RBS threatens Richard Herring with Legal action!

Malc · **Posted:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 16:22

Richard Herring via Twitter wrote:

Herring1967Just been threatened with legal action for blog entry criticising my bank for not passing on interest reductions! Sticking it to THE MAN.

Compare and contrast

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:e1 ... cd=1&gl=uk

http://www.richardherring.com/warmingup ... hp?id=2308

Malc

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38709

I'm guessing the second link is *supposed* to be broken?

Dudley · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 8679

Except that it works fine, just contains subtly different text.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38709

Can't see the second one. Random uni firewall strikes again!

Edit: Using a proxy has revealed the edited version. Shame Richard, shame.

Dudley · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 8679

Just replace any mention of ("Mr X" - Legal ed) with "Mr X".

myp · **Posted:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 16:37

DavPaz wrote:

Can't see the second one. Random uni firewall strikes again!

Edit: Using a proxy has revealed the edited version. Shame Richard, shame.

Weird, I can only see the second one. Maybe we should work as a team here.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38709

You must be me, from another time. No, that was someone else.

(Are we bored of this yet?)

BikNorton · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 10194

Yes. But not yet.

Now, though.

Malc · **Posted:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 17:13

So, what's illegal about the original post then?

Malc

Trousers · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3073

Malc wrote:

So, what's illegal about the original post then?

Malc

Something about pimping a snack I think.

myp · **Posted:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 17:16

Probably the part about sucking cat willies.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38709

Libel, innit?

Also, stoned Herring fans writing letters and calling up asking for Mr X might be classed as harrasment. Maybe

Malc · **Posted:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 17:20

myp wrote:

Probably the part about sucking cat willies.

I thought you were allowed to use satire. I mean it's only liable if you seriously think the Natwest guy would really suck his bosses dicks, and that they really were cats?

Isn't it? Or is that just in America?

Malc

Mr Russell · **Joined:** 6th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 12356

I think it's the part where he repeatedly encourages his readers to call him up. And then lists the number.

Malc · **Posted:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 17:27

yeah, but now he's saying:

Richard Herring on Twitter again wrote:

Looks likely I will have to take the article down. Even with the names changed. But they tried to silence Galileo too. The truth will out!

Malc

Malc · **Posted:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 17:33

Mr Russell wrote:

I think it's the part where he repeatedly encourages his readers to call him up. And then lists the number.

Also, what is wrong with this:

Richard Herring's blog before the censor, but after I've changed the number/name wrote:

So the gauntlet has been laid down. I do have many questions, as I am sure you do. Well if you want them answered then why not ring 1234 567 8901 and ask for Xxxxx Xxxxxx and then ask him to explain himself and what the wide range of factors are and why he has sold out and let his customers down (don't mention the Fat Cat bumming stuff - that would be rude and he's probably trying to forget about it).

Malc

kalmar · **Posted:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 17:34

Especially as it's a blog, by a comedian.

If it was an article in the times they might have a point.

Mr Russell · **Joined:** 6th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 12356

To me? Nothing. I would encourage him to leave it up and fight the legal action.

At least it would draw further attention to it, which is presumably something NatWest wouldn't want.

MaliA · **Posted:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 19:47

Malc wrote:

yeah, but now he's saying:

Richard Herring on Twitter again wrote:

Looks likely I will have to take the article down. Even with the names changed. But they tried to silence Galileo too. The truth will out!

Malc

Ha ha, that makes me think "twat" more than anything.

kalmar · **Posted:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 22:00

It's a little thing we non-lawyers like to call "a joke".

Malc · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 13:03

Richard explains his reasons for editing the article.

http://www.richardherring.com/warmingup ... hp?id=2321

Malc

kalmar · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 13:22

Malc wrote:

Richard explains his reasons for editing the article.

http://www.richardherring.com/warmingup ... hp?id=2321

Malc

Quote:

They tried to silence Galileo but he was right. They tried to silence Martin Luther King, but he was right. They tried to silence that Dutch bloke who made that racist, anti-Islam film and he was wrong. So there is absolutely no firm conclusion we can draw from the fact that they are trying to silence me. You can't get selective.

Heh

NervousPete · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 20:26

Glad to hear that the bank I chose PRECISELY because I thought they were ethical, nice guys and hands-off are being complete bastards to one of my all time fave comedy heroes. Cheers bankers!

Honestly, can't they go and bake some delicious cakes for orphan children or something? Just some little thing that doesn't involve a "Ha ha We're Incompetent Bastards!" headline for example?

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Why do you think my dad always referred to NatWest as NastyWest, eh?

