Judge shuts down opinion website.

Hobbes

http://www.joe.ie/news-politics/current-affairs/irish-judge-closes-opinion-website-saying-defamation-can-cause-suicide-0020292-1

Judge Michael Peart ordered rate-your-solicitor.com to be closed because it had defamed a Sligo solicitor, Declan Tansey. The action was against site operators and the US site host, Dostster Inc.

...

The 'mischief', as he called it, was so serious that the government should draft a new law to deal with defamatory material online.

Is this a follow on from the Irish SOPA? Or anything to be worried about?

Reading around I found this.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1118/1224307765426.html

So it appears because the moderators sat back and let anything be posted (anonymously) worked against them? Also not showing up in court?

nuac

This site was really OTT - deserved to be closed.

RandolphEsq

The guy who ran it was a crank and a busybody. The website was completely defamatory. It would be like me saying here that "Mr. X solicitor only cares about making money and will do the bare minimum in his work." It went beyond what is opinion.

Paulw

nuac wrote: »

This site was really OTT - deserved to be closed.

The site was never about rating a solicitor, but was about all negative comments about solicitors. Positive comments seem to be removed quicker than they could be posted. The site was never balanced nor fair.

pirelli

Hobbes wrote: »

http://www.joe.ie/news-politics/current-affairs/irish-judge-closes-opinion-website-saying-defamation-can-cause-suicide-0020292-1



Is this a follow on from the Irish SOPA? Or anything to be worried about?

Reading around I found this.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1118/1224307765426.html

So it appears because the moderators sat back and let anything be posted (anonymously) worked against them? Also not showing up in court?

Finally!! Someone actually said something untrue and the lawyers got revenge. I had always thought in some instances the site's comments too extreme to be true, so why did it take so long for a would be army of lawyers that must be either terrible or terribly defamed lawyers to take so long to sue this site.

It was quoted in Tanseys case that the site receives a high volume of traffic from the legal profession. What took so long.

Hobbes

pirelli wrote: »

so long for a would be army of lawyers that must be either terrible or terribly defamed lawyers to take so long to sue this site.

According to the Irish Times article they had fake contact information. Some John Smith in Moscow, so they had to place a tracking image and get a warrant to get the IP information off eircom.

benway

Hobbes wrote: »

Is this a follow on from the Irish SOPA? Or anything to be worried about?

No and no.

The site was a joke, pretty much amounted to a haven for cranks and disgruntled litigants who came out on the losing side to vent - some of the comments were pretty shocking.

Interestingly, I made a couple of positive posts about solicitors I know a few years back, which never appeared, while the attack posts mounted up. So I don't think it's fair to say that there was no moderation policy whatsoever.

This is John Gill, the main Defendant:

blueythebear

pirelli wrote: »

Finally!! Someone actually said something untrue and the lawyers got revenge. I had always thought in some instances the site's comments too extreme to be true, so why did it take so long for a would be army of lawyers that must be either terrible or terribly defamed lawyers to take so long to sue this site.

It was quoted in Tanseys case that the site receives a high volume of traffic from the legal profession. What took so long.

I believe that it took so long because the relevant respondents to any action were very difficult to pin down. I think there was an American hosting company (Dotster inc) and 2 individuals.

There is also the issue of costs. As you are suing two individuals who were probably of limited means and a foreign company, it would be extremely difficult to obtain legal costs from them, never mind damages if he had actually sued for defamation.

So basically, the remarks had to be so damaging in Mr Tansey's eyes that he was willing to issue a High Court action with a very real risk of not realising his costs from the other side if he won. I believe at the time, that Tansey's tried to drum up interest from other solicitors in order to pool their resources to sue the site.

irishh_bob

ive written possitive and negative reviews on that site , of the solicitors featured which im familiar with , i have to say , most of the reviews were broadly speaking , representative of my own experience

n97 mini

Dotster didn't turn up presumably because the court has no jurisdiction over them.

pirelli

Hobbes wrote: »

According to the Irish Times article they had fake contact information. Some John Smith in Moscow, so they had to place a tracking image and get a warrant to get the IP information off eircom.

Sounds like a tough problem for solicitors...these types of problems require some serious know how. So they got an IP address of eircom, nice one.

blueythebear wrote: »

I believe that it took so long because the relevant respondents to any action were very difficult to pin down. I think there was an American hosting company (Dotster inc) and 2 individuals.

There is also the issue of costs. As you are suing two individuals who were probably of limited means and a foreign company, it would be extremely difficult to obtain legal costs from them, never mind damages if he had actually sued for defamation.

So basically, the remarks had to be so damaging in Mr Tansey's eyes that he was willing to issue a High Court action with a very real risk of not realising his costs from the other side if he won. I believe at the time, that Tansey's tried to drum up interest from other solicitors in order to pool their resources to sue the site.

I honestly sympathise but if it wasn't for the fact that it merely highlights how disintegrated and out of touch with the technology our legal profession is.

Rate your solicitor always had a conspiracy theory of how the legal profession was in the 'fold' with Garda and our politicians and other higher echelon's of irish society, so therefore at least the failure of intelligence by the legal profession to organise and trace the owner of the website does actually make me wonder if that is true or it might just highlight that the higher you go in the 'fold' the more they know about the inside of a brown envelope and the less the likes of Michael Lynn know about computer technology.

Intelligence sources in other countries can trace as much as a single word in a twitter post to a name and person. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/british-tourists-deported-for-tweeting_n_1242073.html

I know that it took 6 years for a brave legal professional to finally open his pocket and hopefully begin a stream that might pool enough money from the tightest pocket's in Ireland but let's wait and see if that happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Society_of_Ireland
A website launched in February 2006 by the Victims of the Legal Profession, www.Rate-Your-Solicitor.com has become an increasingly popular place for people to vent their frustrations with solicitors.

You have to acknowledge that it's popularity grew from people that have all had dealings with Irish solicitors and some barristers. The wiki does put things in perspective showing the times and attitudes that were not favourable to the legal profession.

blueythebear

pirelli wrote: »

I honestly sympathise but if it wasn't for the fact that it merely highlights how disintegrated and out of touch with the technology our legal profession is.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with you there. I don't believe it was the technical issues that caused a problem with tracing the owners of the site. It was the evidential and jurisdictional issues. In the case of a website operating out of another country, Ireland and that country must have some form of agreement to allow Irish authorities obtain personal information about the owners of the site. I'm not au fait with the whole thing but I imagine it's a similar situation to Swiss Bank Accounts, in that you might know that Joe Bloggs has 600million in a certain Swiss Bank Account, but if the Swiss bank won't confirm it, then you cannot prove it.

All of this just increases the time and effort you would need to take a case against rate-your-solicitor.com bringing the question back to whether it's actually worth the effort to sue them to try and get it shut down.

pirelli wrote: »

Rate your solicitor always had a conspiracy theory of how the legal profession was in the 'fold' with Garda and our politicians and other higher echelon's of irish society, so therefore at least the failure of intelligence by the legal profession to organise and trace the owner of the website does actually make me wonder if that is true or it might just highlight that the higher you go in the 'fold' the more they know about the inside of a brown envelope and the less the likes of Michael Lynn know about computer technology.

