Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Libel News
86 views
Skip to first unread message
The Todal
Jan 20, 2021, 9:01:36 AM1/20/21
to
A couple of interesting cases on defamation, one involving Trustpilot
and the other Twitter. In both cases, the Defences were struck out
because honest opinion is not enough to defeat a libel claim.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/disgruntled-client-ordered-to-pay-25000-damages-for-libellous-review/5107081.article
A disgruntled client who posted unsubstantiated defamatory claims about
a law firm on a review website has been ordered to pay £25,000 in
damages. Giving summary judgment in Summerfield Browne Ltd v Waymouth,
Master David Cook said that a ‘substantial’ number of clients were put
off after Philip James Waymouth wrote on the Trustpilot website that his
experience had been ‘A total waste of money another scam solicitor’ [sic].
The national firm brought proceedings for libel and sought general
damages limited to £25,000 and special damages of £300 per day to cover
the drop-off in work. The firm also asked for an order to remove the
defamatory words from Trustpilot.
Master Cook said the defence was ‘fanciful’ and it was not appropriate
for the matter to proceed to full trial, and he entered summary
judgement for the firm.
Tessa Rhodes, a solicitor with Summerfield Browne, told the court that
in the five weeks following the online review the number of weekly
enquiries fell from 50-60 to 30-40. The firm has since encouraged
existing and past clients to leave positive reviews, and there has been
a ‘slow increase’ in work.
unquote
and
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/79.html
The Claimant, Ms Rachel Riley, is a well-known television presenter.
The Defendant, Mr Michael Sivier, is a political journalist and
disability campaigner. Ms Riley brings a defamation action against Mr
Sivier over an article published on his website Vox Political - politics
for the people, on 26th January 2019, headlined “Serial abuser Rachel
Riley to receive ‘extra protection’ - on grounds that she is receiving
abuse”. The arena in which this dispute arises is the Twittersphere.
Its backdrop is the debate about antisemitism and the Labour Party which
has featured in British politics in recent years.
The statement complained of means that
(1) the Claimant has engaged upon, supported and encouraged a campaign
of online abuse and harassment of a 16-year-old girl, conduct which has
also incited her followers to make death threats towards her.
I have not been able to discern in Mr Sivier’s pleadings a case,
arguable with a realistic prospect of success, that it is substantially
true that Ms Riley engaged upon, supported and encouraged a campaign of
online abuse and harassment of Rose. That itself precludes the
possibility of arguing that any such conduct incited others to make
death threats to Rose. If such threats were made there is no basis for
saying they were incited by Ms Riley’s conduct as alleged, since there
is no arguable basis for establishing the objective fact of that course
of conduct. I repeat one more time that I must look at this matter
through the lens of Nicklin J’s ruling that this was an assertion of
fact, not a personal opinion of Mr Sivier. That is a significant line
for Mr Sivier to have crossed: he could have elected to publish an
opinion piece, but he did not take that option. If a factual allegation
is defended in reliance on the public online speech of a claimant as
amounting to a campaign of abuse and harassment, it is not enough to
prove the speech controversial, unwelcome or strongly disagreed
with....There is no sustainable basis pleaded for imputing to her
responsibility for supporting and encouraging, by her speech or by her
silence, any such conduct by third parties.
and the other Twitter. In both cases, the Defences were struck out
because honest opinion is not enough to defeat a libel claim.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/disgruntled-client-ordered-to-pay-25000-damages-for-libellous-review/5107081.article
A disgruntled client who posted unsubstantiated defamatory claims about
a law firm on a review website has been ordered to pay £25,000 in
damages. Giving summary judgment in Summerfield Browne Ltd v Waymouth,
Master David Cook said that a ‘substantial’ number of clients were put
off after Philip James Waymouth wrote on the Trustpilot website that his
experience had been ‘A total waste of money another scam solicitor’ [sic].
The national firm brought proceedings for libel and sought general
damages limited to £25,000 and special damages of £300 per day to cover
the drop-off in work. The firm also asked for an order to remove the
defamatory words from Trustpilot.
Master Cook said the defence was ‘fanciful’ and it was not appropriate
for the matter to proceed to full trial, and he entered summary
judgement for the firm.
Tessa Rhodes, a solicitor with Summerfield Browne, told the court that
in the five weeks following the online review the number of weekly
enquiries fell from 50-60 to 30-40. The firm has since encouraged
existing and past clients to leave positive reviews, and there has been
a ‘slow increase’ in work.
unquote
and
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/79.html
The Claimant, Ms Rachel Riley, is a well-known television presenter.
The Defendant, Mr Michael Sivier, is a political journalist and
disability campaigner. Ms Riley brings a defamation action against Mr
Sivier over an article published on his website Vox Political - politics
for the people, on 26th January 2019, headlined “Serial abuser Rachel
Riley to receive ‘extra protection’ - on grounds that she is receiving
abuse”. The arena in which this dispute arises is the Twittersphere.
Its backdrop is the debate about antisemitism and the Labour Party which
has featured in British politics in recent years.
The statement complained of means that
(1) the Claimant has engaged upon, supported and encouraged a campaign
of online abuse and harassment of a 16-year-old girl, conduct which has
also incited her followers to make death threats towards her.
I have not been able to discern in Mr Sivier’s pleadings a case,
arguable with a realistic prospect of success, that it is substantially
true that Ms Riley engaged upon, supported and encouraged a campaign of
online abuse and harassment of Rose. That itself precludes the
possibility of arguing that any such conduct incited others to make
death threats to Rose. If such threats were made there is no basis for
saying they were incited by Ms Riley’s conduct as alleged, since there
is no arguable basis for establishing the objective fact of that course
of conduct. I repeat one more time that I must look at this matter
through the lens of Nicklin J’s ruling that this was an assertion of
fact, not a personal opinion of Mr Sivier. That is a significant line
for Mr Sivier to have crossed: he could have elected to publish an
opinion piece, but he did not take that option. If a factual allegation
is defended in reliance on the public online speech of a claimant as
amounting to a campaign of abuse and harassment, it is not enough to
prove the speech controversial, unwelcome or strongly disagreed
with....There is no sustainable basis pleaded for imputing to her
responsibility for supporting and encouraging, by her speech or by her
silence, any such conduct by third parties.
GB
Jan 20, 2021, 9:52:12 AM1/20/21
to
On 20/01/2021 14:01, The Todal wrote:
> Philip James Waymouth wrote on the Trustpilot website that his
> experience had been ‘A total waste of money another scam solicitor’ [sic].
I think there's a lesson to be learned here. The real damage seems to
> Philip James Waymouth wrote on the Trustpilot website that his
> experience had been ‘A total waste of money another scam solicitor’ [sic].
have been done to Waymouth by his use of the word 'scam'.
I can think of a number of ways that he might have written this, and I
would be grateful for any views on the difficulty this would have
presented for the solicitors.
‘A total waste of money' - Just stop there. I assume that that's
probably true of Waymouth's experience of using this firm, so I presume
that there could have been no successful way for the firm to stop him
saying that?
'Strongly recommend not using this firm'
'Totally ineffective, in my experience'
Just in case it's not blindingly obvious, I have no experience of the
firm in question and I am making no comment on what they are actually like.
I find it really very highly surprising that a single Trustpilot review
can have as much effect as is claimed.
The Todal
Jan 20, 2021, 10:22:08 AM1/20/21
to
serious and rash allegation to make about anyone, and is deemed to be an
allegation of fact rather than mere opinion. The rest of the review does
not really get any analysis in the judgment.
The full transcript is interesting, and it makes me wonder whether the
defendant Mr Waymouth ever resorted to usenet to obtain legal advice
though I can't remember seeing this story in our own group.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/85.html
His review was:
"A total waste of money another scam solicitor
replacement was useless. I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my
case, but what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and
sent back to me. No new information or how to proceed or what the law
says or indeed the implications of what was done. I Just got their false
assumptions, full of errors showing a lack of understanding for the
situation and the law. Once they have your money they are totally
apathetic towards you. You will learn more from forums, you tube and the
Citizens advice website about your case, for free"
unquote
And this is part of what he wrote to the court:
"I have already made it perfectly clear that this case should never be
heard in court and I will not be giving it any credence or legitimacy by
attending. By continuing with the hearing you are undermining the
integrity of your own institution"
unquote
So the judge said:
The Claimant submits that the defence of honest opinion cannot succeed
in circumstances were the words used convey an allegation of fraud....
Here Mr Bradshaw submits that the allegation of dishonesty made that the
Defendant is that it is "a scam solicitor", has the plain meaning that
the Claimant is dishonest and fraudulent. The Defendant seeks to present
this as an opinion. Mr Bradshaw argues this is impermissible, the
Defendant is putting forward the Claimant's dishonesty as a matter of
fact and cannot simply say by way of defence "this is my opinion". In
the circumstances I accept the law is as stated in Wasserman v Freilich
and am satisfied Mr Bradshaw's submission is correct, with the result
the defence of honest opinion should be struck out.
Norman Wells
Jan 20, 2021, 10:22:43 AM1/20/21
to
On 20/01/2021 14:25, GB wrote:
works than the average judge.
Fredxx
Jan 20, 2021, 10:23:11 AM1/20/21
to
On 20/01/2021 14:25, GB wrote:
too think that if he hadn't used the word 'scam' there wouldn't have
been a case. Waste of money can be easily construed as an opinion,
calling a practice a scam that is not subject to SRA action is a very
risky thing to say.
