ONLINE TROLLING: WHEN PLAYING DEVIL’S ADVOCATE IS NO DEFENCE

ONLINE TROLLING: WHEN PLAYING DEVIL’S ADVOCATE IS NO DEFENCE Until last week East London GP Dr. Arvind Madan held the prestigious post of Director of Primary Care for NHS England. Charged with providing clinical leadership for the transformation of primary care provision, Dr. Madan was effectively the most senior GP in the country. Not anymore. Following revelations that he had created the online profile ‘Devil’s Advocate’ and had repeatedly posted comments that were highly critical of GPs on a widely read medical online publication; Dr. Madan has abruptly resigned his post.

While there is no evidence that his posts were defamatory or amounted to an invasion of privacy, the case is interesting because it raises important issues about how we can tackle social media abuse and trolling. Negative comments posted online have huge potential to damage both the personal and commercial interests of our clients. Dr. Madan’s case shows that what we post and share online is under scrutiny as never before.

HOW WAS DR. MADAN’S ONLINE IDENTITY REVEALED? The Pulse is an online news platform used by GPs and medical professionals to discuss issues of concern, including the development and organisation of GP practices across the country. One poster ‘Devil’s Advocate’ repeatedly commented negatively about the structure of GP surgeries and working practices. Among the suggestions made were that doctors should be pleased to see small practices shut down.

Devils Advocate also exhorted GPs to think about the public’s reaction to doctors earning six figure salaries for working four-day weeks without carrying out any on call duties. Readers of The Pulsewere incensed by the comments and had already begun to piece together clues suggesting ‘Devil’s Advocate’ was in fact Dr. Madan. The Dr.then gave a formal interview in his role as NHS Director to The Pulse that appeared to closely resemble Devil’s Advocates views. Shortly afterwards, Dr. Madan resigned – admitting that he had indeed posted anonymously on The Pulse.

YOUR LEGAL OPTIONS WHEN FACED WITH DAMAGING ONLINE CONTENT Dr. Madan’s case is unusual. The Pulse readership guessed his identity and he was left with no option but to resign and apologise for the comments. Any damage his comments may have done to the profession was quickly minimised. But we encounter many cases where material is posted anonymously that is defamatory, breaches privacy or is in some other way damaging to a client. When there is no way of knowing who is responsible for the comments and it is difficult to secure the quick removal of the material, clients can be negatively impacted commercially and personally.

As GP agreement lawyers Nath Solicitors in London can help you quickly get to grips with the fallout of damaging material posted online. For example: 

We may approach posters (if known) to secure voluntary removal of objectionable content



By informally approaching third parties such as Twitter and Facebook to request removal of material on their sites



Where you do not know the identity of the online poster we can request online platforms to provide us with the identity of the poster so that we can take legal action against a named party



By using a Norwich Pharma Order to oblige a third party to identify someone who has undermined your legal position. Again this will enable us to pursue legal action against that individual

At Nath we are ,advise individuals and companies from the UK and overseas on defamation, privacy and related issues.

Less public tolerance of unacceptable online behavior means many online platforms and publishers are more receptive to an approach from us concerning objectionable material.

As a result we are often able to resolve your online defamation and privacy concerns speedily and without recourse to the courts. For more information please call us on +44 (0) 203 670 5540 or contact us online .