I have used PM's to advise people about suppliers and for the record I don't access other people's PM's - in fact I don't know if I could anyway.
On another forum I used to frequent, it was pointless sending a PM to a fellow member as the chief moderator read all PM's
a) Not sure that that is the interpretation here.
b) I thought those were burgers in Pulp Fiction.
c) looking forward to ending puberty spots an' all......one day.
Lol but seriously guys get it together, no one's going to sue you for telling the truth about anything because their solicitor would tell them it's a waste of money..
Put it this way companies like trip advisor, ebay and amazon would have to shut down their businesses they're all based on feedback.
So.....in your view, members here owe more to keeping quiet in fear of what might be (or not) than recommending (or not) people known through personal experience ?
Are you suggesting that FB should be prosecuted for libel rather than its users for comments publicised thereon ?
Nor would I want to read PMs and as an admin of this site I as couple of others do have access to all things relating to the make up of the site and of all the working of itI have 'total' access on our French forum and can't read PMs.....and I wouldn't want to either !
A is liable for saying anything to C about B which would be apt to make the average citizen think worse of the latter.
A defamatory statement is not actionable unless it is published. Unfortunately for webmasters, when libel lawyers say "published", they mean communicated to one person (not including the person defamed). You can libel someone by writing about them on a personal blog, providing at least one person accesses the defamatory material.
That is not to say that a defamatory publication on your personal blog carries the same risk as a defamatory publication on, say, the BBC website. Libels on high-traffic sites are more likely to be discovered by the person attacked than libels on low-traffic sites. Also, potential libel claimants may let a libel pass if it hasn't been widely disseminated - knowing that a court case would itself ensure the widest possible audience for the slur.
September 2015
Name and address of petitioner: COLEGIO 67 S.L.CALLE MAR WGEO, 32, 28220 MAJADAJONDA, MADRID
Like I said.....
Under UK libel law even a PM (private written conversation between two individuals) if untrue/malicious could be considered as libellous....if it is recorded (written) and "could" be seen by others (published, printed, leaked etc) it is open to litigation. It DOES NOT have to be in the public domain, although most high profile cases are.
See
— Tony Weir, Tort Law p.162
Or
Confirms my thoughts even more and makes me realize I am not kidding myself
In short, why slag someone off publicly, are we not bigger than this? Got a comment, do it in private is my view
But surely, as the owners (and prospective owners) club forum, we should be able to have open discussion about experiences with those providing services to our community, good or bad? It could obviously help point people in the right direction (as generally good experiences get talked about) - and help others avoid making potentially costly mistakes. By not addressing the bad, we are failing to provide a balanced service to readers of the site, and not helping to hold people to account when they maybe need it.
In this particular case though, the fact that the Z Farm has gone bankrupt relatively under the radar a few months ago sends a clear message about that business. Obviously, we don't know the circumstances (or they aren't public domain) but it clearly means Duncan faces a challenge in rebuilding trust if restarting under another name.
Do not understand what is implied by thatWhat you shouldn't have though, is a situation where a supplier or those closely linked to them forces the club or members to act against the interests of other members by suppressing information which could help members make the best supplier choice or avoid choosing the wrong supplier, and suffering the consequences.
Note the untrue/malicious bit. If true and statement of fact, then it's just a supplier review. The key is that truth bit. No need to protect anyone from the truth.