5 ms·

> Frank was a student loan startup founded by Charlie Javice in 2016. In 2019, Javice was featured on the Forbes “30 under 30” There was a joke going around Tw

by pjc50 1y ago

> Frank was a student loan startup founded by Charlie Javice in 2016. In 2019, Javice was featured on the Forbes “30 under 30” There was a joke going around Twitter about "30 under 30 doing 30 to life", because the startups involved were getting more and more outlandish to the extent that bystanders suspected that fraud was going on. Became a Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/06/forbes-30-under-30-tech-finance-prison https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/06/forbes-30-u... Of course, a fraud can stay afloat for a lot longer than you expect. The really tricky case is when you're ordered to do something illegal or unethical for which there is substantial political cover. An executive order, for example. You cannot rely on anyone to back you up simply because of the letter of the law. Also: > The reality was that this was a very deliberate double charge. I could not share this fact at the time – as the company threatened me with libel after I informed them of this detail UK libel law routinely covers up all sorts of things which the public would benefit from having revealed, simply by the threat of an expensive lawsuit. It makes investigative journalism really uneconomic.

bloak 1y ago
> UK libel law routinely covers up all sorts of things which the public would benefit from having revealed, simply by the threat of an expensive lawsuit. It makes investigative journalism really uneconomic. But the worst horror stories date from before it was last reformed, in 2013, I think, and I feel the need to patriotically point out that Australian libel law is even worse!
- noir_lord 1y ago
  Another country having worse legislation doesn't really impact on how bad ours is though. Bad is bad.
bsenftner 1y ago
I've been doing this tech nonsense at moderately high levels for over 45 years now, and over the years I've had business dealings with members of these "30 under 30" lists, and every single fucking time it's a conman, a grifter. I don't even bother with heavily marketed individuals nor their flagships anymore. They are nonsense.
- graemep 1y ago
  It reminds me of one of two people (at the same time and place in my life) I was introduced to because they shared national origin (i.e. nationality at birth, or parents nationality) with me. One later got into the Sunday Times rich list (the under 40 section, IIRC) during the dot com bubble, by the simple expedient of lying. He claimed to be working on encryption software that was hugely valuable and said it was valued in billions. He actually owned a smallish local computer shop. He later fled the country claiming MI5 were persecuting him for developing such good encryption software. TO be fair, he seems to have fooled financial institutions too. He bought a Ferarri (presumably on credit) and Amex gave him a black card (which he tastefully put a picture of on the company website). It did not take a lot to see through the fraud, the actual business was decribed on the website. The other person I got introduced to around the same time for the same reason turned out to be a member of a terrorist organisation. Not banned here at the time, but still not someone I particularly wanted to meet.
harvey9 1y ago
Do any other countries have an equivalent to the UK's "super injunction"? This is where a court order says you're not allowed to talk about the court order itself nevermind the topic covered by the order.
- flir 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary That's probably a good starting point for a dive into that question.
  - scott_w 1y ago
    I remember a lot of fuss being made about these but, as time goes on, I'm very sceptical they can work. Looking at the Afghan data leak reported earlier this year: courts can make it practically difficult for most of the organisation to even know they're subject to court orders! The person updating the website asks "have we received a court order?" and the person under injunction must answer "not me." The website author isn't lying, but the website contains incorrect information (as the result of a legally-enforced lie). You could ask your lawyer but, once again, they'd also answer "no we haven't" because answering anything else is contempt of court at best.
    - nerdsniper 1y ago
      I'd think the CEO would know, would they not? And the CEO could tell the person updating the website: "Let's go ahead and remove the canary, we don't need it anymore." --> "OMG, did we get secretly subpoena'd?" ---> "No, not yet, but I just don't want to run the warrant canary anymore."
      - scott_w 1y ago
        The only way the CEO finds out is if they're made privy to the injunction, at which point they become subject to it. Even an oblique hint could be a breach of the injunction. Be honest: do you think a judge is stupid enough to believe you had the injunction explained to you by your legal counsel then, in a totally unrelated incident, thought "oh, I don't think we need the warrant canary any more."
abxyz 1y ago
> UK libel law routinely covers up all sorts of things which the public would benefit from having revealed, simply by the threat of an expensive lawsuit. It makes investigative journalism really uneconomic. No. The deference people have to the law as some sort of all knowing all powerful magic spell that can be cast to force silence at any time is to blame. Libel is publishing something you know to be untrue. The truth cannot be libel. If you want to speak the truth, if you want to act in service of the greater good, you must take the risk that you will attract attention from people who do not want you to speak the truth. And those people may use whatever power they have to suppress you, whether that's judicial or extrajudicial. That's not caused by any specific legal system, it's how people behave. Investigative journalism is uneconomic the world over. The U.K. has some of the best investigative journalism in the world. The U.K. legal system is far from perfect, but it is wrong to say that in this case, the U.K.'s libel laws (for all their flaws) kept this information secret. The irony is that the greatest suppressor of the truth is comments like yours which scare people into silence about the truth.
- pjc50 1y ago
  https://www.msrs.co.uk/the-libel-labyrinth-navigating-the-twists-turns-of-legal-costs/ https://www.msrs.co.uk/the-libel-labyrinth-navigating-the-tw... > The costs in this case were significant, with Vardy being ordered to pay a substantial proportion of Rooney’s legal fees. Initially, the court ordered Vardy to pay £1.5 million in costs, earlier this month, it was revealed that Vardy had been ordered to pay an additional £100,000, bringing the total to £1.6 million. https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/news/noel-clarke-ordered-to-pay-the-guardians-costs-of-defending-his-libel-action/ https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/news/noel-clarke-ordered-to-pay-... > In August, after a six week trial, the High Court upheld the Guardian’s defences of truth and public interest speech. > The trial judge, Steyn J, has now ordered Mr Clarke to pay £3m on account within 28 days, in respect of a likely eventual costs liability of over £6m. Those are cases where the defence won. But in those cases, (a) they have to front the legal fees themselves for a period of several years during the action and (b) there is a real risk that the person who filed the libel action may not be able to pay it. It very risky for an individual to defend a libel action, so almost everyone folds instantly on receiving a letter, or settles. An exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_v_Hopkins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_v_Hopkins - peak Twitter, sadly. Fortunately in this case justice prevailed and Katie Hopkins lost her house and life savings.

