Chethams and the RNCM

[Nick Armstrong]

it does no harm merely to draw attention to the existence of such allegations,

See my PM. It's a common misconception that you're ok just repeating someone else's allegations. On the contrary, if you repeat them, it's likely to be a fresh libel. The middle part of the long sentence which makes up para 1 of post #2 comes perilously close in my view, as regards the named institutions other than Chethams and the RNCM.

[ahinton]

See my PM. It's a common misconception that you're ok just repeating someone else's allegations. On the contrary, if you repeat them, it's likely to be a fresh libel. The middle part of the long sentence which makes up para 1 of post #2 comes perilously close in my view.

Then please have a look at what's been reported not only on the Lebrecht blog but in most national newspapers and elsewhere, with (as I now understand it) fresh allegations to be published in tomorrow's Guardian. Repeating a published allegation is not the same as committing an act of libel (and I have taken legal advice from a specialist libel lawyer of my acquaintance before so saying) provided that it is sufficiently clear that it is mere repetition rather than provable endorsement per se.

[Nick Armstrong]

Then please have a look at what's been reported not only on the Lebrecht blog but in most national newspapers and elsewhere, with (as I now understand it) fresh allegations to be published in tomorrow's Guardian. Repeating a published allegation is not the same as committing an act of libel (and I have taken legal advice from a specialist libel lawyer of my acquaintance before so saying) provided that it is sufficiently clear that it is mere repetition rather than provable endorsement per se.

Well it's my specialist area too and I think you are close to the wind. I wonder if it's the business of this Forum to take risks. Ultimately, french frank's call, of course.

[french frank]

Caliban is the source of legal advice here. We go with what he says.

What about publishing links to said articles, Cal?

[ahinton]

Well it's my specialist area too and I think you are close to the wind. I wonder if it's the business of this Forum to take risks. Ultimately, french frank's call, of course.

Indeed it is, as it should be. Perhaps, though, all the newspapers reporting what they are reporting and indeed the remarks made at the Brewer trial (which are now a mater not of speculation but public record) are themselves representative of "taking risks" even though the latter were knowingly aired in a court of law and reported as such. For the record and for the avoidance of doubt, I am personally accusing no one of anything, but that does not prevent me from reading the published information that I can read any more than it precludes anyone who writes what I read from publishing it. Again, for the record and for the avoidance of doubt, my sole concern here is that, now that it is a matter of public record that at least one such case has involved covering up as well as what was being covered up (and let's not forget that Mr Brewer lost most of his case), the entire phenomenon does not once again get covered up and pushed under the carpet if indeed there are other bona fide and not dissimilar cases to answer. It's a deeply sensitive area, to be sure, but that's no excuse for any other wrongdoings that may have occurred being concealed from public view, as they would be a matter of public as well as private individual concern.

Anyway, I've merely drawn attention to certain (and by no means all) sources of information on the subject so, if anyone has a problem with what those sources publish, they should perhaps be wise to address them to those publication sources.

[Nick Armstrong]

What about publishing links to said articles, Cal?

There's no actual legal decision about that in this country but based on a Canadian decision, the view is likely to be that a simple link to a defamatory website can't of itself be a libel. But if in addition to providing the link, you repeat what's to be found in that link, even in the most neutral way, there are risks, I think. There are arguments either way, but I don't think they're arguments we necessarily want to have arising from the Radio 3 Forum, are they?

[french frank]

There are arguments either way, but I don't think they're arguments we necessarily want to have arising from the Radio 3 Forum, are they?

No. I'm always twitchy. If this is being discussed somewhere else, I'd prefer people to go and discuss it there. Newspapers can find vast resources to defend legal actions. We can't. Lebrecht can say what he wants on his blog.

[Nick Armstrong]

No. I'm always twitchy. If this is being discussed somewhere else, I'd prefer people to go and discuss it there. Newspapers can find vast resources to defend legal actions. We can't. Lebrecht can say what he wants on his blog.

I've made a little nip and tuck to post #2 accordingly.

[ahinton]

No. I'm always twitchy. If this is being discussed somewhere else, I'd prefer people to go and discuss it there. Newspapers can find vast resources to defend legal actions. We can't. Lebrecht can say what he wants on his blog.

Fair comment, but if someone goes and discusses it somewhere else who can at the same time be readily identified as and proved to be a member of this forum, might that be guaranteed to make a material difference? And where this stuff is concerned, Mr Lebrecht himself is saying relatively little and letting the bloggers make free (well, not quite free, because he's doubtless as aware of legal constraints as the rest of us). Yes, care has to be taken as far as possible but, since one cannot realistically deny one's identity, one could be seen to pop up anywhere. Been there before, albeit in a quite different way and context, actually. Nuff (and more) said bout that.

Oh and, by the way, those on these boards who are on occasion tempted to imply that they berate certain others here (and otherwise at large) who admit to reading the Guardian de temps en temps ought perhaps to turn a blind eye to http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddi...sex-abuse.html but, again, if reporting that a newspaper is publishing or has published something exposes the reporter to any kind of risk, then I suspect that we might all be at risk of some kind of trouble even for mentioning the name of a newspaper...

