Please note for context purposes that the below blog is the full transcript of a letter I have today sent in reply to correspondance received from Blake Lapthorn Solicitors, acting on behalf of PowWow Water. I received correspondance from them on September 11th, 2009, in relation to a blog post (see: http://www.ht2.org/ben/?p=17) on this website, which claims that certain comments (appearing after the blog post itself) contain defamatory remarks towards both individual employees of PowWow water and the company itself.

Blake Lapthorn requested that their letter should not be published and I respect this decision. However, I believe it to be in the interest to those individuals who have responded to the post that my response should be available to them, in full.

Reference: PowWow Water Blog

FOR PUBLICATION

Dear Sirs

Thank you for your letter, dated 11 September, 2009 and received 14th September, 2009, with reference to the blog post found at: http://www.ht2.org/ben/?p=17

I must admit I was not surprised to receive correspondence from PowWow addressing the issues raised in this blog post; however I am disappointed that the first approach to me has not come from the company itself, but from you its instructed solicitors, Blake Lapthorn.

By way of background, I thought my blog post the last point of call in my attempts to contact PowWow in regards to the poor customer service I had received (and which I still face today). Throughout the blog posts existence I have sought to be fair and even-handed in the moderation of the general public’s comments, which today numbers over 140 comments. It had been my hope that perhaps PowWow senior management would seek to engage with me to deal with the issues the blog highlights. However, the only engagement that was forthcoming appears to be the fraudulent posts of staff members purporting to be customers (in direct violation of EU law).

Firstly allow me to correct a small issue with your correspondence. The website www.ht2.org does not host a blog where customers can post comments about PowWow. The website hosts the personal blog of I, Ben Betts, which is clearly focussed on the E-learning industry. This blog can be found on the url www.ht2.org/ben and is quite separate to the root www.ht2.org website. Within this blog there is a post, referenced above, upon which it has become popular for members of the public and members of your clients organisation to post their opinions in response to my own. You will also note that my own opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my company (HT2), as highlighted on the “About” page – http://www.ht2.org/ben/?page_id=2

Your letter first advises that some comments from the general public contain personal mobile phone numbers of various PowWow executives and that these numbers are currently subject to abusive phone calls. You list 4 current male employees for whom this is a problem, but then go on to state that these calls are frightening for female personnel. I do have to question the legitimacy of the claim that these are “personal” mobile phone numbers belonging to 4 male workers if female employees of the company are frequently answering the calls.

However, I do not wish to perpetuate any calls which could be thought of “harassment” and as such I have taken measures to remove all mobile phone numbers from the general public’s comments, in complete compliance with your letter. It should be noted that I first solicited confirmation that these were “work” numbers before they were allowed to be posted in the first place (see post #25, September 4th, 2009) and that I have deleted other comments which made no such efforts.

The second part of your letter comments on the so called “Defamatory Comments” made by “alleged former employees, current employees and customers”. You note that these comments extend beyond the company towards individuals, suggesting that “Mr Parks and Mr Kitley are bullies, Mr Parks is dishonest, aggressive and abusive and that Mr Kitley is spineless and ineffective”. You also later draw attention to a comment which states that Mr Parks has a “**** winky” amongst other allegations.

You will of course be aware of recent High Court Judgements made in similar cases to this, such as Smith v ADVFN PLC, where Mr Justice Eady found that Bulletin Board comments made by the general public were “when considered in the context of defamation law…much more akin to slanders”. As your letter takes no issue with the original blog post itself, only with the comments which appear in a “Bulletin Board” fashion, it is fair to assume that this ruling is applicable in these circumstances. Further to this Mr Justice Eady found that in the case of the general public posting to a bulletin board, “opinions may be expressed in exaggerated and strident terms; the only requirement is that they be honestly held” in order for the comments to amount to “fair comment”.

As such, I do not accept that these comments amount to the defamation you claim. However, as earlier demonstrated, I am more than willing to comply with your demands despite this complete lack of grounds. Your letter goes onto list 14 comments to which you deem defamation has taken place. For confirmation of actions taken (or to be taken), I list these comments below. Where discrepancies appear I would appreciate further confirmation of your requirements. By making these amendments I offer no admittance of guilt (either on my behalf, or that of other authors) to the allegations.

1. Comment by “ex-emplyee”, 24th August, 2009 – Last 18 words
This comment has now been edited as required.

2. Comment by “Huey”, 25th August, 2009 – entire comment
This comment has now been removed as required.

3. Comment by “Baz”, 26th August, 2009 – entire comment
This comment has now been removed as required.

4. Comment by “Current Employee”, 27th August, 2009 – “The phrase beginning at the end of line 8,and ending after the first word of line 11”
I assume that ‘the phrase beginning at the end of line 8’ might also be considered ‘line 9’, which states: “As has already been mentioned a good few times, jim park is *** a **** man. In so many ways he’s almost like a **** **** *******, and it would be hilarious if it wasn’t for the” – is this the phrase you require removing?

5. Comment by “ex-employee2”, 3rd September, 2009 – “The sentence beginning at the end of line 13 and ending at the beginning of line 14”
I’m sure you realise the above statement makes no sense, however the sentence which fits the bill closest is “It’s not looking **** for powwow”. Is this the sentence you sought to be removed?

