Part 1 of this series acts as a primer for this and subsequent Insight articles on the making of reputational threats. It can be read here.
In exploring a set of our high-priority cases involving threats to harm, it was interesting to note that the majority of cases in the sample involved single or multiple threats to harm reputation, and of these, that roughly one third had been carried out or were in progress of being carried out at the point of referral to Theseus for risk assessment.
Which begged an obvious question: was there anything about these particular reputational threats to suggest that they were more likely to be carried out than those that were not?
The answer appears, in our casework at least, to be yes.
When it comes to the reputational threat we are interested, among other things, in the nature of the allegation, for example whether it concerned sexual, physical or emotional abuse, or fraudulent behaviour. And importantly, whether the allegation is ostensibly “true”, or whether it is “clearly made up”.
Within our sample, of the cases involving reputational threats which were carried out or were in progress at the point of referral to Theseus, 73.7% had clearly been made up, whereas, of the cases which were not carried out, only 15% had clearly been made up.
Looked at another way, in the cases where the threat was clearly made up, 70% were acted upon, whereas of the reputational threats making allegations that were true, only 12.8% were carried out.
So there seems to be an inverse relationship between the veracity of a reputational threat and the likelihood it will be acted upon.
Why might so many of the untrue reputational threats have been carried out? Aminatta Forna’s statement rings true here and may be part of the explanation.
Inability to accept fact; to accept that we cannot always have what we want; that life can sometimes seem unfair, can often drive action on threats designed to distress or coerce the recipient, or to protect the threatener’s own sense of themselves, regardless of the root cause of their animus.
Dr. David James, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at Theseus, commented: “For some people, their underlying grievance becomes so dominant in their lives that they cannot afford to contemplate the possibility that it might have no merit. From willing something to be true, they pass to a stage where it has to be true, then slip easily into self-deception and, in some cases, self-delusion. In essence, people can become lost in their own conspiracy theories and believe, in terms of Lewis Carroll’s Queen, six impossible things before breakfast. Others may invent allegations, knowing them not to be true, in the conviction that all is fair in love and war. In either case, those concerned are committed to the point where there is no holding back.”
Some of the explanation may be rather more prosaic: a threatener is simply not as heavily invested in information that has been made up, so feels more readily able to use it. Afterall, being made up there is plenty more where that come from.
The converse may help explain why comparatively few of the true reputational threats were acted upon. Information is held close precisely because it is true and therefore has value, so is used sparingly and is less likely to be wielded arbitrarily: once the information is ‘out there’, the power and sense of control behind the threat is lost.
It is also more likely that being true, release will have privacy implications for the threatener themselves, hindering resolve.
For the reputational risk adviser, the question of threat veracity appears to be of significant practical importance.
Reflecting on the finding, Jenny Afia of Schillings said, “Understanding with the client the truthfulness of an allegation could be said to represent the moment of greatest potential reputational importance. It also often dictates the courses of action.”
Athalie Matthews of Farrer & Co illustrates Jenny’s point. “Establishing whether an allegation is true or false will have a major bearing on which areas of law might be able to protect the person being threatened. If the allegation is demonstrably true, the law of defamation won’t help because truth is a complete defence, irrespective of the motive of the person making the statement. However, privacy law is not really concerned with whether the information is true or false, but whether its publication will intrude into the life of the subject. For example, if a hostile actor is threatening to ‘reveal’ that you have had an affair or have a serious illness when you have not, the law of privacy can still help you even though the claim is made up.”
Whether the allegation is true or made up, the finding also suggests that an initial ‘unrefined’ opinion on likelihood of the threat being carried out can start to be formed from the outset, before then addressing other questions key to reaching a more refined and evidence-based view of risk and strategy.
Those questions include, establishing whether the motivation behind the threat is personal or made purely for financial gain (is the threatener emotionally involved because of grievance, rejection or failed attempts at a relationship, for example?); correctly categorising the nature of the relationship between threatener and recipient (are they strangers, former colleagues, friends or ex/intimate partners?); establishing the purpose of the threat (is it to maintain or start a relationship, or to shock or coerce the recipient, or simply obtain a pay-off?); and understanding whether the threat is ‘pure’ in nature, in that it only threatens reputation, or is ‘mixed’, in that other forms of harm are also threatened, because there are significant differences in risk between these two threatener groups.
And of course, understanding the dynamics in the online landscape around the client, into which such allegations are often seeded, also has a bearing on management strategy, including whether it is necessary to act at all.
These questions will be explored in more detail in future Insights.