On rethinking this, using the word scam makes him look embittered. If he
had left it as just a waste of money then readers may have taken more
notice?
I don't understand why he didn't see the issue and edit his feedback
accordingly.
The Todal
Jan 20, 2021, 10:59:02 AM1/20/21
to
On 20/01/2021 14:25, GB wrote:
>
>
> I find it really very highly surprising that a single Trustpilot review
> can have as much effect as is claimed.
I was sorry to have to reject your followup giving a link to the
> can have as much effect as is claimed.
Trustpilot site for these solicitors.
Given that they have sued for libel, I wouldn't want to be instrumental
in publicising any of their bad reviews, some of which do seem unfair.
People can find their own way to the site if they want to. But 89% of
their reviews are "excellent".
The sort of complaints that people make are typical of the complaints
that might apply to most law firms. For instance, that the person
handling the case changed several times. That's actually normal. And
delays in bringing the matter to a conclusion. That can happen through
no fault of the solicitor.
The review which was the subject of this particular libel action still
seems to be on the Trustpilot site. I wonder if there is a Mr Trustpilot
who will remove reviews when ordered to do so by a court.
The Todal
Jan 20, 2021, 10:59:02 AM1/20/21
to
On 20/01/2021 15:36, Jethro_uk wrote:
>
Non sequitur?
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:01:13 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>
>> A disgruntled client who posted unsubstantiated defamatory claims about
>> a law firm on a review website has been ordered to pay £25,000 in
>> damages. Giving summary judgment in Summerfield Browne Ltd v Waymouth,
>> Master David Cook
>
> Quis custodiet custodes ipsos ?
>
>> A disgruntled client who posted unsubstantiated defamatory claims about
>> a law firm on a review website has been ordered to pay £25,000 in
>> damages. Giving summary judgment in Summerfield Browne Ltd v Waymouth,
>> Master David Cook
>
>
Non sequitur?
Jon Ribbens
Jan 20, 2021, 12:51:40 PM1/20/21
to
On 2021-01-20, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> There seems to be something slightly iffy about a member of the legal
> profession judging a case involving a member of the legal profession.
A judge is by definition a member of the legal profession. If you
decided that solicitors should be judged by some person other than
a standard judge, that person would immediately become part of
the legal profession.
> profession judging a case involving a member of the legal profession.
A judge is by definition a member of the legal profession. If you
decided that solicitors should be judged by some person other than
a standard judge, that person would immediately become part of
the legal profession.
Norman Wells
Jan 20, 2021, 12:52:07 PM1/20/21
to
On 20/01/2021 15:04, The Todal wrote:
> On 20/01/2021 14:25, GB wrote:
>> On 20/01/2021 14:01, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Philip James Waymouth wrote on the Trustpilot website that his
>>> experience had been ‘A total waste of money another scam solicitor’
>>> [sic].
> On 20/01/2021 14:25, GB wrote:
>> On 20/01/2021 14:01, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Philip James Waymouth wrote on the Trustpilot website that his
>>> experience had been ‘A total waste of money another scam solicitor’
>>> [sic].
> The full transcript is interesting, and it makes me wonder whether the
> defendant Mr Waymouth ever resorted to usenet to obtain legal advice
> though I can't remember seeing this story in our own group.
> defendant Mr Waymouth ever resorted to usenet to obtain legal advice
> though I can't remember seeing this story in our own group.
> And this is part of what he wrote to the court:
>
> "I have already made it perfectly clear that this case should never be
> heard in court and I will not be giving it any credence or legitimacy by
> attending. By continuing with the hearing you are undermining the
> integrity of your own institution"
He wasn't exactly out to make friends and influence people then, which
>
> "I have already made it perfectly clear that this case should never be
> heard in court and I will not be giving it any credence or legitimacy by
> attending. By continuing with the hearing you are undermining the
> integrity of your own institution"
might have been a slight error.
No wonder he lost and the damages were so high.
Fredxx
Jan 20, 2021, 12:52:36 PM1/20/21
to
On 20/01/2021 16:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:52:08 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:52:08 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>
> There seems to be something slightly iffy about a member of the legal
> profession judging a case involving a member of the legal profession.
>
> I'm sure there are safeguards. Although it might be better if you didn't
> profession judging a case involving a member of the legal profession.
>
> detail them. I can't see them surviving long if they're too obvious ....
Since the defendant was a LIP I thought Judges were obliged to assist
and apply the law? While libel had taken place, the costs were questionable.
In order to mitigate their loss I feel the solicitors had the right as
per Godfrey v Demon ruling to require Trustpilot to take down the
feedback without delay through an order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_Internet_Service
But the fact he failed to turn up also bothers me. Could the judge force
attendance?
Since there was effectively no defence to rely on I suppose the judge
had little opportunity to rebut the claims and cost.
Max Demian
Jan 20, 2021, 1:04:38 PM1/20/21
to
On 20/01/2021 14:25, GB wrote:
> On 20/01/2021 14:01, The Todal wrote:
>
>> Philip James Waymouth wrote on the Trustpilot website that his
>> experience had been ‘A total waste of money another scam solicitor’
>> [sic].
>
> I think there's a lesson to be learned here. The real damage seems to
> have been done to Waymouth by his use of the word 'scam'.
>
> I can think of a number of ways that he might have written this, and I
> would be grateful for any views on the difficulty this would have
> presented for the solicitors.
Can you solve it by the use of carefully crafted euphemisms, like "sharp
>
>> Philip James Waymouth wrote on the Trustpilot website that his
>> experience had been ‘A total waste of money another scam solicitor’
>> [sic].
>
> I think there's a lesson to be learned here. The real damage seems to
> have been done to Waymouth by his use of the word 'scam'.
>
> I can think of a number of ways that he might have written this, and I
> would be grateful for any views on the difficulty this would have
> presented for the solicitors.
practise" for dishonesty, "disingenuous" for lying or "gaming the
system" for cheating?
--
Max Demian
Pamela
Jan 20, 2021, 1:10:33 PM1/20/21
to
On 16:08 20 Jan 2021, Jethro_uk said:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:52:08 +0000, The Todal wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:52:08 +0000, The Todal wrote:
> There seems to be something slightly iffy about a member of the
> legal profession judging a case involving a member of the legal
> profession.
>
> I'm sure there are safeguards. Although it might be better if you
> didn't detail them. I can't see them surviving long if they're too
> obvious ....
I'm no expert but the case seems to delves into legal depths out of
> legal profession judging a case involving a member of the legal
> profession.
>
> I'm sure there are safeguards. Although it might be better if you
> didn't detail them. I can't see them surviving long if they're too
> obvious ....
all proportion to the offence.
The firm of solicitors have thrown the book at the defendent and the
judge played his part by providing portentious opinions. Maybe the
judge feels upset the defendent didn't play a full part in the
proceedings and wants to demnostrate that his ocurt must be taken
seriously.
Is there any proof that the reduction in inquiries was attributable
to the Trustpilot review? Even if it caused fewer inquiries, did
that cause the firm to suffer a loss of £25,000 fee income?
This must surely serve to lower the public view of solicitors.
The Todal
Jan 20, 2021, 1:27:57 PM1/20/21
to
newshound
Jan 20, 2021, 1:28:10 PM1/20/21
to
On 20/01/2021 14:01, The Todal wrote:
> A couple of interesting cases on defamation, one involving Trustpilot
> and the other Twitter. In both cases, the Defences were struck out
> because honest opinion is not enough to defeat a libel claim.
>
"scam"
> and the other Twitter. In both cases, the Defences were struck out
> because honest opinion is not enough to defeat a libel claim.
>
Very interesting. Perhaps Trustpilot and other such organisations might
add this to the four letter words on their block list.
The Todal
Jan 20, 2021, 1:43:47 PM1/20/21
to
On 20/01/2021 18:06, Pamela wrote:
> On 16:08 20 Jan 2021, Jethro_uk said:
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:52:08 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 20/01/2021 15:36, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:01:13 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A disgruntled client who posted unsubstantiated defamatory
>>>>> claims about a law firm on a review website has been ordered to
>>>>> pay Ł25,000 in damages. Giving summary judgment in Summerfield
> On 16:08 20 Jan 2021, Jethro_uk said:
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:52:08 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 20/01/2021 15:36, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:01:13 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A disgruntled client who posted unsubstantiated defamatory
>>>>> claims about a law firm on a review website has been ordered to
>>>>> Browne Ltd v Waymouth, Master David Cook
>>>>
>>>> Quis custodiet custodes ipsos ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Non sequitur?
>>
>> There seems to be something slightly iffy about a member of the
>> legal profession judging a case involving a member of the legal
>> profession.
>>
>> I'm sure there are safeguards. Although it might be better if you
>> didn't detail them. I can't see them surviving long if they're too
>> obvious ....
>
> I'm no expert but the case seems to delves into legal depths out of
> all proportion to the offence.
>
> The firm of solicitors have thrown the book at the defendent and the
> judge played his part by providing portentious opinions. Maybe the
> judge feels upset the defendent didn't play a full part in the
> proceedings and wants to demnostrate that his ocurt must be taken
> seriously.
