Chances are you’re here to see if there’s any legal vulnerability you can exploit for your client. If you’ve their best interests at heart rather than needing the hours, my advice is to take some time to understand your target.
I don’t like Relx. Possibly if I was to draw up a list of parties in the world I dislike and need fixing, they’d now be in the top ten of the list.
Relx isn’t a soft target which I could personally contribute massively though. Not when I compare myself to people already fighting that good fight.
With the exception of informing people of what they’ve done, that’s about it.
Are you know considering whether the above could be construed as icaan definitions of extortionate practices?
My first instinct was fucking lawyers, but ok that’s fair.
Therefore to clarify this site, and any contents that isn’t inaccurate, will remain up for the full registration period. After which I will certainly ask any parties that are fighting the good fight if they want it, at no personal profit to myself. And this is regardless of any act or failure to act Relx does.
What the above is stressing is that Relx did something very bad. It had real (but improbable) risk. Including custodial sentences for the most perverse of reasons. Reasons which was argued in a court of law..
The “wtf” is also absolutely exactly what I was tempted to verbalise in regard to Relx decision making.
So instead it’s about stressing there is an opportunity cost is becoming an expert in bad shit Relx has done. If you contribute to that on the basis that “everything is arguable under the law”. And I think you’re trying it one based on legal fire power. Both my motivation increases and my opportunity costs are reduced (because you’ve done more bad shit).
And now for the not-exactly-legalese.
Everything on the site is “opinion”. Based on my opinion of referenced facts, that I referenced. It is accepted this opinion has been influenced from anecdotal evidence of many years of Relx prior practices. I therefore paid extra special attention to bias with content I left unposted..
While also considering the sheer quantity of anecdote evidence. And hardly from sources I’d consider unreliable.
I’d stake my name on everything written. Even if the outcome was a reputation of me talking a bunch of crap and it’s blatantly untrue.
If you allowed me.
The same principle means that even if you have no legal recourse I will happily consider editing anything that I think might be misleading to the reader, if argued on that basis, with a caveat. Which is obviously publishing any more information in relation to the gripe while that legal blocker exists.