Bad form?
Bitter and not sweet.
Food for thought.
Maybe the restaurateur will taste "legal" "just desserts"?
Not tasty.
Restaurateur jailed for customer sex profile revenge plan
A restaurant owner is facing 90 days of jail time and two years of probation after waging an online smear campaign, including setting up a fake online sex profile, to get revenge on a customer who gave her establishment a bad review. The saga began after of Canadian Elayna Katz went out to dinner at the Mambo Nuevo Latino …
-
Tuesday 20th November 2012 07:36 GMT JaitcH
In Ottawa, you say, the boring city on the Rideau Canal? Will keeping them talking for months!
For a country's capital city, Ottawa has to be one of the most boring perhaps only surpassed by Pyeong Yang.
The best view, apart from the roads departing the city, is of the Parliament Buildings sitting atop a cliff and viewed from Hull, Quebec. They also skate on the canal when t freezes over.
-
-
Tuesday 20th November 2012 08:53 GMT Warjort
And I thought the UK was bad?
I finally got around to registering here (I have avoided it for a very long time :-) just so I could post this...
"Criminal libel"? Are you serious Canada?
Libel is a civil offense in the UK. Under common law, you claim damages. i.e. money.
The basic assumption under UK law is that one citizen cannot prosecute another person and they go to prison (despite the attempts to change that under copyright law). That is the perogative of the Crown and only they can prosecute criminal offences.
As an aside, we do have stupid rules in the UK based on mob fads and "political correctness" where you can go to prison for using "bad words", less stupid "bullying", and good rules like "incitement to violence". The restrictions on speech is one of the reason I no longer live in the UK (and it is not because I want to use the bad words or bully people :-).
For completeness, you can go to prison if you lose a civil case and don't pay the fine. It is called "contempt of court".
-
Tuesday 20th November 2012 10:01 GMT Jay Holmes
Re: And I thought the UK was bad?
I believe that this was the correct course of action in this case. The restaraunteer massively over reacted and started a hate campaign over something that was posted online about her restaraunt. So yes lock her up, fine her and give her community service, she might think twice before doing it again.
To come back to your "aside" what restrictions on speech do we have in the UK, I am not aware of any. Have just read through the correct part and their are restrictions that are writ in law as follows:-
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.
“ Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
So the restrictions on freedom of speech are there to protect others got it. Its got sod all to do with stopping you from having an opinion the government doesnt agree with.
Why is it those that spout off about freedom of speech forget about the second half of that act?
-
Wednesday 21st November 2012 23:40 GMT PeteA
Re: And I thought the UK was bad?
Because the 2nd half of the act amounts to a charter to overrule the first; maintaining the authority of the judiciary and protection of morals are both classics used by authoritarian governments (of which, sadly, I fear the UK's has become). Maybe I should use the tinfoil-hat icon (damn, don't have one - Ed., please add before you go to the pub) but there's a reason I now routinely use a VPN-that-isn't-like-HMA (see https://vpn.hidemyass.com/vpncontrol/privacy.html and http://security.cbronline.com/news/second-lulzsec-hacker-faces-arrest-following-hidemyass-disclosure-report-270911) and have a high Wife Acceptance Factor despite the inconvenience (I'm also lucky enough to have a great wife :) )*
* the alternative statement commanded a 2nd try at virginity...
-
Tuesday 20th November 2012 10:10 GMT Brewster's Angle Grinder
Criminal Libel
Some quick wikipedia-ing suggests criminal libel was only abolished in the UK in 2010. Too soon to shout, me thinks.
-
Tuesday 20th November 2012 10:12 GMT jonathanb
Re: And I thought the UK was bad?
We had criminal libel in England until 2010. Nowadays it would be an offence under the Malicious Communications Act.
I don't think there should be absolute unrestricted freedom of speech, because you have to balance it with other people's rights. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and this case is very definitely on the wrong side of the line.
The basic assumption under English law is that one citizen most certainly can prosecute another person and they go to prison. The police are employed as full time "good citizens", who spend their time doing it on our behalf.
Finally, what is this "UK Law" thing you refer to? There is English (and Welsh) Law, there is Northern Irish Law which is very similar to English Law, and there is Scottish Law, which is very different.
-
Tuesday 20th November 2012 11:28 GMT David Dawson
Re: And I thought the UK was bad?
The basic assumption under English law is that one citizen most certainly can prosecute another person and they go to prison. The police are employed as full time "good citizens", who spend their time doing it on our behalf.
----------
YES.
I get so annoyed with the term 'civilian police employees'. Everyone in the police is a civilian, some have warrant cards and wear uniforms. They are not the army, they are not a militia, therefore they are all civilian.
-
Wednesday 21st November 2012 12:35 GMT Vic
Re: And I thought the UK was bad?
> I don't think there should be absolute unrestricted freedom of speech
I do.
However - and this is the important bit - I also believe that freedom comes with an associated responsibility towards others. So I *do* have the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre[1], but if there is no such fire, I can expect to pay a heavy penalty for so doing.
