Reply to Admin Re Z Thread Sticky.

[Maesfen]

As you gave us no option to reply to your thread this morning can I just ask what has MAY got to do about it?

I quote from your post -

" The H&H news team is investigating the story and may report on it in due course once our investigations into the matter are complete."

This is one of the biggest breaking stories for a lot of your readers; some breeders have been clearly duped which could have dire consequences for them.
If you do not publish an article about the ramifications then you are letting your readers, particularly breeders, who you insist you support, down very badly.

There is no may about it; it is a MUST!

I am not one of the breeders involved but I feel a deep sense of injustice for them if you sweep it under the carpet as it seems you might.

 

[HHO admin]

We have no intention of sweeping anything under the carpet. Until we have investigated the matter, including speaking to all parties involved, we do not know if there is a story that can be published at this stage or not. Should legal action be taken by either of the parties involved we would have to wait until the outcome of that or risk being found guilty of prejudicy. Please leave the matter in the capable hands of the news desk, who are working on it as we speak.

HHO Admin

 

[JanetGeorge]

C'mon - be fair. Admin HAD to remove the thread - given that either side (or both) could have used it to bring a libel action against IPC (and libel actions are expensive and time consuming to defend - even if you win - and there is NO such thing as a guaranteed win in a libel case!)

ANYTHING might happen to prevent IPC reporting on the subject (not least the commencement of libel proceedings by either party!) It may be that it's not really as important a story as we think at this stage and is just a falling out between business 'partners'. It may prove impossible to get the 'real' story. It may be that the editor OR IPC lawyers view a completed story and decide to spike it for very good reasons.

Admin has acted correctly and I'm sure that the matter will be investigated and that - if it is at all possible - we will read about it in H&H as soon as it is possible to clarify the situation.

 

[Maesfen]

Thank you for that but please remember when it's all done and dusted that we won't have forgotten because the man slandered several good people while on this forum as well so they need closure to redeem their good names that he has besmirched (if that is the right word!)

 

[alleycat]

Whilst the legal ramifications of this particular case may dictate what H&H can say about it, the general principle- what breeders / studs / agents can expect from each other IS something that SHOULD be addressed, surely- and as quickly as possible now that the breeding season is upon us.

Zangersheide are clearly willing to help the breeders caught up in this case- but another instance involving a DIFFERENT semen agent and a DIFFERENT stud has recently been mentioned on another forum; in this case the defaulting agent cannot be contacted and the stud will NOT support the breeder.

For the sake of this year's breeders and without reference to particular cases, Horse and Hound's panel of experts could surely suggest ways in which breeders can protect themselves; what insurance to have, how to ensure the breeder is not penalised if the agent defaults, etc.

 

[Maggie2]

I agree wholeheartedly with alleycat, there is no need to be specific at this stage, a considered article on the possible pitfalls of imported semen does not need to mention any indivudual, or stud for that matter.

As more and more mare owners try to improve the quality of their stock by importing the best semen possible, it is only fair that they should be able to find out the ins and outs.

It would be no different to running an article, as has been done before, on 5 Stage vettings, what is involved and what happens if there is a dispute. If, at the same time, there was a court case in the offing it has no bearing on it.

 

[FinnishLapphund]

Although I understand that there is rules and laws to be followed for both HHO and users, I also think it's far to easy for somebody that disagrees to make a bad reply and all suddenly a not too offensive thread contains reasons to be deleted.

 

[BSM456]

Do you people never learn?

HHO have removed the thread because of the massive liability they carry regarding Libel (slander is verbal by the way).

1 - The letter in the first place was of a private nature, but heavily libeled Ken Rehill.

2 - The individual who posted the letter is also heavily liable and as I hear it, once court orders are received, her IP address will be requested from HHO, who have already agreed to give this information. Once done, she will be pursued through the courts.

3 - The "other" forum and it's owner will find themselves in exactly the same position. It's too late to do anything about it, as the evidence has already been collected and sits with Ken Solicitors.

MFH, to suggest that HHO are taking down threads for commercial reasons is frankly insulting to Carol Phillips and her team. They are very professional in what they do, and are bound by contract never to allow advertising to influence editorial or content. I'm sure that there will be an article about this, I know that Ken is pushing for one so that the truth can be discussed. However, they are unlikely to print anything whilst there is a libel case (or three) in the offing, as they are professionals and their legal department wouldn't let them touch this with a barge pole until there is a resolution.

Regarding mare owners getting what they've paid for, it seems to me that in the case of Zangersheide all clients have got what they paid for. They received an invoice, they paid, they received their product and in the main I believe their mares are pregnant. That Melchior is being seen to do the right thing is purely because he has been paid on account by Ken, he knows it and that is the only reason he is completing on the deal. If he hadn't been paid, I don't think these mare owners (and I'm one of them) would be getting quite the same response from Zangersheide.