Intelligence sources in other countries can trace as much as a single word in a twitter post to a name and person. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/british-tourists-deported-for-tweeting_n_1242073.html

I know that it took 6 years for a brave legal professional to finally open his pocket and hopefully begin a stream that might pool enough money from the tightest pocket's in Ireland but let's wait and see if that happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Society_of_Ireland
A website launched in February 2006 by the Victims of the Legal Profession, www.Rate-Your-Solicitor.com has become an increasingly popular place for people to vent their frustrations with solicitors.

You have to acknowledge that it's popularity grew from people that have all had dealings with Irish solicitors and some barristers. The wiki does put things in perspective showing the times and attitudes that were not favourable to the legal profession.

Lots of solicitors have been involved in very shady dealings in the past so there would be a grain fo truth in some of the posts, but I would still maintain that 90% of the negative posts on a site like that are from some busybody or crank who didn't win a case.

The average punter does not generally understand the law and a seemingly very simple case can actually be very complex. Not to mention that anything can happen in court on the day. When a client doesn't get the result they want, they can turn into these obsessive types who overanalyse their case to the Nth degree who get increasingly paranoid until they crack and then post the details on this website.

The views expressed on a website like that cannot be objective due to the serious nature of the issues that solicitors deal with. When it doesn't go right (and that can happen for a myriad of reasons), the client has to blame somebody, so the solicitor or judge or barrister gets all of the blame.

suemartin

Congrats to Damien

coylemj

pirelli wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Society_of_Ireland
A website launched in February 2006 by the Victims of the Legal Profession, www.Rate-Your-Solicitor.com has become an increasingly popular place for people to vent their frustrations with solicitors.

You have to acknowledge that it's popularity grew from people that have all had dealings with Irish solicitors and some barristers. The wiki does put things in perspective showing the times and attitudes that were not favourable to the legal profession.

You were doing ok until you quoted something from Wikipedia.

In case you're not aware of how it works, you could have written the Wikipedia article yourself 5 minutes earlier, then copied & pasted it into your Boards post to bolster your case - not!

benway

blueythebear wrote: »

Lots of solicitors have been involved in very shady dealings in the past so there would be a grain fo truth in some of the posts, but I would still maintain that 90% of the negative posts on a site like that are from some busybody or crank who didn't win a case.

The average punter does not generally understand the law and a seemingly very simple case can actually be very complex. Not to mention that anything can happen in court on the day. When a client doesn't get the result they want, they can turn into these obsessive types who overanalyse their case to the Nth degree who get increasingly paranoid until they crack and then post the details on this website.

The views expressed on a website like that cannot be objective due to the serious nature of the issues that solicitors deal with. When it doesn't go right (and that can happen for a myriad of reasons), the client has to blame somebody, so the solicitor or judge or barrister gets all of the blame.

Nail:head. Very few of these guys are ever in the wrong about anything ... if a Court finds against them, it HAS to be a case of professional/judicial incompetence/corruption.

pirelli wrote:

Rate your solicitor always had a conspiracy theory of how the legal profession was in the 'fold' with Garda and our politicians and other higher echelon's of irish society

No-one's trying to suggest that all solicitors are squeaky clean, or anything like it, but RYS and its sister organisation the Victims of the Legal Profession Society took that ball and ran with it to a silly degree. Seemed to be populated to a large extent by the kind of people who issue JR proceedings against every judge they've ever appeared before, the Presidents of the District, Circuit and High Courts, the Chief Justice, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Ireland, the Attorney General, and Michael McDowell.

The problem I always saw with them is that they tended to gee up people who may have had genuine grievances, and the possibility of a sensible resolution, with this stuff. Whatever about their personal crusades, was always unhappy to see them leading other people astray - remember once seeing one of their protegeés doing well in the Master's Court dealing with the specifics of her case, before one of the RYS/VLPS luminaries pulled her up started whispering in her ear about "corruption".

They had the affidavits and pleadings from some of these travesties of justice up on the Crooked Lawyers site, I read through quite a few of them and could never really make out what case they were trying to make and how they'd been wronged. Loads of their press releases are still up on indymedia though, you'll get the idea:

>John Gill is one of the most courageous and eloquent characters to grace an Irish Court since Daniel O'Connell.<

Just hope nobody ever lets slip about Fremenism to these guys.

Hobbes

coylemj wrote: »

In case you're not aware of how it works, you could have written the Wikipedia article yourself 5 minutes earlier, then copied & pasted it into your Boards post to bolster your case - not!

Except that Wikipedia keeps logs of everyone who touches a page. So had it been vandalism it can be spotted/tracked very fast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_Society_of_Ireland&action=history

Robbo

benway wrote: »

>John Gill is one of the most courageous and eloquent characters to grace an Irish Court since Daniel O'Connell.<

Just hope nobody ever lets slip about Fremenism to these guys.

When I saw that Jayne Mansfield had taken a libel action against him, tea came out my nose.

benway

Robbo wrote: »

When I saw that Jayne Mansfield had taken a libel action against him, tea came out my nose.

Snarky, ain't they?

Jayne Maguire BL was the plaintiff that time round, again the comments were extremely bad. If I recall correctly she discontinued the proceedings when Mr. Gill had the comments pulled from the site ... all the while maintaining that he had nothing to do with it.

nuac

RYS made atrocious comments about Ms Maguire. Those operating that site were completely irresponsible

Our man in Havana

The thing is he will probably set the site up again in a jurisdiction way outside the reach of the state who would simply ignore any court orders issued in Ireland or the EU.

CatherineMac

Hello all,

I just found this thread when googling for something in relation to these people (the VLPS) and after reading the thread, I joined boards.ie to fill the people on this thread in a little.

I, although not a solicitor (nor barrister, nor judge) have been the target of these people for six years now.

Why did they target me?

Well simply because they had written untrue and very nasty stuff about my husband who was a solicitor, I set up a blog to put the truth out there to counteract the negative things they wrote.

That I did this annoyed them intensely and they turned their full attention to me.

I have been called many things, all posted by them to try to hurt me. They have written the most vile personal jibes, something that someone less strong and secure might have found intolerable. At least I had the blog to write about these writings.

They have tried to undermine my holiday home which we let to guests. The house is a good house and we have never had a negative comment from guests but they have called it a "damp hovel" and a brothel among some of the better things they wrote.

They have written that they photographs us (me and my husband) a result of which that I, who was free and easy before and in truth rather lax about checking doors and windows were locked, now live behind locked gates, have had security sensor lights fitted around our house, and have had CCTV fitted. Being behind locked gates and not sure who is filmining or photographing you when you step outside of the security of home is not a pleasant thing to live with.

The stalk me on the net constantly, suggesting to people on their sites that they join certain boards to write nasty stuff about me (one of which they joined solely to send me a PM saying they know where my son lives), they put my twitter user name encouraging people to follow me, and much more.