>
> Is there any proof that the reduction in inquiries was attributable
> to the Trustpilot review? Even if it caused fewer inquiries, did
> that cause the firm to suffer a loss of Ł25,000 fee income?
>>>>
>>>> Quis custodiet custodes ipsos ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Non sequitur?
>>
>> There seems to be something slightly iffy about a member of the
>> legal profession judging a case involving a member of the legal
>> profession.
>>
>> I'm sure there are safeguards. Although it might be better if you
>> didn't detail them. I can't see them surviving long if they're too
>> obvious ....
>
> I'm no expert but the case seems to delves into legal depths out of
> all proportion to the offence.
>
> The firm of solicitors have thrown the book at the defendent and the
> judge played his part by providing portentious opinions. Maybe the
> judge feels upset the defendent didn't play a full part in the
> proceedings and wants to demnostrate that his ocurt must be taken
> seriously.
>
> Is there any proof that the reduction in inquiries was attributable
> to the Trustpilot review? Even if it caused fewer inquiries, did
>
> This must surely serve to lower the public view of solicitors.
>
I disagree. Actually I think the case will have very little publicity
> This must surely serve to lower the public view of solicitors.
>
outside legal circles. Perhaps it should have more publicity.
But it reminds us that Tripadvisor and Trustpilot can make or break a
business, and there is no way that a business can fight back if it is
unjustly criticised by a malicious customer. Hotels and restaurants in
particular have been damaged by reviews and have sometimes had to resort
to litigation which is expensive and might in itself damage the brand.
It's the same sort of power that Donald Trump was able to exercise via
Twitter. The power to be an "influencer" by being an extremist and a bully.
In the case under discussion the client offered to take down the review
if the firm refunded the fees he had paid. Those who review hotels and
restaurants on Tripadvisor often demand their money back and then do
their malicious review if no refund is forthcoming.
Pamela
Jan 20, 2021, 3:10:24 PM1/20/21
to
On 18:41 20 Jan 2021, The Todal said:
> On 20/01/2021 18:06, Pamela wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
> On 20/01/2021 18:06, Pamela wrote:
>>
is supposed to have caused so much loss to the law firm.
He writes they are a "scam solicitor" which isn't complimentary but,
in the context of Trustpilot, it's more an imprecise figure of
speech than an allegation of some gross impropriety. That seems to
be the worst of his misdeeds.
He also writes the following, which is presumably factual:
"I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my case, but what I got
was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to
me. No new information or how to proceed or what the law says or
indeed the implications of what was done."
this is hardly defamatory.
The Todal
Jan 20, 2021, 3:38:44 PM1/20/21
to
to defend himself and to argue his corner. So the judge decided that
"scam" is an allegation of dishonesty or fraud.
My OED says that scam means "A trick, a ruse; a swindle, a racket".
You could perhaps say that lawyers in general operate a racket whereby
they charge you money for telling you what you already know and that you
aren't accusing them of fraud, merely of offering a disappointing or
unsatisfactory service.
If he had turned up to court he might perhaps have argued that in the
context of an overwhelmingly complimentary set of reviews plus a few
disparaging ones that are not actionable, his review probably made no
real difference to the firm's intake of new clients even if his review
coincided with a fall-off of new clients.
Now I suppose he has to decide whether to pay solicitors to appeal the
decision.
>
> He also writes the following, which is presumably factual:
>
> "I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my case, but what I got
> was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to
> me. No new information or how to proceed or what the law says or
> indeed the implications of what was done."
>
> He mentions a replacement for someone who left was "useless" and
> this is hardly defamatory.
>
rather than fact (actionable).
GB
Jan 20, 2021, 4:02:58 PM1/20/21
to
On 20/01/2021 19:49, Pamela wrote:
> He writes they are a "scam solicitor" which isn't complimentary but,
> in the context of Trustpilot, it's more an imprecise figure of
> speech than an allegation of some gross impropriety.
The trouble is that the term does have a dictionary definition, which
> in the context of Trustpilot, it's more an imprecise figure of
> speech than an allegation of some gross impropriety.
isn't "Don't think much of these guys".
A dishonest scheme; a fraud.
Swindle.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/scam
Those are serious allegations to make against anybody, and I really
don't think that Trustpilot provides a context where language has a
different meaning. What you are really saying is that there are *many*
libellous posts on Trustpilot.
Mark Goodge
Jan 20, 2021, 4:03:12 PM1/20/21
to
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:01:13 +0000, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com>
wrote:
>https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/79.html
>
>The Claimant, Ms Rachel Riley, is a well-known television presenter.
>The Defendant, Mr Michael Sivier, is a political journalist and
>disability campaigner. Ms Riley brings a defamation action against Mr
>Sivier over an article published on his website Vox Political - politics
>for the people, on 26th January 2019, headlined “Serial abuser Rachel
>Riley to receive ‘extra protection’ - on grounds that she is receiving
>abuse”. The arena in which this dispute arises is the Twittersphere.
>Its backdrop is the debate about antisemitism and the Labour Party which
>has featured in British politics in recent years.
He appears to be planning to throw good money after bad:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2021/01/20/mike-to-appeal-after-high-court-judge-strikes-out-defence-against-riley-libel-accusation/
Mark
wrote:
>https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/79.html
>
>The Claimant, Ms Rachel Riley, is a well-known television presenter.
>The Defendant, Mr Michael Sivier, is a political journalist and
>disability campaigner. Ms Riley brings a defamation action against Mr
>Sivier over an article published on his website Vox Political - politics
>for the people, on 26th January 2019, headlined “Serial abuser Rachel
>Riley to receive ‘extra protection’ - on grounds that she is receiving
>abuse”. The arena in which this dispute arises is the Twittersphere.
>Its backdrop is the debate about antisemitism and the Labour Party which
>has featured in British politics in recent years.
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2021/01/20/mike-to-appeal-after-high-court-judge-strikes-out-defence-against-riley-libel-accusation/
Mark
The Todal
Jan 20, 2021, 4:09:44 PM1/20/21
to
"My legal team and I have good reason to believe that the decision can
be overturned".
I think his own opinion on the law isn't worth a nickel. And if I was
being asked to contribute any money I'd want to see an opinion from his
barrister.
newshound
Jan 20, 2021, 5:57:45 PM1/20/21
to
On 20/01/2021 19:00, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Bit unfair on the residents of Scampton ?
>
Like the time a very large British Gas facility fell off the internet.
You do need to formulate the regular expressions carefully.
>
Like the time a very large British Gas facility fell off the internet.
You do need to formulate the regular expressions carefully.
jeff Layman
Jan 21, 2021, 5:03:27 AM1/21/21
to
On 20/01/2021 20:24, The Todal wrote:
> Unfortunately he was too foolish to see the sense in turning up to court
> to defend himself and to argue his corner. So the judge decided that
> "scam" is an allegation of dishonesty or fraud.
>
> My OED says that scam means "A trick, a ruse; a swindle, a racket".
>
> You could perhaps say that lawyers in general operate a racket whereby
> they charge you money for telling you what you already know and that you
> aren't accusing them of fraud, merely of offering a disappointing or
> unsatisfactory service.
>
> If he had turned up to court he might perhaps have argued that in the
> context of an overwhelmingly complimentary set of reviews plus a few
> disparaging ones that are not actionable, his review probably made no
> real difference to the firm's intake of new clients even if his review
> coincided with a fall-off of new clients.
>
> Now I suppose he has to decide whether to pay solicitors to appeal the
> decision.
And if he isn't happy with the way they have done their job if he does
> Unfortunately he was too foolish to see the sense in turning up to court
> to defend himself and to argue his corner. So the judge decided that
> "scam" is an allegation of dishonesty or fraud.
>
> My OED says that scam means "A trick, a ruse; a swindle, a racket".
>
> You could perhaps say that lawyers in general operate a racket whereby
> they charge you money for telling you what you already know and that you
> aren't accusing them of fraud, merely of offering a disappointing or
> unsatisfactory service.
>
> If he had turned up to court he might perhaps have argued that in the
> context of an overwhelmingly complimentary set of reviews plus a few
> disparaging ones that are not actionable, his review probably made no
> real difference to the firm's intake of new clients even if his review
> coincided with a fall-off of new clients.
>
> Now I suppose he has to decide whether to pay solicitors to appeal the
> decision.
appeal and loses? It might turn into an almost endless series of what he
sees as "scams"!
--
Jeff
Pamela
Jan 21, 2021, 6:56:26 AM1/21/21
to
On 18:59 20 Jan 2021, Jethro_uk said:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:06:44 +0000, Pamela wrote:
>
>> This must surely serve to lower the public view of solicitors.
>
> I would be curious where you think that started ?
I can't speak for the origins but I would be surprised if the
negative American view of lawyers didn't influence UK opnion in
recent years (rightly or wrongly). Although that wouldn't account
for views like intimidating, arrogant, disinterested or
unapproachable.
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:06:44 +0000, Pamela wrote:
>
>> This must surely serve to lower the public view of solicitors.
>
I can't speak for the origins but I would be surprised if the
negative American view of lawyers didn't influence UK opnion in
recent years (rightly or wrongly). Although that wouldn't account
for views like intimidating, arrogant, disinterested or
unapproachable.
