322 replies to this topic

[l'angelo mysterioso]

well kit's buggered showaddywaddy's little earners at the Butlins revival weekends good and proper

[ckn]

It's not libel if you can prove it.

If it is true but you can't prove it then it's still libel.

And frankly even if you could prove it, I doubt that John would be too pleased.

Yep, the libel laws here are quite robust in protecting people's reputation, regardless of how tarnished that reputation is. There are plenty of reasons why the UK is where many celebs try to have their libel cases heard here, even when there are reasonable grounds for believing the slander/libel is true.

It is also prohibitively expensive to defend one of these actions and TRL would be jointly liable for any claims against posters as the "publisher" on an actively moderated web forum. TRL don't have tabloid level legal budgets to defend such actions and John/Martyn would be slightly more than miffed if someone endangered the jobs of those at TRL just to publish a rumour.

[Northern Sol]

Yep, the libel laws here are quite robust in protecting people's reputation, regardless of how tarnished that reputation is. There are plenty of reasons why the UK is where many celebs try to have their libel cases heard here, even when there are reasonable grounds for believing the slander/libel is true.

Indeed. South Park satyrised this by having one of the characters say "Say that again and I'll sue you.......in England!"

[John Drake]

why ever not? It is exactly this fear that kept so may of Savile's victims quiet for so long. If you know something, you must say.

Not on here!

Tell the police. They are the only ones who can investigate and charge the guilty if there is evidence to do so.

[JohnM]

Exactly my point... " If you know something, you must say". but, this...

I would not repeat on here the names of politicians from the Thatcher era I have seen mentioned elsewhere

...so why bring the Thatcher era into it unless implying that this was a product of her influence, or that she in some way interfered to protect someone.

[John Drake]

Exactly my point... " If you know something, you must say". but, this... ...so why bring the Thatcher era into it unless implying that this was a product of her influence, or that she in some way interfered to protect someone.

The rumour mill is in full flow and all sorts of names are being blackened on t'interweb, usually with no proof. It's one of the reasons I locked the original thread on this subject. This one may go the same way as this story appears to be eating itself now.

[Severus]

Exactly my point... " If you know something, you must say". but, this... ...so why bring the Thatcher era into it unless implying that this was a product of her influence, or that she in some way interfered to protect someone.

Perhaps it is a little clue if you are interested in finding out for yourself. Any mention of Thatcher brings out the paranoia in you.

[fieldofclothofgold]

Exactly my point... " If you know something, you must say". but, this... ...so why bring the Thatcher era into it unless implying that this was a product of her influence, or that she in some way interfered to protect someone.

I onl used Thatcher's name to give an indication a to how far back it went.I heard this from a preset labour counilor

[JohnM]

Perhaps it is a little clue if you are interested in finding out for yourself. Any mention of Thatcher brings out the paranoia in you.

anxiety , fear, irrationality and delusion? You're the Gloucester fan aren't you?

[Saintslass]

I onl used Thatcher's name to give an indication a to how far back it went.I heard this from a preset labour counilor

You heard a criticism of Thatcher from a Labour councillor? And you took it seriously?

[fieldofclothofgold]

You heard a criticism of Thatcher from a Labour councillor? And you took it seriously?

I have just said,it went back to the Thatcher era,meaning it went back to the 1980s

[Methven Hornet]

You heard a criticism of Thatcher from a Labour councillor? And you took it seriously?

No criticism of Thatcher has been made, merely a reference to the era in which she was in power (ie 1980s). Unless a mere mention of her name is now classed as criticism.

[Severus]

You heard a criticism of Thatcher from a Labour councillor? And you took it seriously?

Are you saying that Thatcher is some how involve in this sordid afair?

[fieldofclothofgold]

No criticism of Thatcher has been made, merely a reference to the era in which she was in power (ie 1980s). Unless a mere mention of her name is now classed as criticism.

THANKYOU

[Mumby Magic]

Lets just talk about the people when arrested. simples.

[Just Browny]

Lets just talk about the people when arrested. simples.

I'm pretty sure that's the worst time to talk about them, sub judice.

[JohnM]

You are right!

See here: http://www.out-law.com/page-9742


The sub judice rule regulates the publication of matters which are under consideration by the court. Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction. Publication of material which is sub judice comprises contempt of court, a crime which is punishable by a fine of unlimited amount and/or imprisonment for up to two years.

Edited by JohnM, 01 November 2012 - 06:11 PM.

[Mumby Magic]

http://news.sky.com/...ile-abuse-probe

[longboard]

You are right!

See here: http://www.out-law.com/page-9742


The sub judice rule regulates the publication of matters which are under consideration by the court. Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction. Publication of material which is sub judice comprises contempt of court, a crime which is punishable by a fine of unlimited amount and/or imprisonment for up to two years.

Not every matter related to a case is sub judice though, as evidenced by pre-trial coverage of criminal cases, and the absence of contempt proceedings against media outlets involved.

[Padge]

Not every matter related to a case is sub judice though, as evidenced by pre-trial coverage of criminal cases, and the absence of contempt proceedings against media outlets involved.

I understand at as you can report on the known facts "A was arrested under suspicion of committing X", what you can't do is speculate on the evidence.

What you can't say is "A was arrested under suspicion of committing X, we believe he was at the scene of the crime because Z told us so and he's obviously guilty as he's been done for it before."

Not sure how accurate my version is, sure a legal bod could clear it up.