locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059 
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Aug 3, 2016 8:06:17 GMT
If you borrowed £1,000 off a mate to pay off gambling debts, you wouldn't be happy if your mate published the fact you had borrowed the money on facebook where your gf or employer for example could see even if you were on time with any repayment agreement. Whilst it is not ideal for the borrower, it is still not illegal to publish factually correct information and wouldn't constitute libel. If we named the borrower and the loan, as long as the information is factually accurate, how would it leave the forum members or mods open to being sued. Just to be clear, I fully appreciate all the hard and unpaid work the mods do on this forum. However, this rule about naming ( not shaming) makes it very difficult to pool our collective resources and do even better due diligence.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Aug 3, 2016 8:20:01 GMT
It is for person(s) and publisher (this board) to prove that their post is not defamatory, not for the subject to prove it is defamatory, which is virtually impossible You seem have reversed the initial burden of proof since the Defamation Act 2013 which applies in England, Wales and Scotland: " Requirement of serious harm
(1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.
(2) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss." As Oxford University Press observed about those requirements: " Particularly significant in light of the need to rebalance and control the law of defamation is that the burden here is placed on claimants." But do you have any reason to believe that Oxford University Press and of course other commentators are wrong about the swapping of this initial burden of proof in England, Wales and Scotland from defendant to claimant? So initially a company borrower or P2P platform considering a defamation action would need to be able to prove that a post here has or is likely to cause the firm a serious financial loss. From a post on a forum. Cause and effect is likely to be very hard to prove and for any growing platform or defaulting borrower a financial harm is also likely to be hard to prove. The purpose of section 1 is to stop the sort of abuse that has happened in the past with firms making malicious threats of unmerited action knowing that individuals and their other targets wouldn't be able to afford to defend themselves. The operator of this board would also not have even that much effort since there are notice and takedown provisions and following them removes potential liability. Of course libel tourism remains a potential issue but publicity, boycotts and complaints to the firm and FCA if it's the platform bringing the action may well be more effective non-legal approaches. I know that I for one would advocate and promote boycotts of any P2P firm that brought defamation action against actual or prospective customers when there is even a semblance of it just being due diligence or paying attention to debt recovery actions against a firm. I'd consider that necessary to protect my own ability to properly evaluate the firm and a demonstration that the platform isn't really one that merits trust.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Aug 3, 2016 8:21:52 GMT
When a borrower takes out a P2P loan they enter into a contract with the platform concerned and, by extension, the lenders in that loan. However they do NOT consent to the fact of their borrowing money becoming public information and this forum isn't about to start being a conduit for doing this.
To date there has been very little problem discussing specific loans on here by referencing an identifier that only registered platform members will recognise (typically loan number or obvious descriptor) and suggesting Google search terms that might be used to access further information. Those who object to this reasonable level of respect for borrower privacy might be advised to look elsewhere for a place to discuss lenders and their loans.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Aug 3, 2016 8:27:23 GMT
When a borrower takes out a P2P loan they enter into a contract with the platform concerned and, by extension, the lenders in that loan. However they do NOT consent to the fact of their borrowing money becoming public information and this forum isn't about to start being a conduit for doing this. To date there has been very little problem discussing specific loans on here by referencing an identifier that only registered platform members will recognise (typically loan number or obvious descriptor) and suggesting Google search terms that might be used to access further information. Those who object to this reasonable level of respect for borrower privacy might be advised to look elsewhere for a place to discuss lenders and their loans. Are we allowed to at least discuss the rule or is everything you say final?  These types of responses are wholly unhelpful and don't allow the platform to evolve in a way to better serve its members.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Aug 3, 2016 8:37:06 GMT
We are discussing the rules!
By 'platform' I assume you mean the forum, rather than the P2P platform(s) involved, all of which are welcome to evolve themselves as they see fit (but the forum itself has to tread whatever line keeps them all happy). An aside, most of them seem to be evolving in directions which don't better serve the forum members.
Unfortunately 'XZY has borrowed £xM from FC' (or whoever from wherever) upsets at least some of those involved at least some of the time, so we choose not to reveal it here (signed up members can go look on the P2P platform). If that's a problem, you can always start your own forum, or get your P2P platform to do so, nobody here would object at all.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Aug 3, 2016 8:40:56 GMT
Consider the reverse scenario: a forum where P2P borrowers, under cloak of pseudonyms, discuss individual P2P lenders in their loans; the size of their stakes, their other loans, previous business dealings, court cases, morality, etc. Not as far fetched as you might think since several true P2P platforms share lender lists with borrowers. How comfortable would people feel risking a public trawling-through of their affairs simply because they've signed up to lend through one or more P2P platforms?
