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In some jurisdictions (but not the UK I think) 'public interest' has been replaced by 'public benefit', which is interesting.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

    • There was good item on Radio 4’s consumer affairs programme You &Yours on 1st December. It was about these CIC fund raising scams and refers to this We R Blighty mob in particular (they have been successfully prosecuted twice and fined for their activities in the City of London). Also mentioned the “knife crime charity” lot who also show up in ED. The advice was to give them nothing and that they are breaking the law. It’s on the BBC Sounds app or via this link  (the item starts at 41m51s in): https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002n065      I think you know perfectly well that is not what the poster is saying. There are a lot of CICs (there are now 37,000 of them) that have been set up specifically to mislead the public into handing over money. This We R Blighty is one such. These are the details of one of the cases against them in the City last month: https://news.cityoflondon.gov.uk/we-r-blighty-told-to-pay-out-thousands-over-illegal-collections/
    • Are you saying all CICs are dodgy? I think that’s totally unfair.
    • Similar deal to those Hive City guys who also camp outside of M&S, also a dodgy CIC rather than a charity 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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