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In some jurisdictions (but not the UK I think) 'public interest' has been replaced by 'public benefit', which is interesting.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

    • But a larger number, in a more hotly contested election, didn't. It is an anomaly that Starmer won a landslide in seats with a turnout for Labour which would have shamed Labour leaders in all the 21st and much of the post war 20th century.
    • I was not suggesting anything else!   I'm not sure how you interpret what I said  as "irrelevant"? I was responding to a post saying that Corbyn was "unelectable". My point was that a  large number  of the electorate  voted for him!
    • that's exactly what happened - Brickhouse were forced to close due to rent hike and then Gail's didn't move in until covid restrictions lifted and normality resumed. Gail's would have opened much sooner as they were lined up and able to offer the landlord much higher rents. Brickhouse was a local favourite
    • The Brickhouse closed just before Covid December 2019. Nothing to do with Gails muscling in as they didn't move into till December 2022. Stop trying to fit a false narrative into a story
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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