by pjc50 1y ago

bloak 1y ago

> UK libel law routinely covers up all sorts of things which the public would benefit from having revealed, simply by the threat of an expensive lawsuit. It makes investigative journalism really uneconomic. But the worst horror stories date from before it was last reformed, in 2013, I think, and I feel the need to patriotically point out that Australian libel law is even worse!

noir_lord 1y ago
Another country having worse legislation doesn't really impact on how bad ours is though. Bad is bad.

bsenftner 1y ago

I've been doing this tech nonsense at moderately high levels for over 45 years now, and over the years I've had business dealings with members of these "30 under 30" lists, and every single fucking time it's a conman, a grifter. I don't even bother with heavily marketed individuals nor their flagships anymore. They are nonsense.

graemep 1y ago
It reminds me of one of two people (at the same time and place in my life) I was introduced to because they shared national origin (i.e. nationality at birth, or parents nationality) with me. One later got into the Sunday Times rich list (the under 40 section, IIRC) during the dot com bubble, by the simple expedient of lying. He claimed to be working on encryption software that was hugely valuable and said it was valued in billions. He actually owned a smallish local computer shop. He later fled the country claiming MI5 were persecuting him for developing such good encryption software. TO be fair, he seems to have fooled financial institutions too. He bought a Ferarri (presumably on credit) and Amex gave him a black card (which he tastefully put a picture of on the company website). It did not take a lot to see through the fraud, the actual business was decribed on the website. The other person I got introduced to around the same time for the same reason turned out to be a member of a terrorist organisation. Not banned here at the time, but still not someone I particularly wanted to meet.

