-
I'd say aerocoach would have a reasonable claim to probable financial loss tbh, and just because you might not get your costs back isn't a great reason to let his bullshit continue on unchecked imo.
boredom-
just because you might not get your costs back isn't a great reason to let his bullshit continue on unchecked
It's not a great reason, but it's a good one. A basic rule of business is that any action should have a cost:benefit<1, and instructing solicitors to commence a defamation action against hambini is unlikely to meet that test.
I'm just talking about the question of defamation, which is expensive to prosecute and uncertain in outcome. There might be other avenues to reduce hambini's ability to get his message out which do stand up to cost:benefit analysis. Apparently Twitter already think they're better off without him, maybe YouTube will too if his descent into madness continues and enough people file reports of possible ToS violations.
gbj_tester
You might like to see it, but what's the cause of action? In the case of named individual persons, mere vulgar abuse is not defamation. Corporate bodies would need to show actual or probable financial loss, and in either case the test is whether the statement causes the regard in which the subject is held by right thinking or reasonable persons to be lowered. I would argue that hambini is himself so disreputable that no right thinking or reasonable person would have their views about somebody else altered by his statements.
Even if you could persuade a court that he had defamed you, why would you bother? He's a grunt level engineer, he'd be bankrupt before you'd even got half your costs back.