Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, AyrshireTon said:

So now the mother and step-father of the young person say that they are sticking by their story.

This will all end with the kid suing their own mother or something.

Surely lightening can't strike twice....

Mother-of-Shannon-Matthews-poses-for-the-media-with-step-father-Meehan-in-Moorside-road-Dewsbury-n.thumb.jpg.88148cb648158b59ce45eca25513e0bf.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, AyrshireTon said:

So now the mother and step-father of the young person say that they are sticking by their story.

This will all end with the kid suing their own mother or something.

For young person, read adult 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Todd_is_God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...