[french frank]

if someone goes and discusses it somewhere else who can at the same time be readily identified as and proved to be a member of this forum, might that be guaranteed to make a material difference?

I think not. Nor does it matter quoting some other article in a newspaper which has somewhere printed a libel which you have not referred to..

The key point (as I understand it) is in publishing the libel (and you don't even have to mention a person by name). Which is presenting it to the public, or in a public place or where members of the public may see it.

[ahinton]

I think not. Nor does it matter quoting some other article in a newspaper which has somewhere printed a libel which you have not referred to..

The key point (as I understand it) is in publishing the libel (and you don't even have to mention a person by name). Which is presenting it to the public, or in a public place or where members of the public may see it.

In view of the concerns and reservations expressed by you and by Caliban, do you think that it might be as well not only to close this thread but also dispose of it altogether?

I do not recall any thread on controversial news items attracting such concern, but I may be wrong about that.

My question, incidentally, is not intended to be read as a criticism of the OP.

[MrGongGong]

In view of the concerns and reservations expressed by you and by Caliban, do you think that it might be as well not only to close this thread but also dispose of it altogether?

I do not recall any thread on controversial news items attracting such concern, but I may be wrong about that.

My question, incidentally, is not intended to be read as a criticism of the OP.

why not simply avoid writing things which are or could possibly be considered to be libellous ?

[ahinton]

why not simply avoid writing things which are or could possibly be considered to be libellous ?

"Considered" seems to me to be the problem with that; what one person might consider may differ from what another may consider and each might also differ from the facts which, whilst laws are obviously in place, are not quite as black and white in practice as them might seem or one might hope. The answer to your question would therefore appear to be "because that might be rather easier said than done".

There are several possible basic levels here, including but by no means limited to

1. Directly accusing named persons or institutions of the commission of crime

2. Referring and/or directing to a publication (on a forum, in a newspaper et al) that directly accuses named persons or institutions of the commission of crime

3. Referring and/or directing to allegations of the commission of crime made or reported in such publications.

Clearly, 1. is potentially or actually libellous unless the individuals or institutions have already been formally charged with, tried for and convicted of crime.

2. might well be deemed to be aiding and abetting, or at the very least condoning, those publications that may be committing acts of potential or actual libel and some risk might accordingly be attached thereto.

3. is a greyer area purely because it hides behind the notion of "allegations" as distinct from direct accusations; of course it would still be very risky (not to say dishonest and misleading) to claim that a newspaper or other publication has made or reported allegations if it has not in fact done so, but in cases where such a publication has done so it seems to me to be little more than saying "on page 3 of today's Guardian it is reported that..." - and if even this is deemed to be risky, one's ability to make any mention of the matters so reported would effectively be stymied by a situation in which is would be deemed inappropriate to make reference or links to anything published in a newspaper.

Part of my concern here stems from the fact (and it has been demonstrated in a Court to be a fact at least where the Brewer / Andrade case is concerned) that certain criminal acts have not only been committed but also repeatedly ignored and covered up by those in positions of authority to whom they've been reported.

Some of the references on Mr Lebrecht's blog to a certain school in the south of England have come from people who have claimed in their posts to it that they were themselves subjected to sexual or non-sexual abuse there and, in each such case, the school has been named but care has been taken not to name the specific abuser (apart from cases allegedly involving a certain renowned French cellist who's been dead for more than 20 years); of these, some claim either to have reported incidents unsuccessfully or been afraid to do so. Are they now assuming a risk in revealing what they reveal and is anyone else likewise taking a risk in referring or linking to the posts in which they've done so?

Whilst reporting one's suspicions to the police in what one would hope to be confidence is obviously quite different from airing allegations in a publication, the nub of my concern is that, should we encourage ourselves to adopt a stance of silence being the least risk policy, might we instead run the risk of turning the self-same blind eyes and deaf ears to the kinds of incident that we now know to have been reported to certain people in senior positions at academic institutions who did just that? - and, as a consequence of our reticence, might we even feel less inclined to report certain suspicions to the police?

I accept that it is - or can be thought to be - something of a minefield. What do others here think about it?

[Nick Armstrong]

Most people (mods included!) don't have the time (nor is this the place, it seems to me) to ratiocinate so exhaustively about the issue. Isn't the message clear? On a forum such as this, zero risk is the approach: so don't do any of the things numbered 1. to 3. in the above message. (And see my message #21 above).

Caliban out.

[french frank]

a greyer area purely because it hides behind the notion of "allegations" as distinct from direct accusations

I'm not clear there's a distinction. Both allegations and accusations may result, or may already have resulted, in a charge. Once that happens, and before a conviction, you are likely to be in the realm of 'contempt of court' - jeopardising a fair trial. Members of the public are seldom aware of when a case becomes formally active rather than an investigation.

The safest thing is to discuss issues, rather than precise cases and circumstances. I think, for example, it was quite in order to discuss whether a particular (convicted) individual's recordings should be played on CD Review. It would not have been wise to have discussed the legal proceedings at the time.