So why not sue?

The first reason being John Gill is a registered bankrupt and therefore not worth suing. Incidentally, he totally ignored the ruling of Justice Michael Peart and continues to post on his guestbook, ripping in to Justice Peart.

The second being these people post on their sites using proxy ip addresses. The frustration of not having access to the true identity of these people writing lies about you is immense.

The third is that our laws are currently woefully inadequate in dealing with internet abuse and stalking.

However, last weekend I noticed they had targeted our baby granddaughter.

(I had been checking the ip addresses on their guestbook, IPs only having been added since January this year ~ a result no doubt of someone reporting them to the guestbook provider. On having a long check through I noticed that the same IP address came up time and again. I then found that one IP address poster had posted using 47 different names. Over 60% of said posts about me by the way!).

Back to our baby granddaughter. All their jibes about my looks and personality were at time hurtful, yes, but targeting the baby really infuriated me.

And that fury has kicked me into action and focused me on getting laws enacted in Ireland whereby people cannot hide behind proxy ips to defame and hurt others.

My posting here is not to garner sympathy nor to promote my blog (I have not even added a link to it in my profile), it is to let people see how bad being stalked and abused on the internet is and just how easy it is to get away with, even if you could sue with no legal costs (as in our case).

It is time that people were protected from people writing untrue and nasty stuff under the protection of proxy IPs.

Because if something is not done, and done quickly, it could be you next and I don't want anyone to go through what I have gone through.

Thanks for reading and if anyone has any questions I will be happy to respond.

Catherine

nuac

That poster has my sympathies.

There should be legislation controlling anonymous malicious posting.

RYS was completely irresponsible in that regard

CatherineMac

nuac wrote: »

That poster has my sympathies.

There should be legislation controlling anonymous malicious posting.

RYS was completely irresponsible in that regard

Thank you nuac.

John Gill, founder of RYS single handedly ruined their site by the way he ran it and allowed it to be run. Had they done it in a sensible way without resorting to personal attacks and instead run it as a place where people could have gone for guidance if they had a grievance with their solicitor that would have been fair enough. But John Gill only started the site to beat his own drum and his many grievances against various solicitors and state bodies ~ or just anyone who didn't agree with him. There probably were many genuine poster initially but Mr. Gill didn't really want any of that and instead used the site/s to encourage abuse of anyone and everyone as he saw fit.

I hope there will be something done about our lack of laws governing the misuse of the internet and there certainly will be if I have anything to do with it.

Tom Young

Mod note: This thread is being monitored.

CatherineMac

Tom Young wrote: »

Mod note: This thread is being monitored.

Hi Tom

I have no intention of posting anything bad here, I just want to highlight the need for protection of people using the net and my own matter is related to the thread.

Catherine

Tom Young

Catherine: The posting was not directed at your posts.

I am generally asking MODS to keep an eye on this thread. We don't need to give anyone an excuse to come here and troll or claim that we defamed anyone.

Regards,

Tom

CatherineMac

Tom Young wrote: »

Catherine: The posting was not directed at your posts.

I am generally asking MODS to keep an eye on this thread. We don't need to give anyone an excuse to come here and troll or claim that we defamed anyone.

Regards,

Tom

Ah, grand Tom. Thanks.

krd

I don't know John Gill's case. And I'm not a in the legal profession.

But I have seen very iffy things happen in the past. For example. A business man I knew. He had a fire at one of the places he stored his stock (it was expensive stock - that went up in smoke). He was covered by insurance. But whatever way he was covered, he was technically insolvent. All this time the business kept trading, as usual. I never understood the full details of this. He ends up losing his business - and the use of his name. And two solicitors end up owning his business - these are solicitors he'd dealt with before, who knew his business. The insurance is paid - the solicitors now have the business and the cash. And they try to transfer the debts of company onto him. They were trading using his name on what used to be his business - and they came after him when he tried to establish a similar business - he wasn't even allowed use his own name.

If that happened to me. I could see how it might drive someone crazy. What the solicitors did, to acquire his business was completely crooked - though absolutely legal. Or at least, he did not have the resources to fight them.

There's an abuse of the law, that goes on in Ireland (it probably happens everywhere) where those with cash can use the law spuriously against those who don't have cash. You do see it internationally. Large companies taking spurious patent violation cases against their competitors, in an effort to damage their competitors business.

I've seen it done in Ireland on a few occasions. One large Irish company had a tactic of bankrupting, or attempting to bankrupt, new entrants to its market with spurious legal actions. It was no skin of the big companies nose, but a few companies were bankrupt because they didn't have the resources to defend themselves - their legal costs made their businesses completely infeasible. That was the tactic. At no point could the companies being victimised come out and claim that the legal system was being abused. They'd find themselves up in court - up against the entire legal profession - who were riding the gravy train, and not in the mood to see it stopped.

This even went on with small businesses. There was a nightclub owner, (with deep old money pockets) who would take spurious legal challenges against his competitors. Without naming who it was - he took a group of people I knew to court over a graphic on one of their flyers. They folded their business, because they couldn't afford the legal costs. They were afraid to even talk about what happened - as lord Fauntleroy might come after them with his barristers.

rateyoursolicitor may be a crank site, but shutting these things down, or shutting similar down, shuts down the public discourse. If the law is just to used as tool of the rich, then it's a mugs charter. If freedom of speech, only means freedom for the rich to speech, and everyone else to shut up, you may as well be in the Soviet Union.

A few years ago, a small innovative company, I'll call X, went into voluntary liquidation. All the investors lost their money. All the employees lost their jobs. Their customers lost their service. They had spent millions fighting spurious legal cases brought by their larger competitor. The vast majority of their funds had been used to fight these cases. The closure of the company is reported in the newspapers - but not the clear, and completely unambiguous explanation of what had happened. Gangsterism. Swindles.

At the minute, there can't be a completely open discourse on the Irish legal profession. If the Irish times accuses anyone of practices that are legal, but crooked, they'll be sued and loose big time.


People should be able to say how dreadful their solicitors are. Some are really dreadful.

People should be allowed to stop spurious legal actions that are concocted to bankrupt them. Other people should be allowed to call these actions spurious. We should be able to call it as it is. And stop them.

I remember a school magazine, written by school children. Where one of the school children, wrote that the local cinema was rubbish and they only ever had old films (the local cinema used to wait two years after release to show films - as they were cheaper). The cinema owner got out his solicitor, and the school was made hand over 2 grand to settle. That is scandalous. And what didn't happen in the next issue of the school magazine, was an article on how the school had just been mugged by the cinema owner and his solicitor.

gigino

irishh_bob wrote: »

ive written possitive and negative reviews on that site , of the solicitors featured which im familiar with , i have to say , most of the reviews were broadly speaking , representative of my own experience

+1. I have to say most of the reviews were broadly speaking, representative of my own experience too. However, I can understand the legal profession not wanting to be rated like that. Other people who provide services eg teachers, dentists, shopkeepers, garages, plumbers would not like a site rating firms in their profession / trade. There can be abuses.

nuac

krd wrote: »

I don't know John Gill's case. And I'm not a in the legal profession.

