I'm still wondering why critique of a supplier, product or service is suddenly a sue-able offense. Because it's not. I don't know why anyone is worrying about that at all.
I can use the words totally wicked as I see fit. In whatever context I see fit. As critique.
Are TW going to now go all over YouTube and attempt to sue anyone who has ever conducted a bad review of one of their products? Unlikely.
I mean. I can review a film, say it's terrible and advise people not to waste their time and money going to see it. I won't get sued for this opinion as it falls under the remit of critique.
reviews of companies and their products and services essentially fall within this remit as well.
Threats of legal action literally can't stop people being able to have personal opinions of a company or their product.
For example.
I can't stand Heinz Baked Beans. They make me feel sick. I think the company that make them are terrible, for inventing such a nasty product that make me feel ill. Ugh! If I were you I wouldn't buy them from Heinz. I think they will make you feel sick too.
It's my opinion. Heinz Baked Beans can't sue me for having this opinion. Nor will they.
Even if I work for Campbells Baked Beans and think they are better. I'm still entitled to publish my own opinions on a product. No court in the land would see this as in any way libellous. It's just conjecture. Opinion. and even in the context of me having a "vested interest" in putting down Heinz Baked Beans. It's still only an opinion.
If the OP is even slightly true, then there may be some issues regarding a bias against TW. I'm not even sure if this is the case and seems a little paranoid in a way. Everyone knows that reviews on that forum were SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS ONLY. Conducted by people who are essentially trying to help out their fellow consumers by reviewing and giving their opinions on products or services. Even if the moderation policy is as TW say, which I doubt. There isn't really much that they can sue for.
Essentially, perhaps UKV were being a little naive, but then they never expected this storm I guess. I never once saw a personal attack against an individual until the other day when an individual came in and literally incited some. I think this point about incitement is the defence. For example. If fellamelad had just not said anything at all. This wouldn't have happened, nobody would be sueing or threatening anyone else with legal action. You can't go manipulating a reaction and use this as ammunition for litigation. I don't know, and I'm not a lawyer, but I think this could be seen as perjury.