"Jeremy Nicoll - news posts" wrote
in message nvalid...
John Rumm wrote:

They have injured their public reputation...

They don't (probably) know that. I wonder if, if they were told how much
this has been discussed here, they'd have a view. Or maybe they'd try
letters-from-lawyers to us all.

They would have no prima facie grounds to do so. The laws on defamation are
somewhat onerous on the accused and the only instance in UK law where the
accused has to prove his innocence rather than the accuser prove the
accused's guilt however a factual reporting of the events of a matter
constitute no grounds for defamation. They might have grounds if they could
accuse the OP of misrepresenting those facts but otherwise no and in any
case no grounds against anyone else unconnected with the matter discussing
what they'd read. As always, someone complaining in public about work or
goods has to be very careful to be strictly accurate and not introduce bias
or untruths.

I have however in the past successfully used the 1997 Protection from
Harassment Act as a private individual to dissuade someone under police
caution from ranting endlessly on as many internet forums as he could find
about engine work he'd asked to be done by me, which was indeed done exactly
as he'd asked, but then he decided when the engine parts he'd obtained from
or had machined by various different parties to his instructions wouldn't
fit together that he'd asked for the wrong thing and it was my fault for not
being psychic enough to know that. However a company cannot rely on this
act, only a private individual.
--
Dave Baker