GB
Jan 21, 2021, 7:00:10 AM1/21/21
to
On 20/01/2021 20:24, The Todal wrote:
> If he had turned up to court he might perhaps have argued that in the
> context of an overwhelmingly complimentary set of reviews plus a few
> disparaging ones that are not actionable, his review probably made no
> real difference to the firm's intake of new clients even if his review
> coincided with a fall-off of new clients.
I am not going to link to the website in question, or even to mention it!
> context of an overwhelmingly complimentary set of reviews plus a few
> disparaging ones that are not actionable, his review probably made no
> real difference to the firm's intake of new clients even if his review
> coincided with a fall-off of new clients.
However, the reviews are all dated, and they are listed in reverse date
order. Waymouth's was the first bad review the firm had (unless there
has been some editing).
The Todal
Jan 21, 2021, 8:06:36 AM1/21/21
to
average, than UK lawyers. There are many accounts of trial counsel in
criminal cases who failed to present the defendant's case competently
resulting in his eventual execution. And in recent times the lawyers who
did Trump's bidding by asking the courts to reverse the election result
did not present any adequate supporting evidence but presumably expected
to be paid for their efforts.
In UK law, there used to be a Solicitors From Hell website and the
proprietor would upload negative, defamatory reviews and then only
remove them if the solicitors paid him a fee. Some of the firms had to
end up taking him to court. I think the usual damages awarded to the law
firms were 10k.
Worth a read: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2015/2628.html
and https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/3185.html
Mark Goodge
Jan 21, 2021, 8:11:23 AM1/21/21
to
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:20:10 GMT, Pamela <uk...@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
I also suspect that part of the issue is that many people have a
misconception about what a law firm can do for them. There seems to be a
common belief that if a lawyer is good enough, they can win any case for
you, and if they lose the case, it's their fault for not being good
enough. In reality, while a good lawyer will certainly help, a hopeless
case is a hopeless case no matter who is advocating it. And one of the
roles of a laywer is to tell their client that a case, or a particular
argument, is hopeless and not worth litigating. Which, to someone who is
under the impression that a lawyer should just do as they are told and
will win the case if they are good enough, can easily be perceived as
arrogance or unapproachability.
Mark
Mark
wrote:
misconception about what a law firm can do for them. There seems to be a
common belief that if a lawyer is good enough, they can win any case for
you, and if they lose the case, it's their fault for not being good
enough. In reality, while a good lawyer will certainly help, a hopeless
case is a hopeless case no matter who is advocating it. And one of the
roles of a laywer is to tell their client that a case, or a particular
argument, is hopeless and not worth litigating. Which, to someone who is
under the impression that a lawyer should just do as they are told and
will win the case if they are good enough, can easily be perceived as
arrogance or unapproachability.
Mark
Mark
Simon Parker
Jan 21, 2021, 8:52:17 AM1/21/21
to
On 21/01/2021 11:20, Pamela wrote:
deal with the legal profession. (Leaving the criminal side out of it,
for now, as that will only muddy the waters even further.)
For most people, it is likely their interactions with the legal world
centre around the three Ds of Death, Divorce and Debt and I'll add the
fourth of Moving Home.
All of those tend to be events that are stressful enough in their own
right anyway and having to build a new relationship in those times
certainly can't help. They are all high value issues where the
potential for a mistake can be catastrophic and so caution is required.
In most instances, I think if people agree you've performed
satisfactorily, then it is as good as it is going to get.
Taking them in turn, death is often a heart wrenching experience and the
deceased may have appointed solicitors as executors because they want to
relieve their family of what they perceive to be a burden at what they
know will be a stressful time. Yes, they know it will cost more this
way, but they consider it a price worth paying to relieve the pressure
from family members. But the family see it differently: "The solicitor
has sneakily appointed themselves executor when drafting the will so
they can steal our inheritance." Regardless of the service provided,
and the fee charged, the family will likely walk away with a negative
view of the experience.
Divorce is an adversarial process. Neither side generally goes in with
realistic expectations and even when they do, the need to advise them of
their entitlements, which may be significantly higher than they
anticipated, just further sours an experience that was suboptimal to
begin with. As there's typically a legal team for each side, one, or
possibly both, are likely to get criticised.
On the subject of debt and the law, I can put it no better than did Lord
Justice Clarke at the commencement of his judgment in McGinn v
Grangewood Securities [2002] EWCA Civ 522:
“These appeals raise a number of issues under the Consumer Credit Act
1974 ("the Act") which has recently provided so much work for the
courts. Like others, this case demonstrates the unsatisfactory state of
the law at present. Simplification of a part of the law which is
intended to protect consumers is surely long overdue so as to make it
comprehensible to layman and lawyer alike. At present it is certainly
not comprehensible to the former and is scarcely comprehensible to the
latter.”
Which brings us to conveyening. In response to market demand,
conveyencing is typically a fixed fee process based on the band into
which a house price falls. Additionally, whilst the process can be
repetitive, there are wrinkles that need to be spotted early on or
things can get very messy, very quickly later on. Finally, like all
legal processes, it is unforgiving and the consequences of a mistake,
regardless of how genuine it is, can be out of all proportion to the
original error.
As a recent example, I had a particularly poor conveyencing experience
earlier this year when selling a house and that was despite having
sought a personal recommendation from a trusted friend. They discounted
the bill which is all I could ask for really. And, curiously, I'd
probably use the same firm again as I now have a working relationship
with them and better understand their processes so I know when I need to
zig and when I need to zag. (But I'm not currently selling another
property, nor do I have plans to do so any time soon, so this is purely
academic.)
Regards
S.P.
The Todal
Jan 21, 2021, 8:52:45 AM1/21/21
to
unsatisfactory service if they summarise the information you have
provided and tell you what your legal rights are. The fact that the
client already knows what his legal rights are does not mean it isn't
useful to have it confirmed by a legal professinal.
That said, I think many of us, including me, have had unsatisfactory
service from a law firm at some time or other. The most common criticism
is failure to reply to correspondence, and delay.
Failure to give adequate advice about the likely cost of the legal
service used to be a very common cause for complaint, but now it's a
breach of conduct rules to give inadequate advice about costs and the
ombudsman can and will award compensation in many cases.
Norman Wells
Jan 21, 2021, 9:14:55 AM1/21/21
to
On 21/01/2021 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
> My negative view comes from using solicitors myself. Same as for:
> roofers, plumbers, gardeners and electricians.
The world is being run now by millennials. What do you expect?
> roofers, plumbers, gardeners and electricians.
The world is being run now by millennials. What do you expect?
Pamela
Jan 21, 2021, 9:16:28 AM1/21/21
to
On 20:24 20 Jan 2021, The Todal said:
> On 20/01/2021 19:49, Pamela wrote:
>> On 18:41 20 Jan 2021, The Todal said:
>>> On 20/01/2021 18:06, Pamela wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> I'm no expert but the case seems to delves into legal depths
>>>> out of all proportion to the offence.
>>>>
>>>> The firm of solicitors have thrown the book at the defendant
> On 20/01/2021 19:49, Pamela wrote:
>> On 18:41 20 Jan 2021, The Todal said:
>>> On 20/01/2021 18:06, Pamela wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> I'm no expert but the case seems to delves into legal depths
>>>> out of all proportion to the offence.
>>>>
>>>> and the judge played his part by providing portentous opinions.
>>>> Maybe the judge feels upset the defendant didn't play a full
>>>> part in the proceedings and wants to demonstrate that his court
>>>> must be taken seriously.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any proof that the reduction in inquiries was
>>>> attributable to the Trustpilot review? Even if it caused fewer
>>>> inquiries, did that cause the firm to suffer a loss of L25,000
>>>>
>>>> Is there any proof that the reduction in inquiries was
>>>> attributable to the Trustpilot review? Even if it caused fewer
a lot of off-the-cuff comments get made, isn't to be given the full
extent of a formal dictionary meaning? The term then gets
extrapolated further by the judge as if it was used in a carefully
chosen formal assessment of the law firm.
On the other hand, there's an email exchange which was submitted as
evidence. Can the public now see that?
> You could perhaps say that lawyers in general operate a racket
> whereby they charge you money for telling you what you already
> know and that you aren't accusing them of fraud, merely of
> offering a disappointing or unsatisfactory service.
>
> If he had turned up to court he might perhaps have argued that in
> the context of an overwhelmingly complimentary set of reviews plus
> a few disparaging ones that are not actionable, his review
> probably made no real difference to the firm's intake of new
> clients even if his review coincided with a fall-off of new
> clients.
if he's there permanently but, after Brexit, if he ignores the
court's judgement then can the UK issue a viable arrest warrant for
him?
Sweden.
Mark Goodge
Jan 21, 2021, 9:29:23 AM1/21/21
to
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 13:44:37 +0000, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com>
wrote:
>
for me when I bought a flat, once. The word mañana would have meant
nothing to them - they had no concept of that sense of urgency.
Mark
wrote:
>
>That said, I think many of us, including me, have had unsatisfactory
>service from a law firm at some time or other. The most common criticism
>is failure to reply to correspondence, and delay.
Yes, I had pretty awful service from a law firm who did the conveyancing
>service from a law firm at some time or other. The most common criticism
>is failure to reply to correspondence, and delay.
for me when I bought a flat, once. The word mañana would have meant
nothing to them - they had no concept of that sense of urgency.
