After my previous article, Rebecca Redwood of Republic of Music, PR to the Z-list band, ‘Snayx’, reported me to police and had her solicitors send me a letter. I have had a short discussion with the very helpful investigating officer today. They have informed me that the matters complained of do not amount to harassment and the case will be closed. My article will remain up and the boycott campaign will continue. This outcome heaps further pressure on Zero 9:36, Kid Kapichi, Republic of Music and the 2000 Trees Festival to terminate their business relationships with the band.
Shamefully, the band ZERO 9:36 is allowing vile abusers Snayx to tour with them.
Brighton police have been very thorough and swift, but this attempt by Redwood to silence myself as a proven victim of sex crime for making legitimate criticisms of both she and her band are deeply concerning. It has failed. This matter is not over. My article, “Naming the Abusers: Ollie Horner, Charlie Herridge and Rebecca Redwood of Snayx UK” is not harassment and it will remain up. Supporting trial of sex crimes by Facebook post is abuse and those who do it can legitimately be called abusers of the accused and of their privileged platforms. Such behaviour undermines the cause of genuine victims of sex crime.
The preparations for civil action against Redwood by her victim – the unjustly accused frontman of another band – are still underway. The first step in a claim for defamation is a letter before action. After that, if there is no reply or it is unconvincing, a claim can be issued easily in the King’s Bench on CE-File and served promptly. Where a victim has a low income they are exempt from court fees. Things are likely to become expensive soon for someone.
why are my allegations never published?
What allegations? … you have never posted before under that name.
This blog has a written legal policy for comments. I will approve almost anything if it is not spam and not obviously false. As a website operator, I have an immunity under section 5 the Defamation Act 2013 for comments by third parties – https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/5/enacted. The defence applies even if I moderate comments – such as an approval queue. The reason the law specifically states moderation does not defeat the immunity (s5 (12)) is to encourage people to moderate. The defence can also be defeated by malice. At the moment I have been experimenting with turning off comment pre-approval and auto-approving non-spam posts – moderating after. I do not see how I can be accused of malice in relation to an auto-approved post.
I sometimes exercise discretion beyond the policy to protect vulnerable posters. In almost all cases where I have intervened, the poster has a legitimate point but I think they have inadvertently gone too far and exposed themselves to risk. In those cases I might edit the post by deleting parts of it. I might ask them to rephrase.
Also if someone reported a serious crime I might approve the post, or I might decide to not approve the post but forward it to police and social services. This is not to protect the accused, but to prevent them being tipped off – would not want someone to get away with it.
So if, for example, someone accused someone of a sex crime against a minor I might approve the post or I might forward it neutrally to police and social services.
I also use a spam tool that might silently block some posts.