diegomarahenry Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 The Sun reporting that the presenter of the "sexual images storm" could be named by an MP I wonder who they will ask to do it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Blades Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 2 minutes ago, diegomarahenry said: The Sun reporting that the presenter of the "sexual images storm" could be named by an MP I wonder who they will ask to do it. Nadine “resigning with immediate effect” Dorries? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Blades Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 Distinct lack of @throbber input on this thread lately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 23 minutes ago, Brother Blades said: Nadine “resigning with immediate effect” Dorries? I think she might ask for too much to be worthwhile. That eejit Fabricant seems like his fees might be lower than Neil Hamilton. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 2 hours ago, Todd_is_God said: They'd still need to prove reputational damage was caused to them by these claims, which, currently anyway, would be impossible for anyone to prove. Something being categorically untrue isn't in itself enough to be slander or defamation. Slander / Defamation cases are civil matters, and are brought against whoever publishes the statement(s). That's clearly why the Sun won't be naming anyone and perhaps feel that there are too many possibles for the example given in that article to be applied. The mother, though, hasn't published anything at all and, assuming she doesn't go on to do so, isn't liable. People posting stuff on Twitter, Facebook, Pie & Bovril etc, however could be, though again the presenter(s) named would have to show that they had suffered damages as a result of a particular post, which is extremely unlikely to be the case in most instances. The claimant doesn't have to show reputational damage s.1 of the Defamation Act set out that libellous publications which are the 'likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant " is sufficient to meet the test of serious harm. Whilst the Sun and family have been sufficiently cautious people on social media probably haven't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 7 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: The claimant doesn't have to show reputational damage s.1 of the Defamation Act set out that libellous publications which are the 'likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant " is sufficient to meet the test of serious harm. Whilst the Sun and family have been sufficiently cautious people on social media probably haven't. True, although it's unlikely that a tweet from the likes of JoeBloggs12345 would meet that test versus, say, one from a source with greater standing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 A defamation case would bankrupt your average punter before you ever got your day in court. That Andy Plum knob who defamed Jeremy Vine has 16k followers or, to put it another way, double the circulation of the Scotsman. The pro EU/indy/brexit/dogfucking Follow back nature of twitter is going to bite somebody on the arse one of these days. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 25 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: A defamation case would bankrupt your average punter before you ever got your day in court. That Andy Plum knob who defamed Jeremy Vine has 16k followers or, to put it another way, double the circulation of the Scotsman. The pro EU/indy/brexit/dogfucking Follow back nature of twitter is going to bite somebody on the arse one of these days. He's also verified. He's exactly the type of person on Twitter who could meet the test for having the potential to cause harm. Which will be why Vine has taken note of his tweet and not that of anyone else making similar claims. That said, Vine would still have a very hard time proving there was a potential for serious reputational harm based on the words of Andy Plumb from Nuneaton. Edited July 10, 2023 by Todd_is_God 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betting competition Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 7 hours ago, MuckleMoo said: I'll be honest here. I don't know what the f**k is going on! Wisest person posting on this thread by a considerable distance. Also: f**k the Sun 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moomintroll Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 8 hours ago, Musketeer Gripweed said: Pie & Bovril has more experts in everything in the world per square metre than any other outlet. We are so lucky to have them here to keep the rest of us right. That Covid thread has a lot to answer for. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 7 hours ago, invergowrie arab said: The claimant doesn't have to show reputational damage s.1 of the Defamation Act set out that libellous publications which are the 'likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant " is sufficient to meet the test of serious harm. Whilst the Sun and family have been sufficiently cautious people on social media probably haven't. The name of the man in question is all over Twitter. I’m not sure the Sun has been cautious at all, and I’m fairly sure their editor is currently working on a resignation letter. Or hopefully is, at any rate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 7 hours ago, Todd_is_God said: He's also verified. He's exactly the type of person on Twitter who could meet the test for having the potential to cause harm. Which will be why Vine has taken note of his tweet and not that of anyone else making similar claims. That said, Vine would still have a very hard time proving there was a potential for serious reputational harm based on the words of Andy Plumb from Nuneaton. I have less than 1000 followers and a few years ago one of my tweets got nearly 500k views. If it had been me accusing someone of being a paedo I would expect that it would have some comeback. The Sun has doubled down o. Their story but it looks pretty shaky to me. The stepfather has shown the Sun emails he sent to the BBC about the payments and quotes the stepfather saying they have screenshots of payments and contact between the pair. But The Sun never say that they have seen the evidence. Very odd. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, ICTChris said: I have less than 1000 followers and a few years ago one of my tweets got nearly 500k views. If it had been me accusing someone of being a paedo I would expect that it would have some comeback. The Sun has doubled down o. Their story but it looks pretty shaky to me. The stepfather has shown the Sun emails he sent to the BBC about the payments and quotes the stepfather saying they have screenshots of payments and contact between the pair. But The Sun never say that they have seen the evidence. Very odd. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullerene Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 10 hours ago, diegomarahenry said: The Sun reporting that the presenter of the "sexual images storm" could be named by an MP I wonder who they will ask to do it. They were going to ask Chris Pincher. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 My completely unfounded alleged accusation is that it's the maw who is the crackhead and this has been one big shot at a payout to keep some dealer she's fucked over at bay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 1 minute ago, The Moonster said: My completely unfounded alleged accusation is that it's the maw who is the crackhead and this has been one big shot at a payout to keep some dealer she's fucked over at bay. Interesting and feasible theory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasy23 Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 3 minutes ago, The Moonster said: My completely unfounded alleged accusation is that it's the maw who is the crackhead and this has been one big shot at a payout to keep some dealer she's fucked over at bay. Ultimately if the Sun had 100% belief that the evidence they have is bulletproof then they would have printed the presenters name without hesitation. It appears that whatever happened wasn't illegal anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 18 minutes ago, ICTChris said: I have less than 1000 followers and a few years ago one of my tweets got nearly 500k views. If it had been me accusing someone of being a paedo I would expect that it would have some comeback. Regardless of number of "views" it would still be incredibly hard to prove that a person suffered (or was likely to suffer) serious reputational damage because some random nobody (and I don't mean that in a derogatory way) said something untrue. They might send you a lawyer's letter threatening you and asking you to retract (which is what appears to have happened with Plumb) but it's unlikely they'd actually proceed with anything. Vine (like Nicky Campbell) has, quite rightfully, made an example of Plumb in an effort to try to get people to not be dicks online, but that's likely as far as this will go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasy23 Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 And maybe I'm just being cynical, but perhaps it's just another bit of gaslighting by a Tory rag. Maybe there's another story worth covering up..... https://news.sky.com/story/mps-approve-privileges-committee-report-saying-boris-johnsons-allies-tried-to-undermine-partygate-probe-12918720 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.