Mark
Fredxx
Feb 9, 2021, 9:53:12 AM2/9/21
to
On 09/02/2021 11:02, Jethro_uk wrote:
> pay-25000-damages-for-libellous-review/5107081.article
>> off after Philip James Waymouth wrote on the Trustpilot website that his
>> damages limited to £25,000 and special damages of £300 per day to cover
>> the drop-off in work. The firm also asked for an order to remove the
>> defamatory words from Trustpilot.
>>
>> Master Cook said the defence was ‘fanciful’ and it was not appropriate
>> for the matter to proceed to full trial, and he entered summary
>> judgement for the firm.
>>
>> Tessa Rhodes, a solicitor with Summerfield Browne, told the court that
>> in the five weeks following the online review the number of weekly
>> enquiries fell from 50-60 to 30-40. The firm has since encouraged
>> existing and past clients to leave positive reviews, and there has been
>> a ‘slow increase’ in work.
>>
>> unquote
>
> a follow up
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55981600
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y5gre4ld
>
> This line caught my eye:
>
> *Other reviewers are now leaving TrustPilot reviews on the firm's page,
> in an attempt to support Mr Waymouth.*
Wow, they've stopped further reviews:
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.summerfieldbrowne.com/transparency
Nearly all the reviews have been posted in the past day or so.
I do understand moderators should be cautious but this link shows that
by far the majority of reviews have been left since the BBC article and
does not include any reviews.
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:01:13 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>
>> A couple of interesting cases on defamation, one involving Trustpilot
>> and the other Twitter. In both cases, the Defences were struck out
>> because honest opinion is not enough to defeat a libel claim.
>>
>> https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/disgruntled-client-ordered-to-
>
>> A couple of interesting cases on defamation, one involving Trustpilot
>> and the other Twitter. In both cases, the Defences were struck out
>> because honest opinion is not enough to defeat a libel claim.
>>
> pay-25000-damages-for-libellous-review/5107081.article
>>
>> A disgruntled client who posted unsubstantiated defamatory claims about
>> a law firm on a review website has been ordered to pay £25,000 in
>> A disgruntled client who posted unsubstantiated defamatory claims about
>> damages. Giving summary judgment in Summerfield Browne Ltd v Waymouth,
>> Master David Cook said that a ‘substantial’ number of clients were put
>> off after Philip James Waymouth wrote on the Trustpilot website that his
>> experience had been ‘A total waste of money another scam solicitor’
>> [sic].
>>
>> The national firm brought proceedings for libel and sought general
>> [sic].
>>
>> damages limited to £25,000 and special damages of £300 per day to cover
>> the drop-off in work. The firm also asked for an order to remove the
>> defamatory words from Trustpilot.
>>
>> Master Cook said the defence was ‘fanciful’ and it was not appropriate
>> for the matter to proceed to full trial, and he entered summary
>> judgement for the firm.
>>
>> Tessa Rhodes, a solicitor with Summerfield Browne, told the court that
>> in the five weeks following the online review the number of weekly
>> enquiries fell from 50-60 to 30-40. The firm has since encouraged
>> existing and past clients to leave positive reviews, and there has been
>> a ‘slow increase’ in work.
>>
>> unquote
>
> a follow up
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55981600
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y5gre4ld
>
> This line caught my eye:
>
> *Other reviewers are now leaving TrustPilot reviews on the firm's page,
> in an attempt to support Mr Waymouth.*
Wow, they've stopped further reviews:
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.summerfieldbrowne.com/transparency
Nearly all the reviews have been posted in the past day or so.
I do understand moderators should be cautious but this link shows that
by far the majority of reviews have been left since the BBC article and
does not include any reviews.
The Todal
Feb 9, 2021, 9:56:50 AM2/9/21
to
unfavourable, now been removed?
The Todal
Feb 9, 2021, 10:03:22 AM2/9/21
to
unfavourable reviews on the site merely to express disapproval of the
firm's decision to sue its customer.
I can't understand why Trustpilot allows those reviews to remain on
their site. Plainly they aren't reviews of the service actually given to
those reviewers.
Fredxx
Feb 9, 2021, 11:46:52 AM2/9/21
to
solicitor's practice didn't invoke the case of Demon vs Godfrey in the
very first place and get TrustPilot to take down the original offending
review.
That would have been my second course of action after asking Mr Waymouth
to reconsider his review.
Fredxx
Feb 9, 2021, 11:47:18 AM2/9/21
to
On 09/02/2021 15:36, Jethro_uk wrote:
> they are effectively undermining their own usefulness (amongst those that
> paid any attention to start with).
>
> And if they are vetting them, they are in danger of going from mere
> conduit to active publisher. And we all know that isn't supposed to
> happen ....
If you get asked to take down a review, I'm not sure if it matters much
if you're a conduit or publisher as Demon found out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_Internet_Service
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:02:40 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>
>> I can't understand why Trustpilot allows those reviews to remain on
>> their site. Plainly they aren't reviews of the service actually given to
>> those reviewers.
>
> That was my point to start with. If they aren't vetting the reviews then
>
>> I can't understand why Trustpilot allows those reviews to remain on
>> their site. Plainly they aren't reviews of the service actually given to
>> those reviewers.
>
> they are effectively undermining their own usefulness (amongst those that
> paid any attention to start with).
>
> And if they are vetting them, they are in danger of going from mere
> conduit to active publisher. And we all know that isn't supposed to
> happen ....
If you get asked to take down a review, I'm not sure if it matters much
if you're a conduit or publisher as Demon found out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_Internet_Service
Mark Goodge
Feb 9, 2021, 11:50:35 AM2/9/21
to
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 15:36:52 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:02:40 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:02:40 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>
>> I can't understand why Trustpilot allows those reviews to remain on
>> their site. Plainly they aren't reviews of the service actually given to
>> those reviewers.
>
>> their site. Plainly they aren't reviews of the service actually given to
>> those reviewers.
>
>That was my point to start with. If they aren't vetting the reviews then
>they are effectively undermining their own usefulness (amongst those that
>paid any attention to start with).
>
>And if they are vetting them, they are in danger of going from mere
>conduit to active publisher. And we all know that isn't supposed to
>happen ....
Trustpilot reviews are pretty useless, really. They place no barriers to
>they are effectively undermining their own usefulness (amongst those that
>paid any attention to start with).
>
>And if they are vetting them, they are in danger of going from mere
>conduit to active publisher. And we all know that isn't supposed to
>happen ....
leaving a review - there's no need to have actually used the product or
service, for example - so half of them are from people with an axe to
grind and the rest are mostly shills.
Mark
Roger Hayter
Feb 9, 2021, 1:03:26 PM2/9/21
to
On 9 Feb 2021 at 15:36:52 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:02:40 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 15:02:40 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>
>> I can't understand why Trustpilot allows those reviews to remain on
>> their site. Plainly they aren't reviews of the service actually given to
>> those reviewers.
>
>> their site. Plainly they aren't reviews of the service actually given to
>> those reviewers.
>
> That was my point to start with. If they aren't vetting the reviews then
> they are effectively undermining their own usefulness (amongst those that
> paid any attention to start with).
>
> And if they are vetting them, they are in danger of going from mere
> conduit to active publisher. And we all know that isn't supposed to
> happen ....
I suspect that any review site that removes reviews, especially unfavourable
> they are effectively undermining their own usefulness (amongst those that
> paid any attention to start with).
>
> And if they are vetting them, they are in danger of going from mere
> conduit to active publisher. And we all know that isn't supposed to
> happen ....
ones, under any other than very limited and pre-specified circumstances is
going to lose public confidence.
--
Roger Hayter
Laurence Taylor
Feb 10, 2021, 8:09:18 AM2/10/21
to
On 09/02/2021 18:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
> The only reviews I really pay attention to are the non-numbskull "Amazon
> confirmed purchase" ones. And even then not to any great extent.
Amazon reviews have always been a bit useless, because they lump
together all reviews for what they think is the same thing, like
different versions of a film or record or a book from different publishers.
Now they let people to leave star ratings without making any comment,
the overall rating is pretty much pointless.
--
rgds
LAurence
<><
I used to have a tasty sig. But I ate it.
~~~ Random (signature) 1.6.1
> The only reviews I really pay attention to are the non-numbskull "Amazon
> confirmed purchase" ones. And even then not to any great extent.
Amazon reviews have always been a bit useless, because they lump
together all reviews for what they think is the same thing, like
different versions of a film or record or a book from different publishers.
Now they let people to leave star ratings without making any comment,
the overall rating is pretty much pointless.
--
rgds
LAurence
<><
I used to have a tasty sig. But I ate it.
~~~ Random (signature) 1.6.1
The Todal
Feb 10, 2021, 9:00:39 AM2/10/21
to
On 10/02/2021 12:08, Laurence Taylor wrote:
> On 09/02/2021 18:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
>
>> The only reviews I really pay attention to are the non-numbskull "Amazon
>> confirmed purchase" ones. And even then not to any great extent.
>
> Amazon reviews have always been a bit useless, because they lump
> together all reviews for what they think is the same thing, like
> different versions of a film or record or a book from different publishers.
>
> Now they let people to leave star ratings without making any comment,
> the overall rating is pretty much pointless.
>
>
I think Amazon reviews used to be worth reading, but nowadays you can be
> On 09/02/2021 18:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
>
>> The only reviews I really pay attention to are the non-numbskull "Amazon
>> confirmed purchase" ones. And even then not to any great extent.
