Silencing the opposition
SOME aspects of the changeover from British Waterways to CaRT have recently been brought sharply into focus for me by the accusation of libellous content levelled by CaRT at Pamela Smith, editor of the small Kennet & Avon Boaters Community Website, writes Pam Pickett.
CaRT has it seems taken umbrage at the publishing of information with regards to ‘Drifters' and the involvement of CaRT's Head of Boating with the hire boat industry.
Why so touchy
With the information published already being in the public domain by virtue of the Freedom of Information Act and seen to be in the public interest, one can only ask why CaRT is so ‘touchy' on this subject? The Trust has also taken umbrage to a cartoon type logo published on the Kennet & Avon Boaters Community website and has accused Pamela Smith of ‘malicious mockery of its logo calculated to disparage the Trust'.
I must assume here that it is the wording ‘No Boats Trust Us' on the ‘cartoon logo' that is causing offence, although given the lack of inclusion of our boats in the Trust's advertising I'd have thought this might be rather apt comment?
Want solicitors' address
With the foregoing in mind, and stated as 'therefore defamatory', with Pamela Smith, editor of the website having now been asked for the address of her solicitor, I took it upon myself to read up at length on the duties of the Charity Commission that one would have thought could intervene in a case such as this. However, correct me if I'm wrong (and I have no doubt someone will if I am!) but as I see it the Charity Commission has few if any ‘teeth', leaving the Canal & River Trust a virtually self-regulatory body, short of course of major fraud.
Therefore, whilst British Waterways could be criticised by boaters, it appears the ‘Derbyshire' principle that allowed us to do so without risk of ending up in court is ignored by the Trust that is seemingly happy to threaten libel action should it not like what it reads.
Apparently as in this case, unless that is, Pamela Smith is prepared not only to apologise, but to also make an ‘undisclosed charitable donation' to the Trust!
Unusual Interpretation
It might be that I've watched too many of the skipper's Mafia type movies but I'm afraid I have to ask, given its request to Pamela Smith if the Trust couldn't be applying a rather ‘unusual interpretation' to ‘charitable donation'? If this is to be the way forward for CaRT to raise funds then we'd all be best to watch what we say, lest we too are to be asked to provide ‘undisclosed charitable donations' by way of recompense!
It seems to me that whilst the pockets of we boaters are welcomed by CaRT, our voices most certainly aren't, regardless of whether what we have to say could be deemed to be in the public interest. Not I think one of the better moments for the Trust's public relations department given its wish to win friends and influence giving!
[The 'Derbyshire' principle has previously established that a public authority cannot sue for defamation although if the reputation of an individual officer is impaired by a publication attacking the activities of the authority, that individual (our italics) can bring a claim for defamation. Having sight of the letter confirms it is Canal & River Trust threatening to sue Pamela Smith for defamation, yet to do so is not acting within the law. It demanding an apology and a donation is little short of intimidation, and a complaint to the Charities Commission would be in order—Editor]