But I have seen very iffy things happen in the past. For example. A business man I knew. He had a fire at one of the places he stored his stock (it was expensive stock - that went up in smoke). He was covered by insurance. But whatever way he was covered, he was technically insolvent. All this time the business kept trading, as usual. I never understood the full details of this. He ends up losing his business - and the use of his name. And two solicitors end up owning his business - these are solicitors he'd dealt with before, who knew his business. The insurance is paid - the solicitors now have the business and the cash. And they try to transfer the debts of company onto him. They were trading using his name on what used to be his business - and they came after him when he tried to establish a similar business - he wasn't even allowed use his own name.

If that happened to me. I could see how it might drive someone crazy. What the solicitors did, to acquire his business was completely crooked - though absolutely legal. Or at least, he did not have the resources to fight them.

There's an abuse of the law, that goes on in Ireland (it probably happens everywhere) where those with cash can use the law spuriously against those who don't have cash. You do see it internationally. Large companies taking spurious patent violation cases against their competitors, in an effort to damage their competitors business.

I've seen it done in Ireland on a few occasions. One large Irish company had a tactic of bankrupting, or attempting to bankrupt, new entrants to its market with spurious legal actions. It was no skin of the big companies nose, but a few companies were bankrupt because they didn't have the resources to defend themselves - their legal costs made their businesses completely infeasible. That was the tactic. At no point could the companies being victimised come out and claim that the legal system was being abused. They'd find themselves up in court - up against the entire legal profession - who were riding the gravy train, and not in the mood to see it stopped.

This even went on with small businesses. There was a nightclub owner, (with deep old money pockets) who would take spurious legal challenges against his competitors. Without naming who it was - he took a group of people I knew to court over a graphic on one of their flyers. They folded their business, because they couldn't afford the legal costs. They were afraid to even talk about what happened - as lord Fauntleroy might come after them with his barristers.

rateyoursolicitor may be a crank site, but shutting these things down, or shutting similar down, shuts down the public discourse. If the law is just to used as tool of the rich, then it's a mugs charter. If freedom of speech, only means freedom for the rich to speech, and everyone else to shut up, you may as well be in the Soviet Union.

A few years ago, a small innovative company, I'll call X, went into voluntary liquidation. All the investors lost their money. All the employees lost their jobs. Their customers lost their service. They had spent millions fighting spurious legal cases brought by their larger competitor. The vast majority of their funds had been used to fight these cases. The closure of the company is reported in the newspapers - but not the clear, and completely unambiguous explanation of what had happened. Gangsterism. Swindles.

At the minute, there can't be a completely open discourse on the Irish legal profession. If the Irish times accuses anyone of practices that are legal, but crooked, they'll be sued and loose big time.


People should be able to say how dreadful their solicitors are. Some are really dreadful.

People should be allowed to stop spurious legal actions that are concocted to bankrupt them. Other people should be allowed to call these actions spurious. We should be able to call it as it is. And stop them.

I remember a school magazine, written by school children. Where one of the school children, wrote that the local cinema was rubbish and they only ever had old films (the local cinema used to wait two years after release to show films - as they were cheaper). The cinema owner got out his solicitor, and the school was made hand over 2 grand to settle. That is scandalous. And what didn't happen in the next issue of the school magazine, was an article on how the school had just been mugged by the cinema owner and his solicitor.

KRD

I don't know how two solicitors managed to take over the business of the businessman you refer to. The facts should be referred to the Law Society for investigation,

krd

nuac wrote: »

KRD

I don't know how two solicitors managed to take over the business of the businessman you refer to. The facts should be referred to the Law Society for investigation,

As long as the solicitors haven't broken the law, what good would it be complaining to the law society?

If it's within the law, then it's free enterprise.

The businessman couldn't do anything, because everything the solicitors did was perfectly legal.

The businessman had been trading under his own name - the business owed my father money, yet the solicitors tried to claim these were not debts of the business but were personal debts of the businessman. They were slippery - but they weren't breaking the law.

I don't know how these guys were able to take over the business, but they were and it was perfectly legal.

If I'm in a business, and a wealthier competitor decides to drag me into court on something spurious. If I complained to the law society that my competitor was simply using the law to put me out of business by forcing me to pay for legal expenses I can't afford, what use would it be for me to complain to the Law Society?

nuac

If these solicitors were originally acting for the businessman or for the company concerned there was obviously a conflict of interest and a breach of duty of care.

If so the Law Society would take a robust view. Likely to demand full restitution or else a strike off,

Even if the businessman or the company was not their client it is possibloe that there woujld be misconduct finding with like consequences.

When you say it was all "perfectly legal" did you have another soliicitor investigate the matter?

newmug

Ah in fairness, there should be both laws to protect against defamation, but also freedom to air your views openly when you feel wronged.

I dont believe that website should have been shut down. For a start, it was only an opinon website, and secondly, it was a handy filter. Would a solicitor really want business from people who'd take the comments on RYS seriously?

benway wrote: »

Just hope nobody ever lets slip about Fremenism to these guys.

What the hell is freminism?

krd

nuac wrote: »

If these solicitors were originally acting for the businessman or for the company concerned there was obviously a conflict of interest and a breach of duty of care.

I don't know what their relationship with him was. I know they knew enough about his business.

If so the Law Society would take a robust view. Likely to demand full restitution or else a strike off,

No. Because unfortunately, he had done something wrong. His warehouse burned down, it was covered by insurance - but whatever way he'd gone about things he was insolvent and lost the business.

Even if the businessman or the company was not their client it is possibloe that there woujld be misconduct finding with like consequences.

When you say it was all "perfectly legal" did you have another soliicitor investigate the matter?

I think he went through a bit of a battle to get the use of his name back. I think he left the country in the end.

My father did eventually get paid - though they had tried to claim the money owed to my father was personal debt of the businessman.

CatherineMac

"rateyoursolicitor may be a crank site, but shutting these things down, or shutting similar down, shuts down the public discourse. If the law is just to used as tool of the rich, then it's a mugs charter. If freedom of speech, only means freedom for the rich to speech, and everyone else to shut up, you may as well be in the Soviet Union."

krd: In relation to the rateyoursolicitor site I would have no objection to such sites IF they are run properly. However, in the case of rys they actively indulged in and encouraged other people, under the cover of proxy IP addresses to post the vilest of personal comments about anyone in even the most tenuous way with the legal profession.

Surely the idea of such a site would be to let people comment freely on their solicitor? Good and bad but NOT personal, unsubstantiated comments?

The trouble with that site and it's sister site is that they seem to have been set up by John Gill merely to vent his bile about his own perceived slights by solicitors and judges, as is evidenced now all these years later by the sort of posts on those sites.