harvey9 1y ago

Do any other countries have an equivalent to the UK's "super injunction"? This is where a court order says you're not allowed to talk about the court order itself nevermind the topic covered by the order.

flir 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary That's probably a good starting point for a dive into that question.
- scott_w 1y ago
  I remember a lot of fuss being made about these but, as time goes on, I'm very sceptical they can work. Looking at the Afghan data leak reported earlier this year: courts can make it practically difficult for most of the organisation to even know they're subject to court orders! The person updating the website asks "have we received a court order?" and the person under injunction must answer "not me." The website author isn't lying, but the website contains incorrect information (as the result of a legally-enforced lie). You could ask your lawyer but, once again, they'd also answer "no we haven't" because answering anything else is contempt of court at best.
  - nerdsniper 1y ago
    I'd think the CEO would know, would they not? And the CEO could tell the person updating the website: "Let's go ahead and remove the canary, we don't need it anymore." --> "OMG, did we get secretly subpoena'd?" ---> "No, not yet, but I just don't want to run the warrant canary anymore."
    - scott_w 1y ago
      The only way the CEO finds out is if they're made privy to the injunction, at which point they become subject to it. Even an oblique hint could be a breach of the injunction. Be honest: do you think a judge is stupid enough to believe you had the injunction explained to you by your legal counsel then, in a totally unrelated incident, thought "oh, I don't think we need the warrant canary any more."

abxyz 1y ago

> UK libel law routinely covers up all sorts of things which the public would benefit from having revealed, simply by the threat of an expensive lawsuit. It makes investigative journalism really uneconomic. No. The deference people have to the law as some sort of all knowing all powerful magic spell that can be cast to force silence at any time is to blame. Libel is publishing something you know to be untrue. The truth cannot be libel. If you want to speak the truth, if you want to act in service of the greater good, you must take the risk that you will attract attention from people who do not want you to speak the truth. And those people may use whatever power they have to suppress you, whether that's judicial or extrajudicial. That's not caused by any specific legal system, it's how people behave. Investigative journalism is uneconomic the world over. The U.K. has some of the best investigative journalism in the world. The U.K. legal system is far from perfect, but it is wrong to say that in this case, the U.K.'s libel laws (for all their flaws) kept this information secret. The irony is that the greatest suppressor of the truth is comments like yours which scare people into silence about the truth.

pjc50 1y ago
https://www.msrs.co.uk/the-libel-labyrinth-navigating-the-twists-turns-of-legal-costs/ https://www.msrs.co.uk/the-libel-labyrinth-navigating-the-tw... > The costs in this case were significant, with Vardy being ordered to pay a substantial proportion of Rooney’s legal fees. Initially, the court ordered Vardy to pay £1.5 million in costs, earlier this month, it was revealed that Vardy had been ordered to pay an additional £100,000, bringing the total to £1.6 million. https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/news/noel-clarke-ordered-to-pay-the-guardians-costs-of-defending-his-libel-action/ https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/news/noel-clarke-ordered-to-pay-... > In August, after a six week trial, the High Court upheld the Guardian’s defences of truth and public interest speech. > The trial judge, Steyn J, has now ordered Mr Clarke to pay £3m on account within 28 days, in respect of a likely eventual costs liability of over £6m. Those are cases where the defence won. But in those cases, (a) they have to front the legal fees themselves for a period of several years during the action and (b) there is a real risk that the person who filed the libel action may not be able to pay it. It very risky for an individual to defend a libel action, so almost everyone folds instantly on receiving a letter, or settles. An exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_v_Hopkins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_v_Hopkins - peak Twitter, sadly. Fortunately in this case justice prevailed and Katie Hopkins lost her house and life savings.