Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Administrator Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> cate Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > But no names were named.

>

> It does not matter, an individual can be

> identified from the post and that would be enough

> to take legal action against the forum.

>

> xxxxxxx


Surely that would only be the case if what had been stated was untrue?

If an individual can be identified, that individual can bring a case. At least, that's my understanding. Quick disclaimer: ex-journalist. Did some basic media law at uni. Do not base any significant life choices upon what follows. It was a long time ago....


Their barrister then gets to tell the court what you said and you have to defend yourself against that. ("You don't get to say what you said. They get to say what you said and you have to defend yourself against what they say you said," as my media law lecturer put it.) And just being true isn't enough.


To be defended succesfully, whatever it was that they say you said has to be A) true and B) in the public interest or C)fair comment, clearly identified as such, and based upon fact.


In some jurisdictions (but not the UK I think) 'public interest' has been replaced by 'public benefit', which is interesting.

WickedStepmother Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > To be defended succesfully, whatever it was that

> they say you said has to be A) true and B) in the

> public interest or C)fair comment, clearly

> identified as such, and based upon fact.

>

>


xxxxxxx


Well yes, sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear.


He could take legal action, but if what Bathsheba said is true, he wouldn't win a case in court was what I meant.


But hey, the only course in law I've ever done was employment law, so what would I know :))

Sue wrote:-

He could take legal action, but if what Bathsheba said is true, he wouldn't win a case in court was what I meant.


If only it were that simple, and the judiciary were that reliable Sue.


Sadly telling the truth seems to affect few cases persued through our courts of law.


Charles Dickens stated in many of his superb novels,


and a century and a half later his books remain very pertinent today.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
    • Exactly - a snap election will make things even worse. Jazzer - say you get a 'new' administration tomorrow, you're still left with the same treasury, the same civil servants, the same OBR, the same think-tanks and advisors (many labour advisors are cross-party, Gauke for eg). The options are the same, no matter who's in power. Labour hasn't even changed the Tories' fiscal rules - the parties are virtually economically aligned these days.  But Reeves made a mistake in trying too hard, too early to make some seismic changes in her first budget as a big 'we're here and we're going to fix this mess, Labour to the rescue' kind of thing . They shone such a big light on the black hole that their only option was to try to fix it overnight. It was a comms clusterfuck.  They'd perhaps have done better sticking to Sunak's quiet, cautious approach, but they knew the gullible public was expecting an 24-hour turnaround miracle.  The NIC hikes are a disaster, I think they'll be reversed soon and enough and they'll keep trying till they find something that sticks.   
    • Totally agree with you.  🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...