They had things such as

"In India throwing Acid in someone (sic) face is perfectly acceptable means of figting (sic) crime. Ireland needs a similar method."

and

"In America if a Solicitor/Lawyer stole from a client he or she would be hunted down and killed and then the client would then commit suicide."

and

"... the best way to get my point across is to kidnapp (sic) and torture crooked Solicitors. I find that to be the best method to deal with these Rats."

These are not the postings a decent site would allow surely?

And their personal attacks know now depth. The most terrible things have been written about people. Things that really were there solely to hurt and destroy the person they wrote of.

A site like that should, were it run by a more rational person, have been where a solicitor would be rated on his or her ability in their profession (as perceived by the writer of course). It would be fine for posters to say s/he was slow, overcharged, was wonderful, or whatever and then readers could form an opinion from that but this was never the case with rys.

They also posted under made up names (in our case) of people who supposedly were disgruntled former clients. Not one, not even one of these names existed on our database of clients NOR on the voters roll of Donegal.

It was and is a vehicle for a small core group to write whatever they wish about whomever they wish with impunity as our laws are currently so lax in relation to proxy IP addresses and they are making full use of that lack of law.

benway

krd wrote: »

No. Because unfortunately, he had done something wrong. His warehouse burned down, it was covered by insurance - but whatever way he'd gone about things he was insolvent and lost the business.

Did the company go into receivership or liquidation or something like that?

I really think that a lot of these problems come down to honest misunderstandings of what the law is and how it works. People have all kinds of preconceptions about how the law works, or should work, based on cultural understandings from the print media, literature, TV, film, word of mouth, etc. Problem is that often times these aren't accurate in the slightest. I'm firmly of the view that basic law should be a compulsory subject on the Junior Cert. Mind you, the VPLS are never shy to take an honest misunderstanding and weave it into their conspiracy theory.

newmug wrote:

What the hell is freminism?

Freminism is shorthand for all that Freeman on the Land nonsense - if you're not familiar, you can find out more on these threads ... if you've got the patience.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76742415
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73753838

A combination of the VLPS' dogged consipracy theorising with the Fremen's outright delusions would be a perfect storm of pseudo-law, hoping it doesn't happen.

@Catherine, I have a passing familiarity with how you were treated by the VLPS, it's an absolute disgrace - the level of personal abuse was absolutely disgusting, and your husband has been vindicated at every step.

At the same time, I can see how some of the people involved may have felt hard done by, seems to me that a lack of understanding of how the law works combined with some geeing up by third parties played a key role in setting the whole thing off.

I have to say to you, though, that you really can't win by engaging with these people, best to ignore them in so far as possible.

CatherineMac

Hi benway.

"@Catherine, I have a passing familiarity with how you were treated by the VLPS, it's an absolute disgrace - the level of personal abuse was absolutely disgusting, and your husband has been vindicated at every step.

At the same time, I can see how some of the people involved may have felt hard done by, seems to me that a lack of understanding of how the law works combined with some geeing up by third parties played a key role in setting the whole thing off.

I have to say to you, though, that you really can't win by engaging with these people, best to ignore them in so far as possible."

Yes, it was vile. And over six years at that.

Lack of knowledge is not an excuse. They tried various solicitors all of whom they ended up dumping because they weren't getting the answers they wanted. They failed to listen to EVERY judge in EVERY court.

But even with all that, it never gave them the right to get so personal and nasty (I know you are not saying that btw).

And regarding ignoring them. This is not possible for me. I will not be torn apart by people who don't know me and have never met me. And I refuse to have my husband torn apart by them. My blog was great for me and cathargic even now and then.

AND as a result of it all, I am now going to campaign very strongly for an end to internet stalking and abuse by people hiding behind proxy IPs in the hope no-one else has to endure such protracted abuse.

krd

benway wrote: »

Did the company go into receivership or liquidation or something like that?

Something like that. I'd have to talk to someone I have spoken to in a long time to get more of the details.

I really think that a lot of these problems come down to honest misunderstandings of what the law is and how it works.

Being bambozzled or out manoeuvred, is not down to honest misunderstandings.

Personally, I would be very wary about getting into a business with a solicitor or legal professional. I'm not saying solicitors are crooks - I have had a run in with a few, where I got the impression they had a distorted sense of right and wrong - that what was technically legal was okay. When that isn't really the case. I don't have a grudge against the legal profession. I have come across solicitors engaging in dishonest and misleading business - but not breaking the law. This wasn't a misunderstanding - it actually took me months to understand what they were doing - or not doing.

If you have a business. There is trickery that can be used to take the business from you. One common tactic - and I've seen this done - is to cut the business's cash flow, and force the owner to hand over most of the company. Or virtually all of it.

Eduardo Saverin, the co-founder of Facebook. Facebook's lawyers pulled a fast one on him, getting him to sign away nearly all of his share of Facebook, while he was under the impression they were representing him.

People have been bamboozled out of their businesses. If lawyer says and believes that it's all fine, once it's legal - they are crying out to be strangled.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, for a lawyer to facilitate the screwing over of the ignorant.

People have all kinds of preconceptions about how the law works, or should work, based on cultural understandings from the print media, literature, TV, film, word of mouth, etc. Problem is that often times these aren't accurate in the slightest. I'm firmly of the view that basic law should be a compulsory subject on the Junior Cert. Mind you, the VPLS are never shy to take an honest misunderstanding and weave it into their conspiracy theory.

A little law in the junior cert would not be enough. The law is largely opaque to those who are not legal professionals.

And even for legal professionals - I've heard stories of legal professionals or people trained in the law being caught out themselves.

I can see how people could be very angry with their solicitors. I knew a man, who was going through a messy divorce. His wife's legal team offered to accept a settlement of half a million. He wanted to go for that, but his legal team convinced him that it would be better to go to court and they told him they could get the amount down - it was a very messy break up, and he was really in no state to be making sound decisions. In court, 2.5 million was awarded to his wife - which was more or less the shirt off his back. It was very poor representation. Literally risking the entire farm for a few acres. You could see how people might get very angry.

krd

CatherineMac wrote: »

krd: In relation to the rateyoursolicitor site I would have no objection to such sites IF they are run properly. However, in the case of rys they actively indulged in and encouraged other people, under the cover of proxy IP addresses to post the vilest of personal comments about anyone in even the most tenuous way with the legal profession.

Surely the idea of such a site would be to let people comment freely on their solicitor? Good and bad but NOT personal, unsubstantiated comments?

Well......I wouldn't publicly say anything about a solicitor that could lead to the solicitor taking a defamation action against me. I think anyone who would, would be being very foolhardy.

Defamation law can be used to silence people. And that is advice I have been given by a solicitor. In a particular instance, I was advised, that if I said something, the bad guys would set their lawyers on me.

I know RYS went way too far. And it is strange. There are people who will print damaging lies on the internet, about people and businesses they neither know, nor had any relationship with.

A site like that should, were it run by a more rational person, have been where a solicitor would be rated on his or her ability in their profession (as perceived by the writer of course). It would be fine for posters to say s/he was slow, overcharged, was wonderful, or whatever and then readers could form an opinion from that but this was never the case with rys.

