The Government’s new Defamation Bill provides strong protection for authors and publishers but may limit options for victims of libel

In the Queen’s Speech last week the Government announced details of the Defamation Bill that will come before parliament in the next session. Libel laws are set to undergo huge changes, described as the most significant in nearly 170 years. The effect is likely to rebalance the law away from protection of reputation and towards freedom of expression. Concern has been raised by some legal experts that the Defamation Bill will significantly limit the ability of both individuals and companies to obtain legal redress in cases of libel.

Currently the libel courts decide whether a statement causes damage to the individual or company. However, the Bill will introduce a new test for claimants to prove ‘serious harm’ at the outset before being allowed to bring a libel case before the courts.

Experts such as the Law Society have expressed ‘deep reservations’ about the change, arguing that it will ‘create an unreasonably high threshold to overcome at a very early stage’. Therefore it ‘…is likely to inhibit many people trying to validly protect their reputation from doing so.’

The Society commented that changes introduced by the Defamation Bill could mean that ‘ordinary people, small businesses and charities may simply not be able to afford to protect their reputation if this provision becomes law.’

The Defamation Bill also provides protection to scientists when commenting on the products of medical manufacturers, when published in peer-reviewed media. The intention is to avoid discouraging scientists from proper scientific enquiry.

Whilst it is true to a scientist can provide an opinion with far less risk of being sued, it is also true that a business has to demonstrate serious harm. There are considerable doubts whether many businesses, particularly SMEs, will have the financial resources to do so.

The legislation also deals with online message posts and comments and protects website owners even in cases where readers’ comments or posts are later proven to be libelous. If a site operator, such as Twitter or Facebook, can show that they have complied with a procedure to ‘resolve any dispute’ directly with an author, they will be protected from legal action regarding any posts or messages by users.

The area of online comment is becoming increasingly significant in the field of libel in the UK. The number of libel cases arising from comments on blogs or social media doubled from 7 to 16 last year. Well-known examples included the case brought by New Zealand cricketer Chris Cairns over comments posted on Twitter by former Indian Premier League (IPL) commissioner Lalit Modi.[1]

Interestingly, the profile of claimants is changing and defamation cases are increasingly being brought by businesses rather than by celebrities. Cases involving celebrities decreased from 22 in 2009/10 to 9 in 2010/11, while conversely those lodged by businesses increased from 5 to 16 cases between 2009/10 and 2010/11.[2]

Commenting on the Defamation Bill, Nathan Barker, the MD of leading online reputation management firm, Reputation 24/7 said, “This change in law has put reputation management very much in the spotlight. Not only does it make it harder to pursue people through court but has the luxury of being able to operate in all legal jurisdictions”.

Reputation 24/7 is an award-winning online reputation management company that specialises in helping individuals and companies to protect their online reputation. For additional information on protecting one’s online reputation please contact Reputation 24/7 on: 0843 64 50 247.

Similar Posts:

None Found

TopSeo’s sole purpose is to identify and rank companies who offer businesses and individuals an excellent online marketing service. The researchers at this organisation spend each month investigating online marketing service companies, so as to establish who has demonstrated the most impressive results and breadth of experience in their field.

TopSeo took a number of factors into account when ranking these internet marketing companies; this included the portfolio of the company, the satisfaction of their clients, the methods which they used to achieve their goals and how these results were measured. When evaluating each company, TopSeo contacted a minimum of three clients in order to see how the company had performed, from their client’s perspective. After careful assessment, TopSeo concluded that Reputation247 had delivered consistently impressive results for their clients, and had demonstrated an in-depth understanding of the reputation management industry.

Reputation247, run by Nathan Barker is a reputation management company in Liverpool. He and his team of experts are adept at not only maintaining the reputations of both individuals and organisations, but also restoring reputations which have been tarnished by negative commentary or press on the internet.

They recognise how valuable an asset one’s reputation is, and the years of labour involved in creating it. They also know how fragile it is; with just one throwaway comment from a disgruntled employee or spiteful competitor, a business or individual can lose the reputation which they worked so hard for. This is why they offer a first class service which ensures that their clients’ reputations are continuously monitored and protected from harmful press or commentary.

 Similar Posts:

None Found

The presumption of harm done, which favoured a jury trial has also been removed. Although those who have rallied for this reform state that it offers a balance between protection of reputation and freedom of expression, the reality is that it leaves business and professional individuals at a much higher risk for damage to their reputation, as from a legal perspective they are now less likely to succeed in a defamation case.