Hugh · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 20:58

Mr Chris wrote:

Why do you think my dad always referred to NatWest as NastyWest, eh?

Is it because they called him a poo-poo head?

Also, this counts as negative press which they are understandably peeved about coming from one of their own customers. I admit this heavy handed approach will only lead to more negative press and ill will, but they do have a point. Threats of legal action is going a bit far in my view, but inviting people to abuse a named employee is no small matter.

NervousPete · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 21:18

Sir Hugh wrote:

Mr Chris wrote:

Why do you think my dad always referred to NatWest as NastyWest, eh?

Is it because they called him a poo-poo head?

Also, this counts as negative press which they are understandably peeved about coming from one of their own customers. I admit this heavy handed approach will only lead to more negative press and ill will, but they do have a point. Threats of legal action is going a bit far in my view, but inviting people to abuse a named employee is no small matter.

Sitting back a while and cool-headedly mulling it over, you have a point. Tarnation.

Malc · **Posted:** Wed Mar 11, 2009 23:41

nervouspete wrote:

Sir Hugh wrote:

Mr Chris wrote:

Why do you think my dad always referred to NatWest as NastyWest, eh?

Is it because they called him a poo-poo head?

Also, this counts as negative press which they are understandably peeved about coming from one of their own customers. I admit this heavy handed approach will only lead to more negative press and ill will, but they do have a point. Threats of legal action is going a bit far in my view, but inviting people to abuse a named employee is no small matter.

Sitting back a while and cool-headedly mulling it over, you have a point. Tarnation.

But he didn't. In fact he asked people explicitly not to abuse the employee. And to just moan about the rate drop not being passed on.

Malc

myp · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:40

Malc wrote:

But he didn't. In fact he asked people explicitly not to abuse the employee. And to just moan about the rate drop not being passed on.

Malc

In his original post he asked for people to write to (Geoff the Salmon - Ed) at (The Friendly Bank - Ed) and tell him what they thought, did he not?

Malc · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:02

myp wrote:

Malc wrote:

But he didn't. In fact he asked people explicitly not to abuse the employee. And to just moan about the rate drop not being passed on.

Malc

In his original post he asked for people to write to (Geoff the Salmon - Ed) at (The Friendly Bank - Ed) and tell him what they thought, did he not?

yes, what they thought about not passing on the rate drop.

Malc

myp · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:03

Indeed. But the manner of the whole piece, and the way he put it (no matter how much it was meant as a joke) meant that there were going to be some idiots on the net who read it and took it to mean 'give him some abuse like I have'.

Malc · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:05

So comedians should be punished for their fans idiocy?

Malc

myp · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:07

He's admitted himself that he shouldn't have done it the way he did. What's to argue about? By posting the things he did, he has to take responsibility for when things backfire.

Of course, I'm playing DA here, as I believe nothing is sacred when it comes to comedy, but still.

Malc · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:13

myp wrote:

He's admitted himself that he shouldn't have done it the way he did. What's to argue about? By posting the things he did, he has to take responsibility for when things backfire.

Of course, I'm playing DA here, as I believe nothing is sacred when it comes to comedy, but still.

he also admitted he'd like to take the bank on, but doesn't have the time (no, not that sorta time) to do it, and the lawsuit was effecting his webhost too and he didn't want to risk their livelihood. My point is that he made a joke about a service he got, and asked people to contact someone (telling them how they could do so easily) to complain about it (whilst explicitly saying he didn't want them to abuse him). Now there are probably a dozen threads on these forums (fora) alone that do exactly the same thing.

Malc

myp · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:17

If you show me a thread on here that has someone imploring us to contact an individual by name (including a telephone number and address) at a company to complain about something that is out of his control, I'll admit you have a point.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

I'm pretty sure he's not actually done anything illegal or actionable, though. So were I him, and had I a mahoosive pair of 'nads, I'd tell NatWest to get fvcked.

Malc · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:30

myp wrote:

If you show me a thread on here that has someone imploring us to contact an individual by name (including a telephone number and address) at a company to complain about something that is out of his control, I'll admit you have a point.

they might not be as exact as that, but there is stuff out there similar

I'm pretty sure people have posted a private individual's number before in order for people to prank call him.

Also Natwest nominated the guy as a point of contact in case there where any questions, Richard just facilitated the spreading of those details to a wider audience.

Malc

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:32

If I were that person, I'd be pretty narked if a comedian did that to me. Thus a threat of legal action (baseless, or not) is probably justified to get it to stop.

myp · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:33

Malc wrote:

Also Natwest nominated the guy as a point of contact in case there where any questions, Richard just facilitated the spreading of those details to a wider audience.

