Forum Topic

It is really difficult to see Jeremy Vine as a victim here. Although some of the abuse that he has received is appalling and shameful, I am far from convinced that he is unduly upset about it. He must know that his approach will provoke these sort of responses and it is hard to accept that this isn't the whole point.Although what he posts on social media probably doesn't count as abusive, he does consistently denigrate people who disagree with him. Anyone who has reservations about local traffic measures is characterised as unconcerned about the safety of children or indifferent to climate change. He has misrepresented the views of local councillors and encouraged rather unpleasant pile-ons against them. The response of some to this may cross a line that he hasn't but he needs to share some responsibility for the problem he has created.He does this while benefitting from a high six figure salary paid largely by what is effectively a retogressive tax in breach of the rules of the organisation that employs him and that we pay for. His social media activity is designed to generate clicks and ultimately make him more money and he does this by aiming to goad people less intelligent than him into an intemperate response.The attention he is trying to focus on the complainant, Margie Frew, is starting to look a bit vindictive. I don't know anything about the One Chiswick group but I have read about her charitable activities so would assume she is a decent person. In my opinion she is now been bullied by a man who has a national platform to clean up a mess which he has made a significant contribution to creating.

Diane Brown ● 1481d

I would say the primary responsibility for the posting of abuse and threats of violence is with the people posting abuse and threats of violence.Secondary responsibility is with the moderators who decide who's invited into the group and what they are allowed or not allowed to post, and then enforce those rules by removing posts or expelling members.Facebook has some responsibility to act on the most egregious posts - and I suspect they will have acted to remove posts or suspend posters in OneChiswick at some point.I think the OneChiswick moderators have more responsibility for what's posted because of how they've set-up the group.  I guess you could point to the David Giles "Brentford Taliban" comment and say that Brentford Today was not responsible for allowing hate speech to be posted on it and if it was hate speech, then Facebook had a duty to remove it.If you did make that point, I would agree.  However, there is a key difference which is that Brentford Today is an open group, David Giles' comments were public and he could be robustly challenged.  OneChiswick, being a closed group, doesn't allow challenge to David Giles or anyone else who posts abuse about JV, cyclists or their opponents.  Margie will act pretty quickly to remove anyone who does challenge.  I get your point that Facebook has overall responsibility to remove the worst abuse, but it can't watch everything via algorithms and it relies on group members to flag abusive posts.The operators of OneChiswick have ensured there's no-one in the group who would be inclined to do so, so more responsibility lies with them than in an open group.

Ed Saper ● 1481d

A very good lawyer might be able to construct and argument that a private group was public but it would be a stretch. Given that this one has a local focus, it could be argued that  although an allegedly defamatory comment was made in a private group it was sufficiently broadcast in the community where the person lived for it to warrant redress. This would probably fall down on the actual number of people likely to have seen it. Although a Facebook Group might claim 2,000 members, as I understand the research, the number of active participants might not reach a tenth of that and the number likely to have seen an individual post could be even smaller than that. It would therefore be impossible to argue that posting something on the group amounted to publication.The way you expressed the first sentence of your reply was confusing. Are you confirming that there are no precedents for successful libel action against private group administrators? I've done a quick search on Google and could find nothing in the UK and only action being initiated in other countries but no word on whether it is actually successful or not. If such cases exist in the UK could you share the details or we'll have to conclude they are imaginary.In the UK if an action was initiated against an individual administering a Facebook group it is likely the first question the judge would ask is why Facebook itself wasn't also named and take a very dim view if no satisfactory explanation was given.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1480d

"If discussion on private groups is policed then wouldn't the same thing apply to neighbourhood WhatsApp groups or a group of friends down the pub?"Jeremy makes a good point about Whatsapp - if someone posted something defamatory in a private group, could they be held liable for it? A quick Google search found this case - defamatory comments made to a group of just 34 people on a Whatsapp group:https://bhayanilaw.co.uk/whats-the-law-on-libel-by-whatsapp/My very basic understanding of defamatory is that you can also be held responsible for what you say to a group of friends in a pub if what you say might cause them serious harm.  I'm not suggesting that the Whatsapp moderator is responsible for what's said in a group chat - it is a different type of medium, but being a private group probably offers no protection alone against claims of harassment or defamation.  I expect Paul was referring to the Australia case where moderators of groups can be held responsible for what people post:https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/facebook-group-owners-managers-social-media-how-manage-emma-heuston/This isn't just Facebook - it is any medium where a company or individual sets up a page where people can comment and moderates it: they can be held liable for what's posted on it by third parties.In the UK it doesn't appear that moderators of a Facebook page are automatically deemed publishers - but in OneChiswick's case I would suggest that Margie Frew is fairly close to the line because of how she's set-up and moderates the group which includes a certain amount of content curation.

Ed Saper ● 1480d

Speaking as one who quoted verbatim the foul-mouth abuse I received from a cyclist (with video) and subsequently was banned, it's only a matter of time before Frances should be back. No doubt I was banned because someone like Paul Campbe/l complained. Notes to Francis:1.) You can try contacting the forum but that's a bit like beating a dead horse as no one there seems to understand what a courteous reply is.2.) You can try submitting examples of swearing in the mainstream press (or what I like to call the real world) to help bring this forum into this century. To me when you're able to read sh*t and fu*k anywhere else on line, surely one could here. Hell, I've actually read sh*t on this forum. Sometimes its preceded by bull. Sometimes not. Ed Saper might be able to help with this.3.) Don't be fooled by the forum terms posted. If you attempt to learn from your "mistake" don't expect them to engage to help you out. One would think that would advance the discourse, but no. One would think it the neighbourly thing to do given it is a neighbourhood forum, but no.4.) Always be mindful someone like Paul Campe/l could and would copy and paste what you said in a lame attempt to weaponize it on his wee Twitter account. He seems to be threatened by rhetoric but, oddly, not be the empty beer cans left in a cycle lane. Nor the Dott e-scooters strewn in that cycle lane. Nor the standing water. Nor the wet leaves. Nor the fully-motorized bikes zooming past his kids. But hyberpole, well, that scares the sh*t out of him. Poor thing.5.) In about two weeks Francis, you should be back up and running. You might not get any clarity or explanation, but you might log on one day and attempt to post and actually succeed.

David Lesniak ● 1478d