However, you are correct, something is either libellous or it is not. If you are informed that content is libellous than it must be considered as "notice" and how you then proceed (i.e. NTD "Notice & Takedown") will reflect on any future defense of said content by you as the publisher of the website. The precedent legal case is, still I think, the orginal Demon internet example.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be reasonable to assume, however, that a practically anonymous comment on a weblog, rather than an official communication from some highly paid m'learned friend, would not constitute notification.
ReplyDeleteInteresting question, though.
"Notification" is just that but I assume that it is contingent on the context of the communication. However to assume anything reasonable where the law is concerned is not recommended.
ReplyDelete