That bastion of BBMoronic insanity London South East really are pushing the envelope out vis-à-vis what little (if any) credibility they think they have, with a snotty solicitors letter to the highly respected financial journalist Tom Winnifrith. Threats of dire financial ruin et al!LOL!
Winnifrith wrote an article castigating LSE for failing to correct Quindell (LON: QPP) data/information on their site from a supplier that was tantamount to market abuse. I believe the info was left in situ for 5 days. The Bods over at LSE believe that TW has caused them major reputational damage. How they work that one out is a mystery known only to them and their expensive solicitor. Winnifrith can be a monumental pain in the arse of that there is no doubt. But in essence he is a decent chap. Suffice it to say it’s a big mistake threatening TW with legal action. A phone call and a lively chat would probably have sorted it out and got them some much needed kudos. I’ve had many a ‘lively chat’ with TW, only recently I gave him a roasting over an issue which I felt he was taking the piss. But we are big enough to eventually cool down, move on and agree to disagree. That’s how it should be done. If LSE want to take TW to court then go ahead. They will lose and lose big. Of that there is no doubt.
The London South East site is populated in the main by BBMorons who continually post lies, defamations and wholesale abuse at any one who dares to vouch a negative opinion. It’s hypocritical to run the site, being quite happy to let the loons run amok posting lies, abuse & defamations, then claim you’ve been wronged. It’s a bit rich that LSE believe that they have suffered reputational damage from TW while at the same time allowing their site Members to continually post malicious abuse about him.
Of course they’ve stated that they get 8-10 thousand posts a day and can’t monitor the chat. LSE would like us all to believe it has no legal responsibility for what is posted by their registered Members. Wrong. Under the malicious communications act 2003 Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network. The general rule of UK defamation law is that the publisher of a defamation faces liability. Unfortunately, if the institution decides not to monitor its content or respond to complaints, whilst it is not likely to be classed as a primary publisher it is likely to be treated as not having taken reasonable care in relation to the publication and may therefore be treated as a secondary publisher. So here’s a question to the Bods at LSE. Have you taken reasonable care to remove ALL of the malicious abuse posted about Tom Winnifrith? After all you have been fully aware of it for months if not years?
There are a few well informed LSE posters who try to carry the flag of sanity but all too often most are subsequently banned. I myself was banned many years ago for “Insider trading” (complete bollocks) It really is a measure of the current insanity on LSE that they believe they’ve suffered major reputational damage. They have no reputation other than that of an UNREGULATED chat site. The site has no FCA accreditation.
They don’t provide genuine independent debate, comment or thought on finance. It’s a hotch potch of data feeds and AdSense advertisements. Every thing the site does is aimed at selling you a premium service; premium chat, premium RNS service, premium L2 etc. That’s not to knock the site it is well designed & user friendly. A good money spinner for the owners. You’ll note how the AdSense adverts are co-mingled in with the chat threads and next to frequently clicked on sectors, it’s all about cash generation which may explain why they haven’t got a dedicated chat monitor. Cost!
Instead of issuing childish solicitors letters no doubt urged on by their anonymous Member morons, they’d be much better off tackling their “abusive poster problem” by employing a dedicated chat monitor and making sure their data suppliers are not supplying bogus information. Problem solved.