Slashdot Mirror
Firm Threatens To Sue Consumer Websites For Harrassment
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports that RLP, a legal firm that sues shoplifters on behalf of retail groups, has shown its ignorance of the Streisand Effect by attempting to censor The Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) and other consumer websites. RLP has accused CAB of harassment and is demanding that they and other consumer websites remove all 'defamatory posts' and publications. This is the latest salvo in a long running battle and although organizations like CAG (Consumer Action Group) have removed some offending posts, CAB and the Legal Beagles website are refusing to remove content and have accused RLP of trying to stifle reporting of adverse court judgments against them."
Fuck em
It looks like this is just a bunch of shoplifters who retaliated on-line to being sued.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
So RLP is serving defamation writs to consumer groups, then immediately and publicly defaming them, claiming they launched a malicious and organised internet smear campaign against RLP...
Also, pics-or-shens of the "death threats" RLP has "gotten".
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Another example how some new mega-powered version of the Peter principle is pushing all the idiots to the heads of these organizations. There seems to be incompetency in the top level of every organization right now.
It's not theft. It's piracy. They aren't the same thing.
Oh, wait. Sorry. That was just habit.
So if they can bully the watchdogs to remove any bad press, thereby leaving only good comments, they will be very happy...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Libel laws in the UK are very biased towards the prosecution.
While RLP's tactics may offend your sense of fair play (they certainly do mine), what they're doing works much better in the UK than other commonwealth countries. Suing somebody for libel in the UK is a common tactic for people who know they have no case another jurisdiction--even when there is little or no justification for their preferred venue.
In UK libel law, RLP has a big stick with which to beat its critics. The Streisand effect may direct a few more folks to the consumer websites--I certainly checked them out.
But I'll bet the degree to which RLP is going to get them to permanently back is worth a little transient negative publicity.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
What they want taken down has nothing to do with defamation and everything to do with offering advise to people who have been sent demands by these people.
Schillings also wrote to BWB, demanding that it take down from its own website its report of the Oxford court case in which it had acted for the two teenage girls.
And Schillings even demanded that the CAB withdraw all its previous publications on civil recovery, including two reports published in 2009 and 2010 which are available on its website.
The reports outline how flimsy their evidence can be and offers effective defenses. This is nothing more then a SLAPP action.
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
Only compared to the utolic myth of "Free Speech" as viewed by 'merkins (hey, you complained about USians...).
So if I were to dig up dirt on someone to damage their reputation, EVEN THOUGH true, I can be sued for libel because my intent wasn't to spread information necessary but to damage someone (the difference being the Halloween Documents vs your credit card details. Both secret information, but one is meant to damage you personally and serves no use otherwise).
But this isn't how the USA does it, therefore it MUST BE WRONG.
Why, back in my day passing the bar was an effectively unfettered license to intimidate and extort practically anybody who couldn't afford the services of my colleagues.
Now with these 'inter-tubes', and moron with an ISP can mock, castigate, calluminate, and generally disrespect me. ME a Respectable Businessman. How dare they? This madness must end.
And when they will be unable to present evidence that the harassing threats originated from CAB, hit them with a nice wrongful accusation suit.
You haven't studied UK law [1], you haven't been to the UK and you couldn't point to it on a map.
Stop repeating what you hear other ill-informed idiots say and get some exercise, you fat bastard.
[1] there's no such thing. Also if you had any legal knowledge you'd be aware that civil cases don't have a "prosecution".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I don't think "punitive damages" exist outside the USA. (It's a stupid concept: if people need to be punished they should be punished with a fine, paid to the state, after a criminal trial.)
you fat bastard
You'll be hearing from my lawyer who specializes in UK libel law.
you fat bastard
You'll be hearing from my lawyer who specializes in UK libel law.
There's no such thing as "UK law"; there's different (but similar) systems in England and Wales and Northern Ireland (both common law jurisdictions). Scotland has a mixed civil/common law system and its own institutions and methods.
Shady Business Cries Foul on Consumer Rights Group
bias? whatever do you mean? ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
How do you say "Go to hell" in Legalese?
Ok how about you seditious , treasonable, republican rebel ?
Care to elaborate? I'd always understood that truth wasn't a defense (defence?) against an accusation of libel in the UK, and thus any damaging speech could be sued over - even if it was only damaging because the plaintiff earned it. This all makes it much easier to punish people for saying things you don't like, unlike in the US where it needs to be demonstrably false and demonstrably harmful.
Am I wrong? If so, I'd love to hear how it actually works, instead of just calling people "fat bastards".
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
My Streisand is bigger than your Streisand. Troy had Achilles. We have ... Streisand. You know, you can't accuse someone of ignorance unless you know that they don't actually want that outcome. No wonder so many young men have trouble comprehending women: stated purpose is a weak omen.
you are both right and wrong, Liable law in ENGLAND is as you say. There is no liable law in Scotland, we have pretty sensible defamation laws here. Scotland has (and always will have) an entirely separate legal system - it's mentioned specifically in the 1707 act of union. Things get a little hazy with the creation of the UK supreme court but I understand that only Scots judges are allowed to sit on appeal cases that reach the supreme.
IANAL but I did study scots law before dropping out after I realised that most lawyers are actually arseholes.
Wait, how do you know he's fat?
I'd always understood that truth wasn't a defense (defence?) against an accusation of libel in the UK,
It is a defence, but proving that something is true is not always easy. If you say something actionable about someone, it is up to you to prove that it is true, not the person suing you to prove it isn't.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Only in the USA. In other countries it varies widely.
Under UK and related commonwealth countries law, the plaintiff accuses the respondant of making statements - even if the accusations are not true.
The burden of proof is then on the respondant to _prove_ that the accusations are untrue, if the plaintiff has made untrue accusations.
This is the only kind of litigation where you are guilty until proven innocent - and relying on truth or public interest as a defence does not mean that the findings aren't for the plaintiff.
Defamation litigation is almost always about who has deeper pockets.