Malc

Which would've been fine had they only been NatWest customers. Are you saying that only NatWest customers would've done so, or does it not give carte blanche to anyone who fancied being a phone warrior?

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

MaliA wrote:

If I were that person, I'd be pretty narked if a comedian did that to me. Thus a threat of legal action (baseless, or not) is probably justified to get it to stop.

Do we have some "law" thing about not making groundless threats of legal action? I know the Trade Mark Act does so about TM infringement claims, but that's not really relevant.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

myp wrote:

Malc wrote:

Also Natwest nominated the guy as a point of contact in case there where any questions, Richard just facilitated the spreading of those details to a wider audience.

Malc

Which would've been fine had they only been NatWest customers. Are you saying that only NatWest customers would've done so, or does it not give carte blanche to anyone who fancied being a phone warrior?

The general public can phone up and abuse a Natwest member of staff at any time via the switchboard.

Malc · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:36

I'm not saying either thing. I'm saying he hasn't done anything legally wrong, and I've seen similar things done elsewhere (including here)

Malc

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:38

Mr Chris wrote:

MaliA wrote:

If I were that person, I'd be pretty narked if a comedian did that to me. Thus a threat of legal action (baseless, or not) is probably justified to get it to stop.

Do we have some "law" thing about not making groundless threats of legal action? I know the Trade Mark Act does so about TM infringement claims, but that's not really relevant.

FukkedifIno.

I'd still be narked off, though.

myp · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:39

Mr Chris wrote:

myp wrote:

Malc wrote:

Also Natwest nominated the guy as a point of contact in case there where any questions, Richard just facilitated the spreading of those details to a wider audience.

Malc

Which would've been fine had they only been NatWest customers. Are you saying that only NatWest customers would've done so, or does it not give carte blanche to anyone who fancied being a phone warrior?

The general public can phone up and abuse a Natwest member of staff at any time via the switchboard.

Of course, but when you have people ringing up to speak to Geoff the Salmon in person, it's a little different, is it not? I've dealt with abusive customers before, but because they're being abusive in an abstract way towards the company and the service they've received, you can deal with it. If someone rang up asking to speak to myp the Salmon to personally give me grief, I'm sure it'd be quite different.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

myp wrote:

Mr Chris wrote:

myp wrote:

Malc wrote:

Also Natwest nominated the guy as a point of contact in case there where any questions, Richard just facilitated the spreading of those details to a wider audience.

Malc

Which would've been fine had they only been NatWest customers. Are you saying that only NatWest customers would've done so, or does it not give carte blanche to anyone who fancied being a phone warrior?

The general public can phone up and abuse a Natwest member of staff at any time via the switchboard.

Of course, but when you have people ringing up to speak to Geoff the Salmon in person, it's a little different, is it not? I've dealt with abusive customers before, but because they're being abusive in an abstract way towards the company and the service they've received, you can deal with it. If someone rang up asking to speak to myp the Salmon to personally give me grief, I'm sure it'd be quite different.

We know the name of the CEO of NatWest. He should have just posted his detais instead.

myp · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:04

Well, quite.

Rodafowa · **Posted:** Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:35

myp wrote:

Mr Chris wrote:

myp wrote:

Malc wrote:

Also Natwest nominated the guy as a point of contact in case there where any questions, Richard just facilitated the spreading of those details to a wider audience.

Malc

Which would've been fine had they only been NatWest customers. Are you saying that only NatWest customers would've done so, or does it not give carte blanche to anyone who fancied being a phone warrior?

The general public can phone up and abuse a Natwest member of staff at any time via the switchboard.

Of course, but when you have people ringing up to speak to Geoff the Salmon in person, it's a little different, is it not? I've dealt with abusive customers before, but because they're being abusive in an abstract way towards the company and the service they've received, you can deal with it. If someone rang up asking to speak to myp the Salmon to personally give me grief, I'm sure it'd be quite different.

Bingo. As he said in his later post, a big part of his decision to change the original text was that he didn't think it was right to be causing hassle / distress to Geoff The Salmon who was largely blameless. Fair play to him.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49252

Or, you know - he should have just got a tracker. Because that's the point of a tracker. Complaining that your non-tracker mortgage doesn't track the base rate makes you a bit of an arse, frankly.

Malc · **Posted:** Sun Mar 15, 2009 23:53

Does he want Aldi to sue him too?

Malc

Plissken · **Posted:** Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:16

It would be cheaper.

Be Excellent To Each Other

RBS threatens Richard Herring with Legal action!
oooh

Who is online

Be Excellent To Each Other

RBS threatens Richard Herring with Legal action! oooh

Who is online

RBS threatens Richard Herring with Legal action!
oooh