6. Comment by “Saddended”, 4th September, 2009 – “The last 4 lines”
This comment appears to have no defamatory remarks in it, only remarking that:
“I hope Jim Parks & everyone that has bullied & shouted & screamed at decent human beings trying to make a living in a place worse than hell gets their comeuppance soon”. Unless you have incontrovertible evidence as to the nature of “hell”, I would suggest this is personal opinion and therefore fair comment.

7. Comment by “ex-employee”, 4th September, 2009 – “The last three lines of the penultimate paragraph”
I assume that you wish the reference to “their lovely PA Sarah Howes” to be included in the defamatory remarks to be removed?

8. Comment by “MW ex-employee”, 7th September, 2009 – “The last sentence”
Do you also wish for the following link (http://www.alloaadvertiser.com/news/tullibodyandsauchie/articles/2008/07/09/26064-tribunal-awards-manager-11000/) for the article “Tribunal Awards Manager £11,000” as published by the Alloa Advertiser to be removed?

9. Comment by “ex-employee”, 8th September, 2009 – entire comment
This comment has now been removed as required.

10. Comment by “ex-employee”, 8th September, 2009 – entire comment (#46)
This comment has now been removed as required.

11. Comment by “Big Billy”, 24th August, 2009 – “The last line of paragraph 5”
The last line in this comment is “Possible not”. Might I rather assume that you seek the penultimate sentence, “Is an organisation that has over 100 case awaiting an employment tribunal sticking to these policies”, to be removed? If this is the case could you please inform me as to the number of employment tribunal cases outstanding so that I might confirm the defamatory nature of this remark?

12. Comment by “Taste The Difference”, 27th August, 2009 – “Paragraph 5”
I am again unsure as to the defamatory nature of this remark (with the exception of the phrase “**** water in ***** bottles”, which has been edited). The post does make mention of price increases in percentage terms which could be defamatory if found to be inaccurate. As such I would appreciate your confirmation of price rise figures.

13. Comment by “Ernie”, 27th August, 2009 – “The penultimate sentence”
This comment has now been edited as required.

14. Comment by “Big Billy”, 4th September, 2009 – “The first two sentences of paragraph 3”
I am unsure as to the defamatory nature of this comment as it would appear that the weight of comments held within the blog would uphold this comment to be true.

Further to your demands for the above edits/removals of comments, you ask for, “an apology and retraction to Mr Park, Mr Kitley and PowWow water (our client) to be agreed and an undertaking not to repeat the allegations or similar allegations” to be submitted within 7 days from the date of your letter.

Firstly I am unsure as to which “allegations” you refer?

Secondly, you earlier highlighted in your correspondence that your issue was with postings made by persons other than myself. Of course, I cannot apologise on their behalf. You suggest that I am the owner of these defamatory comments, which I am not. The copyright of these comments remains with the person(s) who originally authored and posted the comment. As a means of contacting these individuals it is my intention to publish this letter, in full, on to the blog post. The individuals in question will then be in a position to take the demanded action, should they so desire.

Further to this information, please confirm the addresses or other means of contact which you wish the individuals in question to use in submitting their apology. Many appear to have difficulty getting in touch with your clients senior management and as such a reliable means of correspondence would be a welcome move.

Finally your letter lists 13 anonymous users and tells me that I should provide you with the IP addresses of those individuals, under threat of further action. You refer to these individuals as bloggers which is incorrect. These users are not bloggers (which can be defined as: ’a person who keeps a Web log (blog) or publish an online diary), they are merely commentators on my blog.

How ironic that you have probably come to the conclusion that I am in possession of individuals IP addresses having seen the screenshot of a Murray White worker passing themselves off as a customer in clear violation of False Representation laws. I reserve the right to pursue further action in respect to this violation, should I deem it appropriate at any time in the future.

Users post under anonymous identities for precisely that reason; they wish to remain anonymous. Whilst it has yet to be decided in a UK court of law that an IP address is definitively a piece of “personal identifiable” information, there is significant precedent both in court rulings (Sheffield Wednesday vs Owlstalk) and UK/EU legislation (Data Protection Act & EU Article 29 Working Party discussions) to suggest that this can only be decided by a court of law.

As such I will not release the IP addresses of those users without the order of a Court Injunction.

I am sure you will appreciate that seeking such an injunction would bring unnecessary media attention to this situation. We are in somewhat a “grey area” of the law as it is tested thus far and as such any coverage on this story would likely be significant.

Thus far I believe I have shown good faith above and beyond reasonable measures. I have replied informally, without the involvement of my solicitor. I have acquiesced to your demands on the mobile phone numbers and I am willing to edit the comments you have highlighted to your requirements, despite no wrong-doing having occurred. Furthermore, I will endeavour to prevent personal, defamatory comments from publication to the blog post in question where possible.

As such, I politely request that you withdraw your demand for commentators IP addresses immediately and submit that any apologies your client is lucky enough to receive in light of your request will be the only ones you shall seek, regardless of further action.

An urgent response is required. I reserve all of my rights in respect of this letter and do not acknowledge any wrong-doing. Further to this I once again indicate that the blog in question represents my opinion and not that of my company. I reserve the right to publish this letter as widely as I deem appropriate.

Yours Faithfully

Ben Betts