The introduction of this bill has come as quite a blow to many business owners, who are becoming more aware of the importance of their online reputation, as well as the fragility of it. The success of a company is dependent on how they are perceived by their customers, and it takes just one malicious competitor, or ex-employee with a grudge, to ruin a reputation which took years to build.  This is why online reputation management companies have become more in demand over the past few years, and particularly so after news of this defamation bill was released. Business owners are now taking the necessary measures to ensure that their reputation is protected at all times. Online reputation management companies are able to harness the tools of the internet in such a way that negative commentary cannot be found and therefore will not damage the business owner’s hard-earned reputation.Similar Posts:

• Online Reputation Management companies in demand after libel reform
• Copyright Infringement Detecion With Reputation Monitoring

Businesses who believe that their reputation has been damaged by such commentary will now find it far more difficult to being libel cases to court, unless they are able to prove that the comments caused a substantial amount of harm to their reputation. They will no longer be able to bring the case to the English courts based solely on the fact that the damaging commentary was made in a British publication.

Whilst this bill might be good news for some individuals, who now have more freedom to publicly state their opinions on companies, however harsh it may be, the bill leaves both businesses and professional individuals more exposed and vulnerable than ever before. This is why online reputation management companies are now seeing a surge in new clients; business owners are realising the importance of protecting and monitoring their reputation, as they now are unable to bring cases of defamation to court as easily as they could before. A single defamatory comment is all that it takes to ruin even the most solid of reputations, and will little way to defend themselves within the legal system, business owners are now turning to these ORM companies for help.

A reputation management company offers the peace of mind that a person needs to run their business efficiently; with a team of experts who know how to nip any potential reputation-damaging online commentary in the bud, the  business owner is free to work on growing their enterprise, rather than concerning themselves with constantly protecting their fragile reputation.Similar Posts:

• Defamation bill leaves businesses’ vulnerable
• Copyright Infringement Detecion With Reputation Monitoring

Regretting a careless comment in your blog, a humiliating photo on Facebook or a drunken tweet? These can damage your online reputation, especially as employers are increasingly resorting to social-networking sites to vet prospective employees.

Similar Posts:

None Found

Following a recent investigation by Sky News, they suggested that the true cost of these Olympics could well top £12 billion, in comparison with LOGOC’s current budget of £9.3 billion.  The Public Accounts Committee has also fuelled concerns with comments that the contingency budget is basically all used up, and that the total costs could be in the region of £11 billion.

The cost to build the venues and the infrastructure to hold the Olympic Games all appear to be coming in on time and within budget.  It is however the actual running costs and security that are causing the most concern and events of this sort of scale have a reputation for blowing their budgets out of all proportion.  Initial estimates for security were set at around 10,000 staff, however by December 2011 this number had risen to more than 23,000 and with this huge increase means increased costs.  The cost of security has risen from £280 million to more than £550 million.

The Public Accounts Committee reports also raise questions over the legacy of the games.  The initial promises were that the Olympics would encourage more than 1 million people to participate in regular sports activities, however latest estimates show the actual figure is closer to 110,000 people.

The legacy of the Olympic stadium is also under question following the failure of a deal between West Ham United football club and LOGOC.  If the stadium cannot be sold off, this will be a significant cost to taxpayers, and could turn into a “white elephant” and will be a constant reminder of either the success or the failure or the games to live up to previous games reputations.

Organisers remain unworried, and are firm that budgets have been laid out from the beginning, and it was always clear what these budgets included, and that they are still on track to meet these budgets.  Also the legacy program includes generating parts of East London, and although it is unclear at this time what will happen to the stadium, that six of the eight new Olympic venues have tenant’s lines up to take over following the games.Similar Posts:

None Found

Mr Cameron advised there are some options – putting tolls onto new roads, attracting investment from pension funds, or gaining private investment and ownership of parts of the road network.  Work is needed to help reduce gridlock in busy areas, whether this is by new roads, by using the hard shoulder in more areas, or widening the existing roadways.  The Prime Minister is calling for “Innovative Approaches” to help fund these much needed road improvements

Labour were quick to respond to these suggestions, stating that it would be “ordinary families” that would end up paying for road improvements.

The Prime Minister was quick to point out that other UK infrastructure – for example water – is privately owned and funded independently, while roading still relied on funding from central government.  His vision is for the road improvements and development to change from the current “make do and mend” approach, to a more strategic mind-set with improvements carried out thoroughly and systematically.

According to Mr Cameron, road congestion and delays end up costing the UK economy around £7 billion per year, and this figure was backed up by John Cridland, Director-General of the CBI employers group.  The coalition government keep promising to tackle the UK’s financial deficit, and are looking at all options.  If privatisation will free up government money, while reducing the £7 billion congestion costs then this will enhance their reputation in dealing with the UK’s financial problems.

Both the RAC and the AA agreed that more investment is needed to manage and improve the UK’s road network, but we need to be careful how we go about this.  In comparing the road network to the water industry, questions were raised about the big water companies making large profits over the past few years, while consumers have seen their costs increase by 25% or more.  Is this what we will see happen with the road network?  However everyone does realise that more money is needed, and that the government just doesn’t have the finances or the resources to make the sort of drastic improvements that are necessary.Similar Posts:

None Found

The Duchess’ speech was televised as she launched the newest hospice in the East Anglian Children’s Hospice’s group – The Treehouse.  Kate is a patron of the charity, and looked the part during her 2 minute speech to help support the charity.  Her blue Reiss dress was delightful, and continued with her reputation of wearing high street clothing.