>
> Amazon reviews have always been a bit useless, because they lump
> together all reviews for what they think is the same thing, like
> different versions of a film or record or a book from different publishers.
>
> Now they let people to leave star ratings without making any comment,
> the overall rating is pretty much pointless.
>
>
looking at an item, notice that there are over 300 reviews and an
average of 4.5 stars out of 5, click on the link to all the 5 star
reviews so that you can read them and (as often as not) get a message
telling you that there are no reviews of this type.
Martin Brown
Feb 10, 2021, 10:02:49 AM2/10/21
to
I have seen good textbooks with stupid 2.5* reviews due to clueless
muppet pollution of the scoring but most times I look for reviews they
are there and a few most favourable and worst ones displayed by default.
There is some Chinese kit with one line 5* favourable reviews all pretty
much the same... but that is just a bad policing algorithms.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
The Todal
Feb 10, 2021, 10:11:25 AM2/10/21
to
On 10/02/2021 14:51, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 10/02/2021 13:50, The Todal wrote:
>> On 10/02/2021 12:08, Laurence Taylor wrote:
>>> On 09/02/2021 18:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only reviews I really pay attention to are the non-numbskull
>>>> "Amazon
>>>> confirmed purchase" ones. And even then not to any great extent.
>>>
>>> Amazon reviews have always been a bit useless, because they lump
>>> together all reviews for what they think is the same thing, like
>>> different versions of a film or record or a book from different
>>> publishers.
>>>
>>> Now they let people to leave star ratings without making any comment,
>>> the overall rating is pretty much pointless.
>>
>> I think Amazon reviews used to be worth reading, but nowadays you can
>> be looking at an item, notice that there are over 300 reviews and an
>> average of 4.5 stars out of 5, click on the link to all the 5 star
>> reviews so that you can read them and (as often as not) get a message
>> telling you that there are no reviews of this type.
>
> Can you point to an example?
Hmm. Some of them are just a memory. However, as an example of what I
> On 10/02/2021 13:50, The Todal wrote:
>> On 10/02/2021 12:08, Laurence Taylor wrote:
>>> On 09/02/2021 18:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only reviews I really pay attention to are the non-numbskull
>>>> "Amazon
>>>> confirmed purchase" ones. And even then not to any great extent.
>>>
>>> Amazon reviews have always been a bit useless, because they lump
>>> together all reviews for what they think is the same thing, like
>>> different versions of a film or record or a book from different
>>> publishers.
>>>
>>> Now they let people to leave star ratings without making any comment,
>>> the overall rating is pretty much pointless.
>>
>> I think Amazon reviews used to be worth reading, but nowadays you can
>> be looking at an item, notice that there are over 300 reviews and an
>> average of 4.5 stars out of 5, click on the link to all the 5 star
>> reviews so that you can read them and (as often as not) get a message
>> telling you that there are no reviews of this type.
>
> Can you point to an example?
mean, look at
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B018BDGSTO/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00
(if the link works for you)
Then try to look at all the 3 star reviews or 4 star reviews. Sorry, no
reviews match your current selections.
Maybe there's a way that I haven't discovered or the fault lies with my
browser.
GB
Feb 10, 2021, 10:53:59 AM2/10/21
to
4 reviews.
Martin Brown
Feb 10, 2021, 12:46:06 PM2/10/21
to
On 10/02/2021 15:20, GB wrote:
> On 10/02/2021 15:11, The Todal wrote:
>> On 10/02/2021 14:51, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2021 13:50, The Todal wrote:
>>>> and an average of 4.5 stars out of 5, click on the link to all the 5
>>>> star reviews so that you can read them and (as often as not) get a
>>>> message telling you that there are no reviews of this type.
>>>
>>> Can you point to an example?
>>
>> Hmm. Some of them are just a memory. However, as an example of what I
>> mean, look at
>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B018BDGSTO/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00
>>
>>
>> (if the link works for you)
>>
>> Then try to look at all the 3 star reviews or 4 star reviews. Sorry,
>> no reviews match your current selections.
>>
>> Maybe there's a way that I haven't discovered or the fault lies with
>> my browser.
>
>
> Click on the "See all reviews" link, and you'll see that there are only
> 4 reviews.
I suspect that only European ones are shown and that the other missing
> On 10/02/2021 15:11, The Todal wrote:
>> On 10/02/2021 14:51, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2021 13:50, The Todal wrote:
>>>> and an average of 4.5 stars out of 5, click on the link to all the 5
>>>> star reviews so that you can read them and (as often as not) get a
>>>> message telling you that there are no reviews of this type.
>>>
>>> Can you point to an example?
>>
>> Hmm. Some of them are just a memory. However, as an example of what I
>> mean, look at
>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B018BDGSTO/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00
>>
>>
>> (if the link works for you)
>>
>> Then try to look at all the 3 star reviews or 4 star reviews. Sorry,
>> no reviews match your current selections.
>>
>> Maybe there's a way that I haven't discovered or the fault lies with
>> my browser.
>
>
> Click on the "See all reviews" link, and you'll see that there are only
> 4 reviews.
reviews are American and filtered out silently leaving gaps.
Now that you point me at one I have seen this before but thought nothing
of it beyond that someone has got their linked list a bit mangled.
FWIW I'm with the guy who says it isn't worth the money. The thicker
stuff with a slit down the side it much better pipe insulation.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Fredxx
Feb 10, 2021, 12:46:18 PM2/10/21
to
On 10/02/2021 15:20, GB wrote:
awarding a number of stars.
steve robinson
Feb 10, 2021, 4:50:47 PM2/10/21
to
he had written " not a happy customer, I found the level of service
below what one would expect and will not engage them for any future
works. " he would have made his point and would have been safe from
being sued
The Todal
Feb 11, 2021, 9:08:25 AM2/11/21
to
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/trustpilot-to-fight-order-to-take-down-libellous-solicitor-review/5107374.article
Denmark-based Trustpilot said the judgment in Summerfield Browne v
Waymouth contained a number of errors and raised ‘significant concerns’
around freedom of speech.
In a statement, the site said it had not yet been served with any order
requiring the post to be removed, but in the event this did happen, the
order would be challenged.
The company said: ‘As a public, open review platform we believe in
consumers having the ability to leave feedback – good or bad – about a
business at any time. If consumers are left fearful of leaving negative
reviews, this could result in consumers being misled about the quality
of a business, and businesses being deprived of the valuable feedback
from which they can learn, improve and grow.’
On the Summerfield Browne section of the site, Trustpilot reports there
has been a significant increase in reviews that don’t reflect an
experience with the business, and due to this, this profile has been
temporarily closed for new reviews.
Simon Parker
Feb 13, 2021, 9:52:48 AM2/13/21
to
On 20/01/2021 14:01, The Todal wrote:
> A couple of interesting cases on defamation, one involving Trustpilot
> and the other Twitter. In both cases, the Defences were struck out
> because honest opinion is not enough to defeat a libel claim.
>
> https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/disgruntled-client-ordered-to-pay-25000-damages-for-libellous-review/5107081.article
>
> A disgruntled client who posted unsubstantiated defamatory claims about
> a law firm on a review website has been ordered to pay £25,000 in
> damages. Giving summary judgment in Summerfield Browne Ltd v Waymouth,
> Master David Cook said that a ‘substantial’ number of clients were put
> off after Philip James Waymouth wrote on the Trustpilot website that his
> experience had been ‘A total waste of money another scam solicitor’ [sic].
>
> The national firm brought proceedings for libel and sought general
> damages limited to £25,000 and special damages of £300 per day to cover
> the drop-off in work. The firm also asked for an order to remove the
> defamatory words from Trustpilot.
>
> Master Cook said the defence was ‘fanciful’ and it was not appropriate
> for the matter to proceed to full trial, and he entered summary
> judgement for the firm.
>
> Tessa Rhodes, a solicitor with Summerfield Browne, told the court that
> in the five weeks following the online review the number of weekly
> enquiries fell from 50-60 to 30-40. The firm has since encouraged
> existing and past clients to leave positive reviews, and there has been
> a ‘slow increase’ in work.
>
> unquote
Trustpilot have now weighed in on the above case.
> A couple of interesting cases on defamation, one involving Trustpilot
> and the other Twitter. In both cases, the Defences were struck out
> because honest opinion is not enough to defeat a libel claim.
>
> https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/disgruntled-client-ordered-to-pay-25000-damages-for-libellous-review/5107081.article
>
> A disgruntled client who posted unsubstantiated defamatory claims about
> a law firm on a review website has been ordered to pay £25,000 in
> damages. Giving summary judgment in Summerfield Browne Ltd v Waymouth,
> Master David Cook said that a ‘substantial’ number of clients were put
> off after Philip James Waymouth wrote on the Trustpilot website that his
> experience had been ‘A total waste of money another scam solicitor’ [sic].
>
> The national firm brought proceedings for libel and sought general
> damages limited to £25,000 and special damages of £300 per day to cover
> the drop-off in work. The firm also asked for an order to remove the
> defamatory words from Trustpilot.
>
> Master Cook said the defence was ‘fanciful’ and it was not appropriate
> for the matter to proceed to full trial, and he entered summary
> judgement for the firm.
