Tripadvisor poster threatened with Jail
Comments
-
How to give an opinion on the ethics of a solicitor that takes on frivolous cases like this?
I'll just leave this here ...Solicitors must:
uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice
act with integrity
not allow their independence to be compromised
act in the best interests of each client
provide a proper standard of service to clients
behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in them and in the provision of legal services
Law Society Code of Conduct0 -
What are these 'threats to jail' someone?A mother has been threatened with jail after leaving a one-star restaurant review on TripAdvisor.
Surely a restauranteur or a solicitor can't threaten that.
Or is that just the usual DM hyperbole? :cool:
According to the article:
Can someone really be 'in contempt of court' if the case hasn't gone to court yet?Soon after publishing her review, which has been taken down, Ms Gardner received a letter from London law firm Cohen Davis Solicitors, who plan to take the case to the High Court – claiming that she is in contempt of court.
Or is that yet more DM hyperbole?
There's mention in the article about the date of the review.
You don't give a specific date that you dined there, just the month and year.
Cohen Davis Solicitors are 'page removal solicitors', 'defamation solicitors' etc.
http://www.internetlawcentre.co.uk/
There's a rolling list of what they've had removed from the internet.
Can it really be 'online review defamation' if the review is accurate?
https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/legal-help/definition-of-defamatoryDefamation is a spoken or written expression which is deemed to harm the reputation of an individual and proved to be false.
Who has the burden of proof here?
The diner to prove her review was honest?
Or the restaurant to prove it wasn't?
I can't see how this reflects well on the restaurant in question.
The owner would have had the right of reply to the review on Tripadvisor.
That would seem to be the most appropriate way to go as potential future diners could read the reviews and the owner’s response and make their own minds up based on reviews from other diners.
That's what I do.
But....but - how did the restaurant identify who the customer was from her TA user name?
Here's what TA say about
Interesting.If I write a review of a business, can the business contact me about it?
It is against our privacy policy to share a reviewer's e-mail address with an owner, manager, or anyone else. Reviewers stay anonymous unless they choose to post their e-mail addresses or contact information in a contribution, such as a review or forum post.
If you use a descriptive screen name (e.g. NYCredheadmom) or a friendly name (your first name and initial of surname) as your display name, the business you review may be able to figure out who you are.
Business owners or managers may contact you through the TripAdvisor private messaging system, which allows TripAdvisor members to correspond without sharing their e-mail addresses. Owners may use the messaging system to thank reviewers, ask for further feedback or make legitimate attempts to resolve customer service issues, but owners may not ask reviewers to remove a review via the messaging system, and harassment of reviewers is strictly prohibited.
Here's a link to a similar complaint about threats to remove a bad review:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5620836&highlight=tripadvisor0 -
https://www.thecaterer.com/articles/30792/libel-claim-thrown-out
Same restaurant owner again
The public seems to be having a bit of fun with their Facebook page.
Nice find - Re: that earlier libel claim which was thrown out of court.
I am surprised the press did not pick up on that one.
If those solicitors do go ahead in pursuing this present claim it would be rather ironic if they just turned a blind eye to the numerous and far worse comments that have since been made on the restaurant's own Facebook site.0 -
Maybe MSE should employ that solicitor to act over threads in inappropriate forums..?
This is much more DT as opposed to PVW!
Besides that, its been done to death here already but the establishment/solicitor are acting well outside their Tripadvisor agreement - which sets very clear limits on the way they can contact/respond to individual posters and absolutely forbids harassment - So I think fair comment applies as they have pretty clearly demonstrated a willingness to cut corners in all the worst ways possible!0 -
I note that 15% of the restaurant's reviews are "average, poor or terrible". When the restaurant gets 100% excellent, bar that one, they can question the poor review.0
-
PS this "threatened with jail" malarkey is utter codswallop.
There is a ZERO percent chance that anyone in the UK writing a restaurant review on TripAdvisor could possibly "go to jail" for it. ZERO. Stupid, empty, threat; stupid, pointless headline.0 -
But possibly just what we've come to expect from the stupid, pointless Daily Mail.PS this "threatened with jail" malarkey is utter codswallop.
There is a ZERO percent chance that anyone in the UK writing a restaurant review on TripAdvisor could possibly "go to jail" for it. ZERO. Stupid, empty, threat; stupid, pointless headline.
0 -
https://www.facebook.com/pg/highrocks/reviews/
People are trashing their reputation on Facebook :rotfl:
Currently 235x 1-star reviews, many of them completely fake!0 -
There is a ZERO percent chance that anyone in the UK writing a restaurant review on TripAdvisor could possibly "go to jail" for it. ZERO. Stupid, empty, threat; stupid, pointless headline.
Not for writing the restaurant review, no (at worst that would be defamation, which is a civil wrong and not a criminal offence). What the law firm appears to be saying is that if the reviewer ignores their court action, she could be fined for contempt of court, and if she didn't pay the fine she could go to jail - which is true. It is, however, repulsive behaviour and a clear case of intimidation to talk about going to jail when there is no sign the reviewer has any intention of committing contempt of court - they haven't even sued her yet so she hasn't even had a chance to commit it.
I don't know why people are castigating the Daily Mail for reporting on the behaviour of the law firm. It is a statement of fact that they sent her "a mocked-up draft of a court injunction which said: 'PENAL NOTICE: If you, Sarah Gardner, do not comply with this order you may be held in contempt of court and may be imprisoned or fined."pogofish wrote:Besides that, its been done to death here already but the establishment/solicitor are acting well outside their Tripadvisor agreement - which sets very clear limits on the way they can contact/respond to individual posters and absolutely forbids harassment
Tripadvisor can't get you to sign away your right to sue people. But they can, of course, terminate your own agreement with them if you sue your customers - i.e. not sell you any advertising services or allow you the right of reply on your TripAdvisor page.0 -
Usual DM over the top nonsense.But possibly just what we've come to expect from the stupid, pointless Daily Mail.
Actually it was the 'Daily Mirror' that broke the story and then it was several other papers including the 'Daily Mail' that followed up on it.
On this occasion the Daily Mail goes right up in my estimation because they appear to be the only newspaper that had the courage to actually reproduce the contentious Tripadvisor review of "March 22nd" for all of us to form our own opinion of whther it was libellous or not.
Maybe a couple of hundred saw it on Tripadvisor before was removed. Thanks to The Daily Mail maybe a Million readers have now read that review!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards