Join the discussion on the following article:
UK group sells locomotive to settle libel suit
Regardless, I wonder if the former Chairman of the same organisation that had to sell off a prized engine to soothe his ruffled feathers, might have thought differently if he knew this would have been the outcome. I would have thought demanding a retraction would suffice his bruised reputation as he saw it falsely characterized. Money exchanging hands doesnt correct much of anything except the balance in a bank account.
Ah, yes, lawyers “at work,” yet again.
The proper expression, from “Oliver Twist”, is “the law is A ass… a idiot”.
What a waste of money. The only people who benefited from this fiasco are the lawyers.
Some Americans want the same socialist form of government that England has!
@BRUCE DUENSING - At this stage it’s unknown whether he did initially demand a retraction. It does appear, from the group’s behaviour with the lawsuit, that such a demand would have been turned down.
Libel law in Britain is a nasty can of worms and someone can get into serious trouble if they say something false regardless of whether they believe it or not.
In this case though, the management of the group appears to have made more than one error of judgement. In a just world, that would have caused some damage, but compounded with the bizarre workings of the legal system, it’s ended up being disastrous.
FWIW, the facts are:
- The editors of the group’s journal posted some very serious and nasty accusations against their previous chair. The allegations were false, but to be honest, were the kind of thing you avoid publishing even if they’re true, leaving only vague language about “a serious breach of {organizations} rules” or whatever.
- The publication followed the ousting of the chair at a sudden surprise meeting at which the chair felt he was unable to defend himself.
- So you have an already angry ex-chair, feeling insulted, slighted, and slandered, who now believes a large percentage of the industry thinks bad and untrue things of him and is wondering where the next job is coming along.
The group then initially decided to fight the lawsuit rather than settling early. One basis for fighting it was a technicality, that they felt that as everyone who saw the article was a member of the group (all 400 people…) it didn’t count as a public publication. Unfortunately they had their facts wrong. Others, notably some photographers whose works had featured in the journal, saw the work too.
Because they decided to fight the lawsuit, the lawyers fees started to pile up, which is where you get the absurd third of a million GBP from.
So:
- Might have been a better outcome had they checked their facts first.
- Might have been a better outcome had they used the usual vague unspecified language rather than repeating a serious allegation in front of 400 people + several photographers.
- Might have been a better
Actually, “socialism” has nothing to do with the fact that Great Britain has libel laws that greatly protect those who feel they have been libeled, whereas in the USA the bar is much higher.
Paul and Austin
Ha ha a big yes to both of you guys postings. I totally agree.
@KENNETH ATTENHOFER - Alas, your completely irrelevant insertion of socialism in this story is no match for certain other poster’s ability to insert their complaints about socialism. You need to combine it with a diatribe against trains, unions, taxes (except if applied to trains in which case yay taxes), Amtrak, American workers, and, uh, computer software, if you really want to play in the big league.
We look forward to your future entries*
- Not really.
Skip the rants about socialism…this is the rail enthusiast community running amuck. Have a tantrum and settle it in court. No hobby is worth these shenanigans!,
The last posting is well worth the reading for every preservation group. I tell my kids, and my wife, and myself: “you don’t have to say everything you are thinking!”
$546K for “Court Costs”!!! are the judges and lawyers wigs made of gold strands? I guess we are not the only out of control legal system.
Bored seeing rants about socialism or any other politics that have little or no relation too the reports they are commenting on, I prefer to remain silent than advertise my foolishness.
I believe the libel and slander laws in the UK require the person who has been libelled or slandered to prove they are not what they have been accused of rather than the accuser to prove they are ie gulity untill proved innocent rather than criminals who are innocent untill proven guilty.
@PAUL REDFORD - That is frequently an issue (see regular lawsuits by Robert Maxwell against Private Eye, and the infamous Jeffrey Archer libel cases for examples of how this was abused) but in this case it does appear that nobody questions the fact that a false, damaging, statement was made by the group against the plaintiff. The group tried to defend themselves by arguing they didn’t do so in “public”, but largely as a technicality - the statement was made to 300 group members.
The problem here isn’t with Britain’s burden of proof libel laws, which are normally ridiculous but didn’t really made any difference here, the problem is with the high cost of lawsuits. That, combined with idiocy on the part of the journal’s editor, and (not entirely without merit) bloody-mindedness on the part of the group’s former chair, has left a gaping hole in the group’s finances.