>
> Tessa Rhodes, a solicitor with Summerfield Browne, told the court that
> in the five weeks following the online review the number of weekly
> enquiries fell from 50-60 to 30-40. The firm has since encouraged
> existing and past clients to leave positive reviews, and there has been
> a ‘slow increase’ in work.
>
> unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56017604
"We [Trustpilot] strongly oppose the use of legal action to silence
consumers' freedom of speech. As a public, open, review platform we
believe strongly in consumers having the ability to leave feedback -
good or bad - about a business at any time, without interference.
“This is the first time we’ve seen a business taking such extreme
measures against a consumer voicing their genuine opinion. The vast
majority of businesses on Trustpilot engage with their consumers or use
our flagging tools to report content and resolve their issues.
“The business’s actions have resulted in media attention and this
profile has seen a significant increase in reviews that don’t reflect an
experience with the business.
“Due to this, this profile has been temporarily closed for new reviews.”
Interestingly, Trustpilot told the BBC it was never contacted by
Summerfield Browne, nor was the review flagged to the website.
Trustpilot also believe "there are a number of errors within the
judgement and it raises significant concerns around freedom of speech.
“If consumers are left fearful of leaving negative reviews, this could
result in consumers being misled about the quality of a business and
businesses being deprived of the valuable feedback from which they can
learn, improve and grow.
“It is much better for businesses to engage, respond and improve upon
learn, improve and grow.
the feedback they receive, rather than using legal action to silence
consumers."
Difficult to see what Trustpilot can do about it though, as they weren't
a party to the case.
Regards
S.P.
Roland Perry
Feb 13, 2021, 11:19:53 AM2/13/21
to
In message <i8q308...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:37:11 on Sat, 13
Feb 2021, Simon Parker <inv...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
They could fund an appeal.
--
Roland Perry
Feb 2021, Simon Parker <inv...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
The Todal
Feb 13, 2021, 12:44:14 PM2/13/21
to
them to take down the review, they will apply to set aside that order as
they are entitled to do (ie, to try).
tim...
Feb 18, 2021, 10:16:57 AM2/18/21
to
"Simon Parker" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:i8q308...@mid.individual.net...
targeted
Such action (or even threats of action) has been the cause of many a small
one closing in the past
It's only the scale of TP that enables it to ride over any negative action
against it
The Todal
Feb 18, 2021, 11:03:10 AM2/18/21
to
to freedom and democracy. But it will cost them a lot of money to
challenge a court order, and their chances of success are negligible.
Easier to just do the sensible thing and obey court orders.
GB
Feb 18, 2021, 4:35:19 PM2/18/21
to
an annual income of $100m. It would be foolish for a relatively small
firm of solicitors to take them on.
https://news.sky.com/story/online-reviews-platform-trustpilot-plots-800m-london-float-12099161
Max Demian
Feb 18, 2021, 4:39:19 PM2/18/21
to
On 18/02/2021 16:01, The Todal wrote:
up reviews by dealers, but if you can't criticise a product without the
say-so of a lawyer, even less.)
--
Max Demian
The Todal
Feb 18, 2021, 4:44:31 PM2/18/21
to
actions. That's more the province of foolish litigants in person.
The Todal
Feb 18, 2021, 4:59:21 PM2/18/21
to
of those sites, of course. A large proportion of reviews will always be
unreliable, either puff pieces from the reviewee or spiteful criticisms
from those who feel that they were disrespected by a staff member who
ignored some trivial complaint or other. There must be a lot of money to
be made by hosting these reviews, but there can't be much of a budget
for defending reckless strangers who think it is their right to make
defamatory accusations.
It is extremely expensive to defend a defamation action. Whilst a
newspaper might want to defend its journalists or its sources, having
carefully assessed the defamatory remark before publishing it, only a
moron would want to defend a stranger who posted his remark online
without any prior consultation with an editor.
Pancho
Feb 19, 2021, 5:51:55 AM2/19/21
to
less. A review which expresses a seemingly hyperbolic opinion (as many
do) means even less again. That is why it is surprising a judge would
put a value of £25,000 on the damages.
The trick to reading these review sites is to look for consensus
opinions and/or things which can be independently verified.
> There must be a lot of money to
> be made by hosting these reviews, but there can't be much of a budget
> for defending reckless strangers who think it is their right to make
> defamatory accusations.
>
> It is extremely expensive to defend a defamation action. Whilst a
> newspaper might want to defend its journalists or its sources, having
> carefully assessed the defamatory remark before publishing it, only a
> moron would want to defend a stranger who posted his remark online
> without any prior consultation with an editor.
participation could be under the condition of no defamation actions,
internal handling off defamatory remarks.
I would be hesitant to deal with a company that did not allow reviews or
blocked negative reviews with defamation lawsuits.
Thirty years ago I was in a pension plan, where the company boss
diverted the pension scheme funds to prop up his crumbling empire. He
frequently used defamation actions to inhibit scrutiny of his actions,
so I'm a little cynical of powerful people who use defamation laws.
The Todal
Feb 19, 2021, 6:09:01 AM2/19/21
to
safe word to use in a review. It evidently means fraud. Without that
word, he'd probably have got away with the rest of the review. To say "I
came for advice, they took ages and then told me what I already knew and
sent me a bill" or words to that effect, is fair enough.
I think most sites allow the reviewee to comment on the review. It never
placates the reviewer but it demonstrates a willingness to read reviews
and where appropriate, learn from them.
>
> I would be hesitant to deal with a company that did not allow reviews or
> blocked negative reviews with defamation lawsuits.
>
> Thirty years ago I was in a pension plan, where the company boss
> diverted the pension scheme funds to prop up his crumbling empire. He
> frequently used defamation actions to inhibit scrutiny of his actions,
> so I'm a little cynical of powerful people who use defamation laws.
issue libel proceedings, get interim injunctions and then eventually
drop the case before trial, even if it involved paying costs, when the
press has lost interest in the libellous remark or whatever deal he was
trying to protect had successfully been completed.
Pancho
Feb 19, 2021, 7:32:00 AM2/19/21
to
On 19/02/2021 11:03, The Todal wrote:
>
> I think the lesson we have all learned is that the word "scam" is not a
> safe word to use in a review. It evidently means fraud. Without that
> word, he'd probably have got away with the rest of the review. To say "I
> came for advice, they took ages and then told me what I already knew and
> sent me a bill" or words to that effect, is fair enough.
>
The law should be proportionate. Damages should be realistic. I can't
>
> I think the lesson we have all learned is that the word "scam" is not a
> safe word to use in a review. It evidently means fraud. Without that
> word, he'd probably have got away with the rest of the review. To say "I
> came for advice, they took ages and then told me what I already knew and
> sent me a bill" or words to that effect, is fair enough.
>
understand how the use of "scam" incurs £25,000 damages over a similar
negative review excluding that specific word.
My interpretation of the word scam, would just be intention to mislead,
with no necessity for criminality. Similarly to words like rip-off,
extortionate, con, whore, pimp,...
We can't expect unsophisticated reviewers to understand when it is OK to
use terms with their common usage meanings and when they will be
interpreted by defamation law as having a specific literal interpretation.
It is reasonable to expect that of a newspaper, but not social media,
review sites.
Roger Hayter
Feb 19, 2021, 8:01:32 AM2/19/21
to
On 19 Feb 2021 at 11:45:22 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Do...@outlook.com>
wrote:
My understanding of 'scam' is a fraudulent offer to provide something which
involves taking money and making no attempt to provide anything of value. It
is qualitatively different from poor service.
--
Roger Hayter
wrote:
involves taking money and making no attempt to provide anything of value. It
is qualitatively different from poor service.
--
Roger Hayter
GB
Feb 19, 2021, 9:12:42 AM2/19/21
to
allocate a few hundred thousand out of their advertising and PR budget
It would be a judgement (hoho!) call on whether that represents a good
use of that budget, but there would be no impact at all on their profits.
I imagine that they could keep the legal action going for years,
especially given the court backlogs, and gain enormous numbers of
reasonably positive mentions in the press. It wouldn't matter in the
least whether they ultimately lost the case.
Mark Goodge
Feb 19, 2021, 10:19:32 AM2/19/21
to
doesn't have to mean not providing anything of value. Deliberately
misleading someone into paying, say, £5000 for something that normally
retails for £5 is a scam even if the item in question is perfectly
serviceable. But getting someone to pay £10 for a product which normally
retails at £5 probably isn't a scam even if it is poor value. Where it
becomes a scam is somewhere in between the two, and that depends as much
on circumstances as it does on the absolute values.
Mark
Fredxx
Feb 19, 2021, 12:19:45 PM2/19/21
to
On 18/02/2021 16:13, GB wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_Internet_Service
JNugent
Feb 19, 2021, 12:21:04 PM2/19/21
to
Charles Lindsey
Feb 19, 2021, 7:46:21 PM2/19/21
to
Expert Witness, but the counsel decided I was not going to say what he wanted to
hear.
Godfrey's first act should have been to cancel the message (which he was
certainly entitled to do as its apparent author). Many providers (Demon amongst
them would have likely honoured the Cancel). Then, to make sure, he should have
telephomed Demon's duty officer, who might well just have removed it wighout
fuss. But instead, he sent a message to Demon's Managing Director, which
probably would not have been seen until the Monday morning (it was a weekend).