I don't know if that would work. In practical terms, saying something negative about someone else - can get you in serious trouble, even if what you're saying is true.

If I've had an experience with a solicitor, where I believed they were either incompetent or dishonest, if I state that in public, and can't really prove it - I'm in trouble. And you can't really prove things like if your solicitor repeatedly lied to you over the phone or in conversation. A solicitor will not be stupid enough to lie to you in writing.

They also posted under made up names (in our case) of people who supposedly were disgruntled former clients. Not one, not even one of these names existed on our database of clients NOR on the voters roll of Donegal.

The credibility of RYS was always a bit iffy. I think it may have degenerated. I do vaguely remember there was a solicitor, who was struck off by the law society in the end. But the attacks on him on RYS were all true. Sorry I can't remember who it was - I think RYS may have helped get dissatisfied clients of his to band together.

It was and is a vehicle for a small core group to write whatever they wish about whomever they wish with impunity as our laws are currently so lax in relation to proxy IP addresses and they are making full use of that lack of law.

RYS could be a bad example. A problem though is if the host of these kinds of forums are held responsible for the content. Someone with deep pockets could easily force the host to shut the forum - simply if comments on the forum where not to their satisfaction. In places like China, the government curtails freedom of speech. Here, it's done with money. If someone can take your house off you, and bankrupt you, for something you've said - something that may be true. In a way, you're as free to speak as you are in China.

Our press is not that free. I know this for a fact. I know because I've seen stories, where I knew there were other details that the media couldn't print - not because they weren't true, but because they'd get sued and lose if they did print the truth. I'm not saying they should have the right to destroy lives - but the current set up does facilitate wrongdoing.

A prime example would be Trafigura in the UK. They attempted to use super-injunctions to cover up their wrongdoings. And it worked to a point - but thanks to people breaking the injunction, and the internet, and parliamentarians using their privilege, they didn't get away with it.

It would be pointless to have laws governing proxy IP addresses - or even to try to compel people to use identifiable addresses when posting on the internet. It would just mean people would need to be a little more tech savy to post pseudonymously - that's different to anonymously. I can think of many ways of doing this.

It might be as good as trying to legislate against people anonymously writing things on post it notes.

Catherine, if I was determined and malicious enough, I could post comments on forums, where if they traced the source it would come back to you.

You're always going to have to take what gets published on the internet with a pinch of salt. And nearly everyone does.

CatherineMac

krd: Can I first of all just say that I am not here to defend solicitors. As with any profession there are the good and the not so good and the downright awful. I am only here to let people see how easily they can be torn apart on the internet if they become the object of someone’s bad obsession.


I will now respond to some of your comments to me.
“Well......I wouldn't publicly say anything about a solicitor that could lead to the solicitor taking a defamation action against me. I think anyone who would, would be being very foolhardy.”


Surely that applies to anyone not just a solicitor? My point (which you were responding to) was that the site would have been okay were a person to say, for instance, “In my opinion, I was overcharged. I had x done and was charged x amount.” The reader could then decide themselves whether they considered that solicitor too expensive for them. The poster (not being able to hide under a proxy IP) would then be able to stand behind their words, and back them up were they called to task. And the key there is “In my opinion” by the way. It is not a statement of fact, rather it is the posters opinion.
“

Defamation law can be used to silence people. And that is advice I have been given by a solicitor. In a particular instance, I was advised, that if I said something, the bad guys would set their lawyers on me.”


Defamation laws can only be used to silence lies. You can’t sue someone who says something like “I think he is a horrible”. That is your opinion. You can’t however say “I think he is horrible and he would rob you blind if he gets a chance.” The “bad guys” can’t take a successful action against you if you are speaking the truth AND can back it all up.
“

I don't know if that would work. In practical terms, saying something negative about someone else - can get you in serious trouble, even if what you're saying is true.

If I've had an experience with a solicitor, where I believed they were either incompetent or dishonest, if I state that in public, and can't really prove it - I'm in trouble. And you can't really prove things like if your solicitor repeatedly lied to you over the phone or in conversation. A solicitor will not be stupid enough to lie to you in writing.”
I don’t really get your point there?


(MY POST: They also posted under made up names (in our case) of people who supposedly were disgruntled former clients. Not one, not even one of these names existed on our database of clients NOR on the voters roll of Donegal.)
“The credibility of RYS was always a bit iffy. I think it may have degenerated. I do vaguely remember there was a solicitor, who was struck off by the law society in the end. But the attacks on him on RYS were all true. Sorry I can't remember who it was - I think RYS may have helped get dissatisfied clients of his to band together.”


If a solicitor behaved abominably and broke the law then s/he deserved to be struck off. I think though that the solicitor you speak of may have been the subject of the Joe Duffy show too? At any rate, no-one is above the law and a dishonest person will usually be found out and taken to task eventually.


(MY POST: It was and is a vehicle for a small core group to write whatever they wish about whomever they wish with impunity as our laws are currently so lax in relation to proxy IP addresses and they are making full use of that lack of law.)

“RYS could be a bad example. A problem though is if the host of these kinds of forums are held responsible for the content. Someone with deep pockets could easily force the host to shut the forum - simply if comments on the forum where not to their satisfaction.”



If someone forced the shutdown of a site which was properly monitored to ensure spurious drivel was deleted, then the person shutting it down would hardly shine a great light on themselves. In the first instance, they could not shut the site simply because they didn’t like what was on it (providing of course it was not breaking the law). With the use and strength of social media sites now there would be a huge backlash against the person.



In places like China, the government curtails freedom of speech. Here, it's done with money. If someone can take your house off you, and bankrupt you, for something you've said - something that may be true. In a way, you're as free to speak as you are in China.”



Someone can only go as far as taking successful action if you have lied. They cannot do it on a whim, so we are not comparable with China in that regard.

“Our press is not that free. I know this for a fact. I know because I've seen stories, where I knew there were other details that the media couldn't print - not because they weren't true, but because they'd get sued and lose if they did print the truth. I'm not saying they should have the right to destroy lives - but the current set up does facilitate wrongdoing.

A prime example would be Trafigura in the UK. They attempted to use super-injunctions to cover up their wrongdoings. And it worked to a point - but thanks to people breaking the injunction, and the internet, and parliamentarians using their privilege, they didn't get away with it.”

We know that some of the press is biased but, as with the failure in the end of the “super injunctions” surely they can print whatever they decide appropriate if it is true?

“It would be pointless to have laws governing proxy IP addresses - or even to try to compel people to use identifiable addresses when posting on the internet. It would just mean people would need to be a little more tech savy to post pseudonymously - that's different to anonymously. I can think of many ways of doing this. It might be as good as trying to legislate against people anonymously writing things on post it notes.”