To be honest Alleycat (and I'm not sure what your concern is here, you're not actually a breeder) you're blowing the situation out of all proportion. The biggest debate was about a receipt. And here is where some of you are so uneducated, sadly. When you buy a Mars bar you get a receipt right? But that's because you haven't been invoiced. When these agents are invoicing you, they don't need to provide a receipt in law. That's why you'll rarely get one from a stud farm or their agent. In many years of breeding, I have never received one, it doesn't concern me as I have an invoice and bank transaction receipt and a pregnant mare. Sometimes I get a covering certificate, but with Z never have. It doesn't concern me, as in order to get a set of papers from a credible stud book (ie all those on the Continent) the foal and mare are DNA tested anyway. So what's the big deal?

The system has worked for years perfectly well, just because a couple of hysterical mare owners demand something they wouldn't normally get (a receipt???? dear god get a perspective). I think you'll find that there's no need whatsoever to put anything in place to protect you more than you already are.

I think what we have noticed here in recent months is a number of UK based stallion owners winding quite innocuous situations up, into a frenzy and using small breeders who seemingly know nothing about the business and how it works as the guns which fire the bullets. Fortunately, the market isn't stupid and won't fall for it. Thus, the agents and the European based stallions will continue to trade and be successful, because the majority of breeders are actually quite intelligent people.

Don't forget, that we have heard/seen as many bad stories regarding UK based stallions and stud farms as we have from the Continent. Fortunately, on both sides of the channel, these cases represent less than 1% of the sales and so you really need not worry, that pretty good for any industry. Keep a perspective and stay calm.

 

[Meg2]

[ QUOTE ]
Whilst the legal ramifications of this particular case may dictate what H&H can say about it, the general principle- what breeders / studs / agents can expect from each other IS something that SHOULD be addressed, surely- and as quickly as possible now that the breeding season is upon us.

Zangersheide are clearly willing to help the breeders caught up in this case- but another instance involving a DIFFERENT semen agent and a DIFFERENT stud has recently been mentioned on another forum; in this case the defaulting agent cannot be contacted and the stud will NOT support the breeder.

For the sake of this year's breeders and without reference to particular cases, Horse and Hound's panel of experts could surely suggest ways in which breeders can protect themselves; what insurance to have, how to ensure the breeder is not penalised if the agent defaults, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I whole heartedly agree!! This years breeders intending to use agents need to be made aware of this potential problem, but in the case of the other agent it would appear that the stud are victims too.

 

[eventrider23]

In the case of the letter....it was a personal correspondnce for the OP and thus hers to do with as she wished...the fact also stood that a similar letter was winging its way to H&H for publication...dependant on whether they wished to publish the truth or not...

I find it shocking and laughable that you, like Ken, have never received a receipt for a stud transaction....this is Business 101....especially for tax purposes!!!

Regarding the so called non existent service certificates....Z's own website and catalogues themselves say they are indeed issued....to top it off the head guys at Z themselves have verbally agreed that these are issued....so why is it that you still say that they aren't????? At end of day, if they did not issue them as you say and the mare were to be sold....how is the person to prove the fee is paid, etc.? YES I am not stupid and know that the foal can and will be DNA tested, howeverDNA is not proof that the covering is legally legit!

I also know for a FACT that Ken himself believed H&H to be swayed occasionally by advertising....the reason I know this is that we heard this from him himself as he was ranting about them having an article on X stud alongside massive ads! He also told us that as part of his advertising contract he arranged certain amounts of article space as well in exchange for a certain length of run.....this was NOT me that brought the subject up but Ken himself!

 

[BSM456]

[ QUOTE ]
in the case of the other agent it would appear that the stud are victims too.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making some big assumptions again. Let us not forget that there are many instances throughout the breeding season, where mare owners are not saints. I hear horror stories from studs and stallion owners and agents about UK based mare owners who don't pay and act like total psychopaths. It's like this on both sides, but still an absolute minority. For those of you NOT involved in business (and some of you who are), sometimes thing don't go totally to hand. When there are problems, it often takes both sides to resolve an issue, and in cases where one side doesn't want to (or chooses to libel the other party during the process), there will rarely be a good conclusion regardless of best desires of the other party. Always a shame.

 

[HHO admin]

Just to clarify, advertising in H&H does not in any way influence editorial content. Regardless of what anybody outside of the magazine suggests, editorial decisions are never based on advertising.

HHO Admin

 

[kit279]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that in libel lawsuits, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove falsity or negligence. The defendant is not required to prove that the allegations are true. In addition to which, the London High Court ruled in 2007 that the right to privacy outweighed the right to protect a reputation simply because defamatory comments were trivial, and rejected an attempt to identify forum users. Food for thought.

 

[henryhorn]

I,m sorry but really, who on earth is going to believe anyone will pursue this matter through the courts, not me for a start!
Taking someone to court for libel is incredibly expensive and time consuming never mind difficult to prove.
There is also the question that the material published was correspondence received, so as such was the property of the poster, and therefor not demafamatory (so says my tame QC)
A barrister costs from £1000 upwards per day, so pull the other leg, if according to Z you haven't got the money to pay them, somehow I very much doubt you can afford to spend possibly thousands' of pounds on a court case...
There is also the question that if you lose, the costs would be massive, plus if there is any hope of salvaging any business being plastered across the papers is hardly the way to do it!
You can post on here a million times, but the majority of people have made their minds up from past experience with you, you are an out and out bully.
As for the tone of your reply, who do you think you are, ADMIN?