General consensus was that Kate did a very good job of her first public speech, and despite showing a few nerves she continues to win the heart of the public.  There were a few laughs from the audience when she joked about her husband, Prince William, not being able to make it to the event which helped portray the Duchess as more relaxed.

As is to be expected, Kate’s first speech has been scrutinised by body language experts, with many more than happy to pass judgement on the Duchess’s performance.  Judi James, a body language expert for 30 years, has analyses many celebrity and royal performances suggested that Kate’s nerves and anxiousness were quite obvious.  She commented that Kate’s voice was a little shaky and that she hesitated at one point during the speeches which both were signs of her anxiousness.  Ms James also added that she thought the speech came across a little too rehearsed.  “She kept looking down at her notes and it sounded a little staccato – a bit like a wedding speech. The speech didn’t allow her to gaze around the audience and it restrained her natural personality.”  Surely this is to be expected for Kate’s first performance, when she is well aware that her every move will be under examination?  Who wouldn’t be a little nervous under that sort of pressure?  Despite all of this, the body language expert concluded that Duchess came across warm and charming during the speech.

She continues to grow her reputation as a friendly and open Royal, and there will no doubt be further comparisons between her and Princess Diana.  Hopefully with the first performance under her belt, Kate will conquer her nerves and future appearances will be as successful, if not more so, than this one.Similar Posts:

• Tony Blair Tries to Clear his Conscience – and Perhaps his Reputation
• Shell Reinforce Reputation following BP Oil Spill
• Tiger Woods Loses Undefeatable Reputation
• Viral Reputation Management
• Reputation Management

President Karzai has been called to provide answers following Sunday’s massacre by a US soldier in Afghanistan.  It has been alleged that 16 Afghani civilians were shot and killed in their village by a US soldier on a rampage.  The 16 dead include 9 children.

The US soldier involved has been flown out of Afghanistan following the incident and is currently in Kuwait awaiting a flight back to the US where he will be put on trial.  While addressing relatives of the 16 dead, President Karzai was challenged as to why the soldier responsible would not be trialled in Afghanistan.  The families are demanding justice, and don’t appear convinced that this will be completely served if the investigation and trial are carried out on the other side of the world.

There have also been rumours and allegations that the massacre was carried out by more than one soldier.  This has been denied by the US troops, and could do irreparable damage to the US forces reputation in Afghanistan if it turns out to be true, and has been covered up.

President Karzai has insisted US troops in rural villages pull back, and allow Afghanistan security teams to be in control in these areas in an attempt to reassure the population.  He has also assured the families of the victims that he will further investigate the claims that there was more than one gunman involved.

Although peace talks between the US Forces and the Taliban in Afghanistan had begun, the Taliban called a halt to these discussions following this week’s massacre.  In an attempt to maintain the reputation that they are working towards a peaceful end in Afghanistan, the US issued a statement confirming they are committed to reaching a resolution, despite talks being called off.

This incident, along with the halt is peace talks will not improve The Afghani people’s impression of the US Forces in their country.  President Karzai has a difficult road ahead, trying to reassure his people that they are not at risk, while working with the US forces and ensuring justice is served in a way that satisfies all parties involved.

 Similar Posts:

None Found

The policy was introduced in the UK this week, and the change was promoted with Starbucks offering free coffees to those customers who “tell us your name”.  This is the way Starbucks in the US have been operating for years, however it does receive mixed reviews on how it affects the coffee chains reputation.

A quick search on the internet reveals a number of sites commenting on this policy of using your name on your coffee.  The practise is presumably used to enhance the chains reputation and your impression of their service, however when you receive you cup with a badly scribbled, misspelled or completely incorrect name this may end up having the opposite effect.  However while some customers seem to take offence to being called Pole instead of Paul, or Jim instead of Tim, others can see the funny side.  There are a quite a few people who try to think of an amusing name to put of the coffee, or to make some sort of joke regarding their name.  I guess if you are getting extra enjoyment from ordering your coffee, then this can only be seen as a good thing in building Starbucks reputation.

However, there are still those that see the questions as over-friendly or fake, and would prefer their daily trip into Starbucks to be smooth, impersonal and a brief escape from the daily hustle and bustle.

From a marketing point of view, Starbucks are working hard to try something new, enhance their reputation, and improve their service and customer experience, so should be applauded.  As to the end result, it could be an interesting ride, and there will always be people with opinions on both sides of the argument, however it has got people talking, and surely this is what the brand wants most of all?

 Similar Posts:

None Found