As you know from my postings, I totally disagree with this. The ease of obtaining proxy IPs and the misuse of them, is allowing nameless people to say whatever pops into their nasty minds and to post those thoughts with impunity. And that is wrong. I have never in my 20 odd years on the internet used a proxy IP and really don’t see the need for them. That said, someone pointed out to me that some people use them as they are protecting their identity ~ not so they can descend into malicious activities, but rather that they just don’t want their name/location out there.

“Catherine, if I was determined and malicious enough, I could post comments on forums, where if they traced the source it would come back to you.”

You have me intreguied. You will need to explain further as I have never heard of this before.

“You're always going to have to take what gets published on the internet with a pinch of salt. And nearly everyone does.”

I absolutely refuse to do that. I am not going to lie down and let unknown people gang up and bully me and then attack my family too under the protection of proxy IPs. And no-one else should have to put up with it either. The people who do such things need to be stopped. They are causing a lot of harm to others and in certain cases, causing the subject of their abuse to end or try to end their lives because they just can’t deal with it anymore. That cannot be right nor acceptable.

That is why I want laws brought in to make it easier for people to stop nastiness against them on the internet in a quicker, smoother, and less expensive fashion.

And in relation to the internet stalking and abuse problem, I was on twitter when the Channel 4 show on it was on last night and tweeted about my being the subject of it myself and asked if anyone else had experienced it. I was snowed under with the responses (mostly from women). Most only had one stalker and the experience lasted on average anything from a year to 18 months. So there is a very definite need for stricter laws in realtion to this every increasing problem.

Tom Young

This is a cross post from the RYS thread:

That sounds like a terrible position you are in.

Boards and in particular the Legal Discussion is not about to become a portal for the expression of ire, frustration, review or just simple defamation of solicitors or barristers. Judges, courts, tribunals, individuals, etc. it is not meant for this purpose.

If someone comes here to do that in this thread, they will be dealt with in accordance with the charter here.

I make no comment about previous posts and posters for now. Like every walk of life, rotten apples can exist that spoil the batch for everyone. That is a shame, particularly in a profession where no matter how you avoid it, lawyers (even commercial ones) invariably must deal with people's innermost emotions, discretions, indiscretions and wrongs.

Your attention and diligence in not creating a further RYS here is appreciated.

Tom

benway

krd wrote: »

You could see how people might get very angry.

And you can see how some people might blame all their problems on their laywers, rather than face up to their personal responsibilities and failings?

krd wrote:

The credibility of RYS was always a bit iffy.

The VLPS guestbook is still open if you want to go there - contains block capitals, from the start.

Not going to go much further than that, save to say that there are remedies available for those claiming bamboozlement by solicitor ... and to observe that your story that began as a solicitor usurping someone's company now seems to have turned into a bog-standard liquidation, a routine way of winding down an insolvent company.

CatherineMac wrote:

Lack of knowledge is not an excuse. They tried various solicitors all of whom they ended up dumping because they weren't getting the answers they wanted. They failed to listen to EVERY judge in EVERY court.

Fair enough, that about sums it up. Wasn't meaning to tell you your business or anything, far from it - it's definitely a thing that web anonymity has been abused, can't imagine how I'd feel if I were in your shoes.

Having seen these guys in action, I can't help but think of Bernard Shaw: "never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides the pig likes it." It's unfortunate that some people aren't given the option.

PoleStar

krd wrote: »

I remember a school magazine, written by school children. Where one of the school children, wrote that the local cinema was rubbish and they only ever had old films (the local cinema used to wait two years after release to show films - as they were cheaper). The cinema owner got out his solicitor, and the school was made hand over 2 grand to settle. That is scandalous. And what didn't happen in the next issue of the school magazine, was an article on how the school had just been mugged by the cinema owner and his solicitor.

This is totally irrelevant. While the judgment in this case might be unreliable, this has nothing to do with the performance of any particular solictor.

krd

CatherineMac wrote: »

krd: Can I first of all just say that I am not here to defend solicitors. As with any profession there are the good and the not so good and the downright awful. I am only here to let people see how easily they can be torn apart on the internet if they become the object of someone’s bad obsession.

I think in your case, what you've really been a victim of is cyber stalking, and bullying. And it's not really about defamation.

A problem with the internet, is just makes this behaviour so much easier than it was in the past. There are people who really enjoy bullying. Defamation and personal attacks are just a means to bully.

I'd be wary about holding hosts responsible for the behaviour of people who use their forums - in the same way, I don't think phone companies have an absolute responsibility when it comes to be people who might use telephones to harass people - which people do, and did before the internet.

Defamation and harassment are two very separate issues.

Surely that applies to anyone not just a solicitor? My point (which you were responding to) was that the site would have been okay were a person to say, for instance, “In my opinion, I was overcharged. I had x done and was charged x amount.” The reader could then decide themselves whether they considered that solicitor too expensive for them. The poster (not being able to hide under a proxy IP) would then be able to stand behind their words, and back them up were they called to task. And the key there is “In my opinion” by the way. It is not a statement of fact, rather it is the posters opinion.
“

No. This is a common misunderstanding as regards defamation. Stating that something is just your opinion, is not an ass coverer. I'm not a lawyer - but I have read guides for journalists on what can get them in hot water. There is no qualifier you can use, when you make a statement that is potentially defamatory if it was stated as a bare fact, that will protect you from being sued. Even if you indirectly imply something that may be defamatory, then you're exposed to a legal action.

Defamation laws can only be used to silence lies.

Defamation laws are used to silence and bully people all the time. For example, Simon Singh was unsuccessfully sued by the British Chiropractors Association. The case took up more than a year of his life - he had to spend 250,000 of his own money to defend himself. Had he not had that money, he could have been wiped out and definitely silenced.

Another famous case is the McLibel case. A group of environmental campaigners handing out leaflets criticising McDonalds felt the full crushing weight of McDonalds legal resources bearing down on them. Most of the campaigners capitulated. Two of the campaigners stood their ground - and the case rumbled on for 20 years.

The tactic is called
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

You can’t sue someone who says something like “I think he is a horrible”. That is your opinion.

You can’t however say “I think he is horrible and he would rob you blind if he gets a chance.”

You can sue, if someone says "I think he is horrible" - you probably won't win. But that may not be what you're after. If you have a lot of money - and the other person doesn't - you can get them to capitulate.

You can sue on the basis of an implied slight. You can sue on absolutely spurious grounds. And people do.

If you have the cash, Carter Ruck will help you shut anyone's mouth for them.

The “bad guys” can’t take a successful action against you if you are speaking the truth AND can back it all up.

I can sit in a room with a bad guy, with him twiddling his moustache and telling me in intricate detail, how he planned and executed his swindle. Unless I nearly have a written confession from him, I can't state publicly he's a swindler. And I can tell you for a fact, Dublin is full of bad guys twiddling their moustaches and having a good laugh at fools they've made of everyone.

A bent solicitor can also coach a moustachioed swindler into how to cover their tracks and put themselves where they can neither be accused or found guilty of fraud and swindling.