In fact, Demon could not find any trace of having received such a message, but
they never mentioned that in their defence. They could have apologised, but
instead they fought the case and lost (and rightly so, since a libel had been
committed - by some unknown person - and once notified, which they chose not to
deny, they should have acted upon).
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At my New Home, still doing my own thing-----------
Tel: +44 161 488 1845 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 40 SK8 5BF, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Fredxx
Feb 20, 2021, 5:12:32 AM2/20/21
to
On 19/02/2021 22:45, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> On 19/02/2021 16:30, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 18/02/2021 16:13, GB wrote:
>
>>> A lot of money? Trustpilot are estimated at a market value of $1bn,
>>> with an annual income of $100m. It would be foolish for a relatively
>>> small firm of solicitors to take them on.
>>
>> The same might have said Laurence Godfrey was foolish too:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_Internet_Service
>
> Both Godfrey and Demon were foolish. I know because Demon asked me to be
> an Expert Witness, but the counsel decided I was not going to say what
> he wanted to hear.
>
> Godfrey's first act should have been to cancel the message (which he was
> certainly entitled to do as its apparent author). Many providers (Demon
> amongst them would have likely honoured the Cancel). Then, to make sure,
> he should have telephomed Demon's duty officer, who might well just have
> removed it wighout fuss. But instead, he sent a message to Demon's
> Managing Director, which probably would not have been seen until the
> Monday morning (it was a weekend). In fact, Demon could not find any
> trace of having received such a message, but they never mentioned that
> in their defence. They could have apologised, but instead they fought
> the case and lost (and rightly so, since a libel had been committed - by
> some unknown person - and once notified, which they chose not to deny,
> they should have acted upon).
The case showed that a conduit is still required to take down a
> On 19/02/2021 16:30, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 18/02/2021 16:13, GB wrote:
>
>>> A lot of money? Trustpilot are estimated at a market value of $1bn,
>>> with an annual income of $100m. It would be foolish for a relatively
>>> small firm of solicitors to take them on.
>>
>> The same might have said Laurence Godfrey was foolish too:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_Internet_Service
>
> Both Godfrey and Demon were foolish. I know because Demon asked me to be
> an Expert Witness, but the counsel decided I was not going to say what
> he wanted to hear.
>
> Godfrey's first act should have been to cancel the message (which he was
> certainly entitled to do as its apparent author). Many providers (Demon
> amongst them would have likely honoured the Cancel). Then, to make sure,
> he should have telephomed Demon's duty officer, who might well just have
> removed it wighout fuss. But instead, he sent a message to Demon's
> Managing Director, which probably would not have been seen until the
> Monday morning (it was a weekend). In fact, Demon could not find any
> trace of having received such a message, but they never mentioned that
> in their defence. They could have apologised, but instead they fought
> the case and lost (and rightly so, since a libel had been committed - by
> some unknown person - and once notified, which they chose not to deny,
> they should have acted upon).
libellous comment when requested, or even through a court order.
My point is that TrustPilot would be unlikely to oppose the order, and
if they did would likely lose.
GB
Feb 20, 2021, 9:08:24 AM2/20/21
to
On 20/02/2021 00:56, Fredxx wrote:
> My point is that TrustPilot would be unlikely to oppose the order, and
> if they did would likely lose.
They have said they will oppose the order, and if you can't trust
> My point is that TrustPilot would be unlikely to oppose the order, and
> if they did would likely lose.
TrustPilot to do that .... ;) They've nailed their colours to the mast.
More to the point, TP may feel that they can't lose, even if they lose
the court case. The positive publicity may vastly outweigh the costs.
Incidentally, if I were at the law firm, I'd have to wonder whether to
take on TP at all. Suppose the case gets fought tooth and nail, and both
sides run up costs of £250k. Even if the law firm get their costs
awarded, they are still likely to recoup only about two-thirds of their
spend. So, three years down the line, they find themselves £80k down on
costs. And the offending comments have remained in place that long.
>
>
The Todal
Feb 20, 2021, 9:31:01 AM2/20/21
to
On 20/02/2021 13:58, GB wrote:
> On 20/02/2021 00:56, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> My point is that TrustPilot would be unlikely to oppose the order, and
>> if they did would likely lose.
>
> They have said they will oppose the order, and if you can't trust
> TrustPilot to do that .... ;) They've nailed their colours to the mast.
Nails can be extracted quite easily. They merely need proper legal
> On 20/02/2021 00:56, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> My point is that TrustPilot would be unlikely to oppose the order, and
>> if they did would likely lose.
>
> They have said they will oppose the order, and if you can't trust
> TrustPilot to do that .... ;) They've nailed their colours to the mast.
advice before they reach for the pincers.
>
> More to the point, TP may feel that they can't lose, even if they lose
> the court case. The positive publicity may vastly outweigh the costs.
anonymous idiots is the way to end up with a flurry of injunctions from
injured parties and eventually a ruling from an appellate court deeming
them responsible for all such defamatory contributions.
>
> Incidentally, if I were at the law firm, I'd have to wonder whether to
> take on TP at all. Suppose the case gets fought tooth and nail, and both
> sides run up costs of £250k. Even if the law firm get their costs
> awarded, they are still likely to recoup only about two-thirds of their
> spend. So, three years down the line, they find themselves £80k down on
> costs. And the offending comments have remained in place that long.
>
and didn't worry about costs.
The lesson the firm has actually learned is that if you litigate over
unfair criticism a large number of spiteful morons will come out of the
woodwork and upload rude remarks about you along the lines of "I've
never used this firm, but after reading about how they sued a customer
I'd certainly never use them now".
Tempting though it must be to respond with "I would never agree to act
for a fuckwit like you", that way madness lies.
GB
Feb 20, 2021, 11:07:23 AM2/20/21
to
On 20/02/2021 14:30, The Todal wrote:
> All the lawyers I've ever met were very sanguine about going to court
> and didn't worry about costs.
This time, they'd be funding the costs.
> All the lawyers I've ever met were very sanguine about going to court
> and didn't worry about costs.
GB
Feb 20, 2021, 11:08:28 AM2/20/21
to
On 19/02/2021 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
> If he had bracketed the word "scam" with "In my opinion, this is a ----"
> would he have had a chance ?
No.
And please note the value of trimming long threads!
> If he had bracketed the word "scam" with "In my opinion, this is a ----"
> would he have had a chance ?
No.
And please note the value of trimming long threads!
GB
Feb 20, 2021, 11:09:22 AM2/20/21
to
On 19/02/2021 14:58, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> My understanding of 'scam' is a fraudulent offer to provide something which
>> involves taking money and making no attempt to provide anything of value. It
>> is qualitatively different from poor service.
>
> Yes, but it's a continuum rather than a hard and fast line. And it
> doesn't have to mean not providing anything of value. Deliberately
> misleading someone into paying, say, £5000 for something that normally
> retails for £5 is a scam even if the item in question is perfectly
> serviceable. But getting someone to pay £10 for a product which normally
> retails at £5 probably isn't a scam even if it is poor value. Where it
> becomes a scam is somewhere in between the two, and that depends as much
> on circumstances as it does on the absolute values.
Scam implies dishonesty, rather than incompetence or poor service. It's
>> My understanding of 'scam' is a fraudulent offer to provide something which
>> involves taking money and making no attempt to provide anything of value. It
>> is qualitatively different from poor service.
>
> Yes, but it's a continuum rather than a hard and fast line. And it
> doesn't have to mean not providing anything of value. Deliberately
> misleading someone into paying, say, £5000 for something that normally
> retails for £5 is a scam even if the item in question is perfectly
> serviceable. But getting someone to pay £10 for a product which normally
> retails at £5 probably isn't a scam even if it is poor value. Where it
> becomes a scam is somewhere in between the two, and that depends as much
> on circumstances as it does on the absolute values.
fundamentally different. A firm providing poor service has hope of
improvement, whilst a dishonest firm is bad to the core.
Fredxx
Feb 20, 2021, 11:12:48 AM2/20/21
to
On 20/02/2021 14:30, The Todal wrote:
apply for an order for TrustPilot to take down the review and to allow
future trial for TP to reinstate it. From a publicity POB, once taken
down TP would not have been able to refer to the wording of the review
without the risk of libel.
OTOH taking on TP may well be a great marketing ploy by the Solicitor's
practice?
Pancho
Feb 20, 2021, 5:51:28 PM2/20/21
to
On 20/02/2021 15:29, GB wrote:
>
> Scam implies dishonesty, rather than incompetence or poor service. It's
> fundamentally different. A firm providing poor service has hope of
> improvement, whilst a dishonest firm is bad to the core.
>
I've never worked for a company that was totally honest.
>
> Scam implies dishonesty, rather than incompetence or poor service. It's
> fundamentally different. A firm providing poor service has hope of
> improvement, whilst a dishonest firm is bad to the core.
>
Exaggeration is virtually universal.
Exaggeration of the quality of service, exaggeration of benefits of
using a firm's services or exaggeration of the risks of not using a
service. Exaggeration is dishonesty. Selling a service using
exaggeration is a scam.
The problem with human language is that it is ambiguous. In everyday
usage a scam can range from mildly misleading advertising, so mild it
wouldn't raise an eyebrow from regulators, to serious criminal actions.
0 new messages