 

[AmyMay]

[ QUOTE ]
There is also the question that the material published was correspondence received, so as such was the property of the poster, and therefor not demafamatory (so says my tame QC)

[/ QUOTE ]
That's just one barrister's opinion, however, and with the increased use of forums and social networking sites such as facebook - it won't be long until there is a case which sets the president for this.

 

[JanetGeorge]

[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that in libel lawsuits, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove falsity or negligence. The defendant is not required to prove that the allegations are true. In addition to which, the London High Court ruled in 2007 that the right to privacy outweighed the right to protect a reputation simply because defamatory comments were trivial, and rejected an attempt to identify forum users. Food for thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong. In a libel case it is up to the defendant to prove that what they said was true - and it's not always easy!! And at the end of the trial, it all hinges on what the JURY believes.

And while a court MAY hold that the right to privacy is sacrosanct, IPC is the 'publisher' of any defamatory comments made on this forum which is why they MUST remove them to mitigate any libel. It may not save them completely - but to allow defamatory comments to remain on display would put them completely on the back foot if a case was brought.

The BHS forum (remember it) was removed completely because of a very real threat of a libel action - the time taken to monitor it sufficiently to avoid such situations was just too great. Remember THAT, next time anyone is tempted to write anything potentially defamatory! Just because YOU believe it isn't true (or that you won't be identified for someone to sue YOU) the very HIGH likelihood is that a serious threat to IPC will result in this forum being closed down!

 

[Amelia]

.

BSM456: As you are NOT KR - You need to let Ken sort this 'situation' out himself .

Winding up forum members is not the answer and tbh you are winding things up by hinting that you know the comings & goings of Kens business .

I am sure the full story will become known in good time and having met Ken - I can honestly say that he doent need his hand held .

Lets move on & let KR sort things out with Z

and enjoy the forum

.

 

[jeanette10]

I do not know anything about the circumstances surrounding this; however I am looking at some of the legal issues posed.

Firstly, I am puzzled about your comment regarding the websites - In that you have two websites that have a user post the exact same information, yet the claimant is not taking action against H&H who has over 35,000 members, 1000's of hits per day and a world wide audience. Yet is talking about making a claim against a "playground" (your words) forum, which I presume is a detrimental word for small and insignificant, which I am again presuming has little membership or an audience of any kind.

Therefore if you were to try and claim against a smaller publication, any damages that "may" have been caused would be so insignificant that I doubt any Lawyer worth his salt would say it was worth going for, and the legal costs before you even get to a court (if you get to court) would be huge. Furthermore, where a judge is satisfied that either the claimant or the defendant has no realistic chance of success at trial, he may dismiss the claim.


Also worth noting is the following:

1. Through several posts done by yourself (BSM) and Mr Rehill, you have broke several client confidentialities, where legal action could be taken by those mare owners whose information has been passed on unknowingly and without consent.

2. Mr Rehill is duty bound as an agent for his responsibilities for his mare owners. Therefore if he has not fulfilled his side of the contract to them (i.e. proof of payment for birth certs) then he has broken contracts, which also have legal consequences. In theory he could also potentially be sued for knowingly providing inaccurate information under trading standards (as he is selling a service).

3. Through yourself (BSM) and Mr Rehill, you have both made so many posts on HHO that are libellous in nature against stud names and individual users that you could also be looking at many Libel suits in the offing. Like you have said the claimants in this can also ask for IP addresses and copies of all deleted posts which show the defamatory remarks made by both of you. Also, if there are several claimants, they could in theory all get together to make one very big Libel case against both you and Mr R.

Lastly regarding Libel cases, the following are taking into consideration in court:

In certain circumstances, the law regards freedom of speech to be more important than the protection of reputation and allegations that may be false and defamatory will nevertheless be protected by the defence of privilege.

The most common form is qualified privilege where the defendant has a "legal, moral or social duty or interest" in making the publication and the recipients have a corresponding duty or interest in reading or hearing them. More recently the courts have expanded the concepts of duty and interest to protect the media when they publish material on a matter of public interest which they reasonably believe to be true.

Lastly regarding damages awarded, the following is taking into consideration - Whether there is an element of truth in the publication. If the jury believes that the justification defence has only barely failed it could award only a nominal sum in damages. Also if it is proved that the claimant has a bad reputation this can mitigate damages.

 

[cruiseline]

I would just like to ask Anet the following.

Hasn't KR breached confidentiality's of his clients by discussing not only Z business (including all the financial circumstances - which we all know about now), but also mare owners business with BSM, who has then placed it on an open forum. Surely Z could take legal action against BSM, who has nothing to do with it, an outside person so to speak.

And if BSM is in fact KR, it surely will all come out in the open because BSM will have to reveal himself to everyone concerned.

Just a thought.

 

[no_no_nanette]

It may be just a thought, but your thoughts are golden!