[Help] Is calling someone "incompetent" on a public forum like this grounds for a lawsuit?

[Algernon]

Not really something to leak is it but easily resolved.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Or Hardest creature and do they have a Swedish weirdo

Unfair to Swansman! Free the Swedish One!

 

[Motogull]

He should edit the post to say 'incontinent'.

 

[zefarelly]

Old ALW might come across as a doddery old toff but incompetent he is clearly not.

Depends what he's doing . . . It's a complete guess, but he comes accross as the kind of person who's extremely good at one thing and utterly useless at everything else. Some people are like this,

No 5 minute jobs in that house

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

A theatre forum similar to here.


What's their favourite flavour of Angel Delight?

How are they coping with electronic tickets?

 

[London Irish]

If you disparage people in their trade, office or profession, that’s defamation. You don’t have to prove financial damage, just that the opinion has been seen by one other person and that the average person would believe the comment to be true.

Obviously our libel laws have been ridiculous forever and a plaything for the rich and powerful. None of the “free speech” warriors who moan 24-7 about cancel culture and student protests seem interested in this though, funnily enough

 

[Stat Brother]

How are they coping with electronic tickets?

Matilda is still on my pass but I'm going to see Wicked next.

 

[Bodian]

Or Hardest creature and do they have a Swedish weirdo

[MENTION=38333]Swansman[/MENTION] - sue him!

Although, I suppose 'fair comment' is a valid defence?

 

[GT49er]

With Britain's senior judiciary coming up with some of the obtuse rulings they seem to favour these days, any f***in' verdict is possible!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Serious question. I post on a forum similar to this about theatre. Someone else called Andrew Lloyd Webber .....

Let me stop you there.

 

[studio150]

Just cite Arkell v Pressdram that should make things go away.

 

[Beach Hut]

It’s always tricky when dealing with subjective descriptions like incompetent. It’s better to stick to unequivocal and factual terms which will stand up in court like, in this instance, Tory ****.

Let's give it a go - you are incompetent...........

 

[portlock seagull]

Who can afford the more expensive lawyer?

 

[essbee1]

Matilda is still on my pass but I'm going to see Wicked next.

I fell asleep at Wicked. Utter s**te.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Grounds for a lawsuit? Well, it would be a civil case so the ‘injured’ party only has to persuade themselves that they should sue. Their lawyers will be primarily interested in earning fees, so they are unlikely to resist very hard. Thus, the answer is ‘yes’.

Now, if you’d asked the question ‘is it likely that my friend would lose a civil action for defamation’, you’d have got a different answer: ‘I’d hope not, but you never know. Does your friend have £100k minimum to find out?’

 

[Me and my Monkey]

Talking with a big fan of musicals and such shite this evening. Apparently even she would agree this ALW Cinderella is pointless nonsense. Personally, I would agree all musicals are pointless nonsense.

 

[Pevenseagull]

I was very happy with that

 

[Triggaaar]

It’s always tricky when dealing with subjective descriptions like incompetent. It’s better to stick to unequivocal and factual terms which will stand up in court like

If “in my opinion” was added does this play easier than suggesting it’s a fact?

You don't need to say something is an opinion. Saying someone is incompetent (as we regularly get on here re footballers, managers, refs etc) is an opinion. We are allowed to have such opinions and it wouldn't usually be something you could sue. If you were trying to make out it was a fact, that's something you'd have to prove.

 

[Triggaaar]

sounds a bit defamatory, depends how serious the claim is. if some anon on a football forum makes a false claim, its nothing, if its someone prominent and where it might affect their reputation, likely to be taken seriously.

That's not true. That would mean that football pundits couldn't say that players are not good enough. People are allowed to give negative reviews.

With ALW's reputation, I'd think it's fair to say he's very competent. If the comment/review was a serious one, seriously claiming that he is incompetent, I'd guess that could be an issue, as it's different to saying this particularly play was bad.

If you disparage people in their trade, office or profession, that’s defamation. You don’t have to prove financial damage, just that the opinion has been seen by one other person and that the average person would believe the comment to be true.

We're allowed to comment on the performance of pretty much anyone in media. For it to be defamation it needs to be untrue, and given as fact rather than opinion.

 

[Triggaaar]

However, if Andrew Lloyd Webber were able to prove a financial loss due to the statement. For instance if he lost work because of it then a Litigation might be allowed to proceed.

'Proceed', but not necessarily have chance of success. Plenty of plays (and films etc) get bad reviews that obviously lead to less takings at the office, but that's not grounds to sue.