Even if you know the truth, and have spoken the truth - if you do not have the resources to defend yourself the person suing you will be successful. If a rich person decides to sue me for defaming them, my solicitor, since I'm am person of meagre resources, will advise me to capitulate and beg for mercy. My only other option is to grandstand and go down in flames - probably even end up in jail.

(MY POST: They also posted under made up names (in our case) of people who supposedly were disgruntled former clients. Not one, not even one of these names existed on our database of clients NOR on the voters roll of Donegal.)

Yes. I would say the people making personal attacks, were simply cyber stalkers, who didn't know you from Adam, and just saw you as the perfect victim, to have their fun with. RYS shouldn't have allowed itself to be a platform that kind of behaviour.

If someone forced the shutdown of a site which was properly monitored to ensure spurious drivel was deleted, then the person shutting it down would hardly shine a great light on themselves.

Some forums can be quite large, and it's very difficult for the moderators to keep and eye on everything. They are watchdogs, not bloodhounds - as auditors like to say when egregious fraud happens right under their noses.

In the first instance, they could not shut the site simply because they didn’t like what was on it (providing of course it was not breaking the law).

No. If a host is threatened with legal action - they have to make a decision, whether to capitulate or expend resources defending themselves. I believe Michel de Montaigne once said that he would rather flee the kingdom than face trial, if accused of stealing the towers of Notre Dame. You'd need to be rich or very principled to go up against a wealthy bully, in the instance they are using the threat of law to break you.

Someone can only go as far as taking successful action if you have lied. They cannot do it on a whim, so we are not comparable with China in that regard.

Yes, they can take an action against you on a whim.

We know that some of the press is biased but, as with the failure in the end of the “super injunctions” surely they can print whatever they decide appropriate if it is true?

Of course the press is biased. Everyone is biased. The papers have to make a judgement call as regards to what they print - they also have to carry hefty libel insurance. The more they're sued - the higher their premium - and they don't always get costs if they win. Trivial mistakes in reporting can often cost them dearly.

The ease of obtaining proxy IPs and the misuse of them, is allowing nameless people to say whatever pops into their nasty minds and to post those thoughts with impunity. And that is wrong. I have never in my 20 odd years on the internet used a proxy IP and really don’t see the need for them. That said, someone pointed out to me that some people use them as they are protecting their identity ~ not so they can descend into malicious activities, but rather that they just don’t want their name/location out there.

Even if proxy IPs were banned - and some forums do block them - it would not resolve the issue.

I won't give a complete technical explanation - the more savvy someone is, the more they can circumvent whatever obstacles are put in their way.

For example. Wikipedia, track edits by IP address - I'm not sure if they allow proxies - but they will block an IP if they find the person at the end of it is using it for malicious purposes. Savvy Wikipedia vandals get around this simply by cloning other peoples IP addresses. And that is just one way of doing it. And this method is very common.

“Catherine, if I was determined and malicious enough, I could post comments on forums, where if they traced the source it would come back to you.”

You have me intreguied. You will need to explain further as I have never heard of this before.

For some people, it would be as easy as writing a letter, pretending to be you and just popping it in the letter box.

“You're always going to have to take what gets published on the internet with a pinch of salt. And nearly everyone does.”

I absolutely refuse to do that. I am not going to lie down and let unknown people gang up and bully me and then attack my family too under the protection of proxy IPs. And no-one else should have to put up with it either. The people who do such things need to be stopped. They are causing a lot of harm to others and in certain cases, causing the subject of their abuse to end or try to end their lives because they just can’t deal with it anymore. That cannot be right nor acceptable.

It isn't right, and it isn't acceptable. I'm just not really sure what can be done. I don't think it should be approached in terms of defamation.

I don't know......You couldn't just shut down the postal service, because some individuals were using it to send poison pen letters.

I don't know what could be done. I don't think there is a simple solution.

That is why I want laws brought in to make it easier for people to stop nastiness against them on the internet in a quicker, smoother, and less expensive fashion.

And in relation to the internet stalking and abuse problem, I was on twitter when the Channel 4 show on it was on last night and tweeted about my being the subject of it myself and asked if anyone else had experienced it. I was snowed under with the responses (mostly from women). Most only had one stalker and the experience lasted on average anything from a year to 18 months. So there is a very definite need for stricter laws in realtion to this every increasing problem.

Yes, I've witnessed cyber stalking.

And I'll tell you something interesting. Someone I've seen who was stalked - a woman - this is on a forum I use a lot and have followed for a long time, so I could see the complete evolution of the stalking. One of the stalkers tactics was to claim the woman had made defamatory remarks about them, that they were the wounded party - do you see what these pricks can be like. They confused and muddied the waters.

A trick that some trolls like to do - and I've seen it done on boards - is to try and wind up another commentator, until they get angry enough and say something that gets them banned from the forum.

So, can you see the problem. If it became too easy, and inexpensive to stop the nastiness - the nasty people would very likely use that system to get at their targets.

I have family members who are absolutely poisonous people. I avoid them like the plague. I know, even though I have nothing to do with them and avoid all contact - they still, for some reason I can't fathom, spread malicious and damaging untruths about me. What can I do. I don't have the money to shut them up - I can't catch them red handed, though I know they have their whispering campaign.

krd

Tom Young wrote: »

Like every walk of life, rotten apples can exist that spoil the batch for everyone.

Come on. The rotten apple defence is a little tiresome. You have bad plumbers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers. Troubles with the law, can be far more costly and painful, than a wonky candlestick or some stale bread.

There are systemic issues, that can't be waived away by the bad apple excuse.

krd

benway wrote: »

Not going to go much further than that, save to say that there are remedies available for those claiming bamboozlement by solicitor ... and to observe that your story that began as a solicitor usurping someone's company now seems to have turned into a bog-standard liquidation, a routine way of winding down an insolvent company.

No. the whole point is it was not a bog-standard liquidation. The company was profitable, and in reality solvent - there was just an issue over an insurance claim. The company was not wound down - continued to trade. And the insurance issue was resolved. Leger demain.

krd

PoleStar wrote: »

This is totally irrelevant. While the judgment in this case might be unreliable, this has nothing to do with the performance of any particular solictor.

That is your opinion. And there was no judgement, as nothing went to court - the school chose to settle.

Just as the local council in the same town, would choose to settle the numerous flop job, personal injury claims brought by the same solicitors. To the extent many amenities previously available to the public had to be closed to the public.

There was a systemic problem - not a few bad apples. Which is why the personal injuries assessment board was instituted. Too many solicitors were getting big bacon and cabbage feeds out of personal injuries. Then they threw the full weight of their ample bellies behind the property bubble that destroyed the country. The next hot thing could be internet defamation - yah never know.

Though - it will probably be insolvencies.

Robbo

Looks like the hosting company woke up in this one.

benway

Interesting - wonder why they'd spend so much money to help John Gill with his crusade against all those who have wronged him? Seems like an odd move to me, hard to see on what basis they would be proceeding.

Robbo

The January judgment.

Seems the Norwich Pharmacal order will be dealt with at another time.