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Aug 3, 2016 8:49:15 GMT
We are discussing the rules! By 'platform' I assume you mean the forum, rather than the P2P platform(s) involved, all of which are welcome to evolve themselves as they see fit (but the forum itself has to tread whatever line keeps them all happy). An aside, most of them seem to be evolving in directions which don't better serve the forum members. Unfortunately 'XZY has borrowed £xM from FC' (or whoever from wherever) upsets at least some of those involved at least some of the time, so we choose not to reveal it here (signed up members can go look on the P2P platform). If that's a problem, you can always start your own forum, or get your P2P platform to do so, nobody here would object at all. Yes, I do mean the forum. And I am thankful we are discussing the rules. What I object to is when one of the mods states that the rules are final and detractors should just go elsewhere. Rules and their legitimacy should always be questioned. My view and that of many others is that this particular rule is over cautious, unnecessary and hinders the platform. Some mods seem to think that rules are like 10 commandments and are cast in stone.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Aug 3, 2016 8:50:47 GMT
The operator of this board would also not have even that much effort since there are notice and takedown provisions and following them removes potential liability. . Well as a journalist whose business depends on getting libel law right and trained in it, i won't argue with you about the finer points - all that you say is fine but for publishers who do NOT have in house lawyers (the Moneysaving expert forum does) you have to err on the side of caution to avoid that lawyers letter claiming libel (whether provable/viable/justifiable/ridiculous whatever) Such a letter requires a legal response - posters and the mods on this board don't have training and unless anyone wants to fund real time libel advice then i can see no other way round it than a blanket ban on naming the borrower, directly or indirectly Jack P
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Aug 3, 2016 8:53:12 GMT
Consider the reverse scenario: a forum where P2P borrowers, under cloak of pseudonyms, discuss individual P2P lenders in their loans; the size of their stakes, their other loans, previous business dealings, court cases, morality, etc. Not as far fetched as you might think since several true P2P platforms share lender lists with borrowers. How comfortable would people feel risking a public trawling-through of their affairs simply because they've signed up to lend through one or more P2P platforms? Our levels of comfort would be completely irrelevant. We could feel uncomfortable, sad, upset, offended and all the rest but as long as everything was legal and factual, then we would have no real recourse. I know you mean well but this isn't about how people would feel.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Aug 3, 2016 8:56:31 GMT
The operator of this board would also not have even that much effort since there are notice and takedown provisions and following them removes potential liability. . Well as a journalist whose business depends on getting libel law right and trained in it, i won't argue with you about the finer points - all that you say is fine but for publishers who do NOT have in house lawyers (the Moneysaving expert forum does) you have to err on the side of caution to avoid that lawyers letter claiming libel (whether provable/viable/justifiable/ridiculous whatever) Such a letter requires a legal response - posters and the mods on this board don't have training and unless anyone wants to fund real time libel advice then i can see no other way round it than a blanket ban on naming the borrower, directly or indirectly Jack P You missed jackpease's point. No legal response would be necessary as the takedown provisions would see to that. Any plaintiff claiming libel would have the opportunity to request that the mods remove whatever they consider libellous.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Aug 3, 2016 9:03:58 GMT
Consider the reverse scenario: a forum where P2P borrowers, under cloak of pseudonyms, discuss individual P2P lenders in their loans; the size of their stakes, their other loans, previous business dealings, court cases, morality, etc. Not as far fetched as you might think since several true P2P platforms share lender lists with borrowers. How comfortable would people feel risking a public trawling-through of their affairs simply because they've signed up to lend through one or more P2P platforms? That would seem like the sort of level of due diligence that is appropriate for participants here considering lending to businesses, at least so far as they touch on honesty and financials of a business and where relevant, say in the case of a personal guarantee, it's principals. Remember we've had at least one case where a platform appears to have used loan to value based on planning permission in green belt land that hadn't been granted, to a borrower described as an individual which actually seems to be a business in which the platform itself had an ownership interest. With the result that the loan appears to have been made at 100% LTV, letting the borrowing firm walk away without major loss to most of its owners when planning permission wasn't granted.. Due diligence isn't just trusting what a platform or borrower says, it's actually going and checking those things against at least public records and public information and sharing the findings from a range of perspectives and levels of knowledge, as well as potentially sharing costs. People - meaning individuals borrowing on their own behalf as in unsecured consumer lending - are a different thing from companies borrowing or P2P platforms. What we have here today is a situation where platforms operating not using their own boards are in effect using the rules of this place to inhibit proper due diligence on the products - loans - they are offering. So while I'll naturally attempt to follow the rules when posting here, in this area they seem squarely against the public and investor interest in proper evaluation of the lending products.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Aug 3, 2016 9:08:34 GMT
The operator of this board would also not have even that much effort since there are notice and takedown provisions and following them removes potential liability. Well as a journalist whose business depends on getting libel law right and trained in it, i won't argue with you about the finer points - all that you say is fine but for publishers who do NOT have in house lawyers (the Moneysaving expert forum does) you have to err on the side of caution to avoid that lawyers letter claiming libel (whether provable/viable/justifiable/ridiculous whatever) That's something of a shame for I'd actually love to have authoritative sources cited that disagree. For the obvious reason that I'd prefer to know in advance if I'm getting something wrong!  While I disagree with you at times, that doesn't indicate any lack of respect for your views and experience, though I do think that at times its shaped by a far higher risk environment where millions of copies might be distributed before there was even a chance to complain.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Aug 3, 2016 9:13:42 GMT
I wonder whether some public spirited souls would be prepared to set up a new forum called 'p2x due diligence' or similar?
This forum could continue for as long as there is interest in it and the new one could perform as per its proposed title - then everybody would be happy!
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Aug 3, 2016 9:14:54 GMT
I wonder whether some public spirited souls would be prepared to set up a new forum called 'p2x due diligence' or similar? This forum could continue for as long as there is interest in it and the new one could perform as per its proposed title - then everybody would be happy! If that happened, this forum would become obsolete and all real conversation would move to the new forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Aug 3, 2016 9:27:53 GMT
I wonder whether some public spirited souls would be prepared to set up a new forum called 'p2x due diligence' or similar? This forum could continue for as long as there is interest in it and the new one could perform as per its proposed title - then everybody would be happy! If that happened, this forum would become obsolete and all real conversation would move to the new forum. I'm amazed it hasn't happened already. The cost through Proboards is small - as are the legal impediments apparently. We just need a new group of administrators with a different mindset to the existing crew. There are sufficient members of this forum who believe it should exist, so why don't they make it so? I'd join as a member straight away, as long as the joining fee was moderate.(I'm thinking that a legal advice kitty would be useful)
|
|
