[petejh]

You'll get no argument from me that in that instance the way those people acted (or more accurately 'not acted') enabled the abuser and dismissed the abused.

But you've started this thread specifically talking about Honnold (and Jorgensen) 'coming out of this not looking good'. And you continued to press your point that Honnold was 'stupid' and should have 'held Barrett to account'. This is what I'm specifically countering - your assertions about Honnold's actions/thought process. Not anyone else you want to bring in to your point - those goalposts aren't the goalposts you started with. There are clearly loads of people who acted poorly/didn't act when they should have.

I don't get the impression from that Outside article that Honnold was one of them, as you assert.

[Wellsy]

Well I honestly think they did gloss over it, my point in the post you responded to was "it's not going to be normal and acceptable for us to gloss over abuse any more?" Which I think would be a good thing

What are you arguing for anyway? What's your point here? That them ignoring it was understandable and..  what? My personal opinion is that the quotes speak poorly of those people. You might disagree. Fine. But what are you actually arguing for?

[petejh]

But you've started this thread specifically talking about Honnold (and Jorgensen) 'coming out of this not looking good'. And you continued to press your point that Honnold was 'stupid' and should have 'held Barrett to account'. This is what I'm specifically countering - your assertions about Honnold's actions/thought process. Not anyone else you want to bring in to your point - those goalposts aren't the goalposts you started with. There are clearly loads of people who acted poorly/didn't act when they should have.

I don't get the impression from that Outside article that Honnold was one of them, as you assert.

[shark]

Folk

This has been flagged up to me.

You need to be a 100% sure of all your facts here when publicly publishing this stuff about named individuals as untrue statements of this nature are defamatory where you might potentially be held liable.

I don’t know anything at all about him other than vague recollection of routes that he claimed so am completely in the dark.

My instinct is to be on the safe side and take the relevant posts down but will discuss with the other mods.

[Wellsy]

Is it defamatory to say that someone who has been convicted for sexually abusing children is a serial sex offender and child abuser?

[Ru]

The concern, and it might be unfounded, is whether the person who was found guilty is definitely the same person as the one being discussed.

[shark]

I’m on a cragging day in Spain with average reception and a low battery.

I don’t the named person or who the UKB poster is so in the circumstances I’ve removed the relevant posts at least for the time being.

[seankenny]

Is it defamatory to say that someone who has been convicted for sexually abusing children is a serial sex offender and child abuser?

No, making a “fair and accurate” report of a court case has qualified privilege so is generally not defamatory. But, as Ru says, it needs to be clear who is being identified. Usually in the media that’s covered by age and a rough address but even that sometimes has not been enough, and obviously with a common name that’s an issue.

But there have been several posts on this thread which I think are either defamatory or close to it, although you’d have to get a libel lawyer to check it out to be sure the statements pose a risk. It’s worth saying that defamatory statement doesn’t need to name an individual for that individual to make a claim, merely that they can be identified. I am not up to speed on how far the definition of “reasonable person” goes and how much that is domain specific, but given that I and many other UKB readers certainly understood who was being discussed it would seem to me prudent to remove those posts.

Full disclosure I’m obviously not a lawyer but I worked as a journalist many years ago and had a working knowledge of defamation law. I’m super rusty these days though and there was a new act in 2013, so I could easily be wrong. I would also tend towards a conservative approach!

[Moo]

I ran into somebody the other day who knew charlie barrett directly. He was totally shocked when I told him about the article and associated allegations. I guess it goes to show how little we can know about people we climb with or run into at the crag on a regular basis.

[mrjonathanr]

I think this naivety (about our own good judgement) leads to a false self-confidence that 'I would spot this sort of person/thing' and 'I would never allow that sort of thing/person to get away with that sort of thing' because 'I'd hold them to account'.

This. 

I also think it's best to be very careful about repeating rumours as, libel aside, if they are not based on something you have good evidence for/ very strong reason to believe to be true, they might be damaging an individual innocent of those allegations.

[Baron]

I'm Joe Brown Shark. Ru and many others know me.

This 100% the same person.

The BBC piece I cited is accurate, but I accept that it makes no link between the offender and his work as an outdoor instructor; therefore mentioning him in that context is unfair. I'd rather leave it to the cops to investigate what, if any, link there was between what he was convicted for and his chosen line of work.

[shark]

Thanks Joe

I’ll make some enquiries. Like you say it could be that offences weren’t related to his instruction work.

[Baron]

Sorry to be a pain!

Agree completely - there may well be no link between the two. Yes, best leave this sort of thing to the police.
Feel free to zap any posts you like.

I first heard about this case a few months ago. Very few of my climbing/instructing mates seemed aware of it, which made me uncomfortable given the guys background. I thought it justified a conversation and, if nothing else, served as a reminder why safeguarding/DBS checks remain important.

Hope you're well and Spain is good. Still using your famous mid-crux battle cry, "10% power!!!"? Ha ha!

[shark]

Sorry to be a pain!

Agree completely - there may well be no link between the two. Yes, best leave this sort of thing to the police.
Feel free to zap any posts you like.

I first heard about this case a few months ago. Very few of my climbing/instructing mates seemed aware of it, which made me uncomfortable given the guys background. I thought it justified a conversation and, if nothing else, served as a reminder why safeguarding/DBS checks remain important.

Hope you're well and Spain is good. Still using your famous mid-crux battle cry, "10% power!!!"? Ha ha!

Think you are confusing me with Simon Reed !

[Baron]

Of course - sorry!

[duncan]

Barrett found guilty

[andy popp]

Good, of course.

'“This defendant used his renown and physical presence as a rock climber to lure and intimidate victims who were part of the rock-climbing community. His violent sexual assaults were devastating to the victims, whom he later threatened in the lead-up to trial,” said U.S. Attorney Talbert.' The prosecuting attorney clearly believed some community effects were at work in these events (which is not to say such effects are unique or specific to the climbing community). 

[slab_happy]

A useful concept to drop into the discussion, in case people aren't already familiar with it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair