Kuro Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 1 minute ago, welshbairn said: Bit of a telt to Wings here. Pretty shocking from a judge, his.job wasn't to judge WOS previous comments as.they're not on trial and it wasn't about respect it was about accuracy. If anyone else feels he has defamed them they can take him to court. The judge, predictably, is obviously a raging britnat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Aye what the UK really needs is an endless stream of Twitter feud court cases. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastermind Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Pretty shocking from a judge, his.job wasn't to judge WOS previous comments as.they're not on trial and it wasn't about respect it was about accuracy. If anyone else feels he has defamed them they can take him to court. The judge, predictably, is obviously a raging britnat.I think there’s only one raging person here, and it’s you, five years on. Delightful. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Kuro said: Pretty shocking from a judge, his.job wasn't to judge WOS previous comments as.they're not on trial and it wasn't about respect it was about accuracy. If anyone else feels he has defamed them they can take him to court. The judge, predictably, is obviously a raging britnat. The Judge was rightfully telling Wings off for wasting everyone's time and money by being a big girl's blouse. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 I see Pep has hit the ground running here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonwell Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Everyone involved in this was a bit of w**k to be honest with you. The crowing of victory from the likes of Clegg, Haggerty and Hothershall confirms that this whole thing should be put in the bin where it belongs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 12 minutes ago, Detournement said: Aye what the UK really needs is an endless stream of Twitter feud court cases. Who cares what the UK needs, that's reality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 8 minutes ago, welshbairn said: The Judge was rightfully telling Wings off for wasting everyone's time and money by being a big girl's blouse. Complaining about defamation is.that? Lol. And completely inappropriate for a judge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 No laws broken. Nae damages. Nae points, p***k. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, renton said: In the end it'll almost certainly not change a single opinion on the man either way. Looking at twitter, it seems to be a case of if you don't like him you read the line 'Kez won' from the Daily record and pronounce him a homophobe anyway, if you do your probably underneath the first tweeter plastering parts of the Sheriff's judgement proclaiming him not. What I don't really get here is how the comment can be defamatory and fair comment. If the Sheriff had found that there was sufficient semantic ambiguity in the comment or past context in his actions for the comment to be construed as homophobic then that'd be fair comment, but he goes out of his way to suggest that this wasn't the case? If it is incorrect and defamatory as the judgement seems to imply, where is there fair comment? If, as the judge implies the statement is incorrect and/or defamatory then the fact that Dugdale may honestly believe it to be the reverse surely isn't much of a defence, particularly as the route to which she came to that conclusion is not necessarily a narrow appreciation of the language or context of the tweet but would also include any pre-existing emotive responses that Dugdale might have for someone who's been grinding at her reputation for years? Is the missing element here that Campbell seems to have suffered little in the way of tangible damage? Had he done so, would the sheriff have been forced to come down more one way or the other in terms of his judgement? It seems odd that anyone with a newspaper column could, tomorrow defame you and then hide behind fair comment even as a judge rules that such comment was not true... A defamatory statement is a false one that is likely to harm the reputation of the person at whom it’s aimed (from the perspective of the reasonable person). The defence of fair comment says that not all defamatory statements are civil wrongs. By analogy in criminal law, not all killings are murders/culpable homicides. Self defence means you didn’t do something legally wrong. Edited April 17, 2019 by Ad Lib 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BawWatchin Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: A defamatory statement is a false one that is likely to harm the reputation of the person at whom it’s aimed (from the perspective of the reasonable person). The defence of fair comment says that not all defamatory statements are civil wrongs. By analogy in criminal law, not all killings are murders/culpable homicides. Self defence means you didn’t do something legally wrong. So she publically claimed that he was a homophobe in "self defence"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Looks to me like the judge has decided that WOS is such a fud that he can't have many feelings to hurt, score draw. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 1 minute ago, BawWatchin said: So she publically claimed that he was a homophobe in "self defence"? She thought his tweet was homophobic. So did I. Whether or not he meant it to be doesn't matter as far as liability goes. It was certainly vile to use someone's Dad coming out (and god knows what traumas or not in the family) to have a go at his son. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 29 minutes ago, welshbairn said: She thought his tweet was homophobic. So did I. Whether or not he meant it to be doesn't matter as far as liability goes. It was certainly vile to use someone's Dad coming out (and god knows what traumas or not in the family) to have a go at his son. Vile is subjective. I thought it was funny. The judge ruled his.comment not homophobic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Kuro said: Vile is subjective. I thought it was funny. The judge ruled his.comment not homophobic. What bit did you think was funny? Edited April 17, 2019 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Vile is subjective. I thought it was funny. The judge ruled his.comment not homophobic.Okay. Who’s latest alias is this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Ad Lib said: A defamatory statement is a false one that is likely to harm the reputation of the person at whom it’s aimed (from the perspective of the reasonable person). The defence of fair comment says that not all defamatory statements are civil wrongs. By analogy in criminal law, not all killings are murders/culpable homicides. Self defence means you didn’t do something legally wrong. It’s useful to have the explanation but it seems bizarre. By definition a statement could be false and harm someone’s reputation but still be fair comment? How can a false statement be fair comment? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 29 minutes ago, welshbairn said: What bit did you think was funny? The funny bit. There's only one sentence here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Vile is subjective. I thought it was funny. The judge ruled his.comment not homophobic.It wasn't funny.It was crass.Attack the man's politics - don't bring his sexuality in to it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: It wasn't funny. It was crass. Attack the man's politics - don't bring his sexuality in to it. Subjective. 0 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.