Vic.
[1] Although I wouldn't actually do that - it's unlikely to get many people out of the door...
-
Tuesday 20th November 2012 10:05 GMT JimmyPage
Criminal libel in the UK
is a very nasty charge to face (luckily only rich people can do it). Basically it's an accusation that the originator of the libel is so deliberately defaming, they need jailing. It also makes any part of the distribution chain responsible. For those interested, read up on the "Goldenballs" incident from the 1970s, where Private Eye was sued by Sir James Goldsmith. He launched a criminal libel writ, and had W H Smiths prosecuted (which is why they stopped selling Private Eye for years in the 70s and 80s).
-
Tuesday 20th November 2012 10:10 GMT Magnus_Pym
So...
...she doesn't like olives but still to went to the ' Mambo Nuevo Latino restaurant'. I would have thought the clue is in the name. I wonder if there is anything they do there that doesn't contain olives/olive oil/olive products. Did she also go to the 'American Big Beef Steak Diner - Steaks House' and say she didn't like steak?
-
Tuesday 20th November 2012 10:37 GMT gazzton
Re: So...
So by inference you feel the restaurateur's reaction justified?
I don't know the specific details of why she went to that particular restaurant (and I doubt you do either). Maybe she went with a group of friends, so didn't have free choice of venue?
In any event, can't see your point having any relevance to the case. It does say something about you though.
-
Tuesday 20th November 2012 11:28 GMT daveeff
Re: So...
So if you're a veggie married to a steak lover you should never eat out together?
The restaurant can always say "[sorry] we can't serve anything without olives". If they agree to provide something and you don't get what you've asked for you have a right to complain. They have been known to do that for my daughter to whom nuts may be fatal, we just have to say sorry we can't here then.
There is often a case to complain to the boss, minions can't change things, may not change their own ways, ... If the waiter/ess ordered no olives and the chef put them in then it requires the management to sort that out, bollocking the serving staff about what isn't their fault is no help to anyone.
Dave
-
-
Tuesday 20th November 2012 11:11 GMT VulcanV5
Customer from hell. . .
... meets restaurateur from hell. I've no sympathy for either of 'em: one detects just a leetle superiority in a customer who complains about olives in a place where olives are likely to be served in abundance and then hands out her business card, FFS, with the instruction that she be contacted with an explanation. Well of course, ma'am. Seeing as you are so-oooo very important.
-
Tuesday 20th November 2012 12:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
"The saga began after of Canadian"
I was going to make some kind of light-hearted witty comment about this syntactically adulterated phrase, but actually I'm getting pretty bored with the fact that EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ARTICLE on this site is riddled with this kind of nonsense.
I'm going to try to find a source for my news that isn't run by illiterate monkeys.
-
Tuesday 20th November 2012 13:07 GMT TechicallyConfused
For Real
This woman made all that fuss about a couple of olives . . . takes high maintenance to the next level.
Thing to bear in mind. . . Jambalaya is extremely unlikely to be prepared/cooked individually so any olives in there are kinda there to stay. What they should have done was let the woman know there were olives in it and ask if she wanted to change her order.
Of course pragmatism on her part would suggest she simply take out the olives as she ate. . but hey. . . leaving a business card asking the manager to call her is hardly something I would consider a productive use of my time.
-
Wednesday 21st November 2012 12:47 GMT Vic
Re: For Real
> pragmatism on her part would suggest she simply take out the olives as she ate.
That might not be enough.
If she has some sort of reaction to the olives, the food might still make her ill even after removing the olives[1].
I have an explosive reaction to mushrooms. It's painful having to explain to waiters that I'm not going to accept this meal that they assured me was free from mushrooms, and I'm not going to pick them out as that will still make me ill.
Vic.
[1] If she does have a reaction to olives, it would make it a rather silly thing to do to go to a mediterranean-style restaurant. Nonetheless, that doesn't excuse the restaurateur's behaviour...
-
-
Wednesday 21st November 2012 01:08 GMT SteveD
My brother has an allergy to eggs, he can't eat anything with even a small amount of egg. Not sure if there is an allergy to Olives.
I have found in the UK that waitresses and chefs, go out of their way to help, to the point of a meal not being on the menu being created.. That goes to small cafes also.
If you ask for a food stuff not to be included you expect that it is not
-
Saturday 24th November 2012 16:03 GMT James 100
Taking criticism badly
I once posted a negative review of a local Mexican restaurant (we'd been regular customers; my brother had an ulcer and wanted something non-spicy, so ordered his regular order "extra-mild" - it arrived with a pile of sliced chili pepper on top!). Strangely, the next review posted had the same name on it as the reply to our email complaint to the manager, only he didn't sign the review "customer service manager"...
This one really takes the biscuit, but why can't these people just accept they screwed up and try to improve? It's not as if the complaint was subjective, like being "too spicy", "too salty" - but "no olives" and it has a load of olives in, it's as clear-cut as it gets!
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
