LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Gotta be the end of the sun if they got it properly wrong0 -
They obviously didn't have the goods when they didn't print the name straight away.0
-
It did seem oddly restrainedkingstongraham said:They obviously didn't have the goods when they didn't print the name straight away.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Well they haven't named anyone and so there is no defamation. Do you think there's been trade libel against the BBC? If so, by who? The Sun, or the mother? Or has there been defamation by the Twitterati against various celebs who have issued denials?rick_chasey said:
Gotta be the end of the sun if they got it properly wrong0 -
The sun on the bbc.First.Aspect said:
Well they haven't named anyone and so there is no defamation. Do you think there's been trade libel against the BBC? If so, by who? The Sun, or the mother? Or has there been defamation by the Twitterati against various celebs who have issued denials?rick_chasey said:
Gotta be the end of the sun if they got it properly wrong0 -
You'd imagine The Sun got full legal advice before they published.0
-
First.Aspect said:
Well they haven't named anyone and so there is no defamation. Do you think there's been trade libel against the BBC? If so, by who? The Sun, or the mother? Or has there been defamation by the Twitterati against various celebs who have issued denials?rick_chasey said:
Gotta be the end of the sun if they got it properly wrong
My rugby namesake is pitching in.
I'm not sure how someone could sue for defamation when they haven't been named, but if by going early without a name they could have predicted that several 'prominent BBC presenters' would be wrongly suspected, that might be grounds for a group action, I suppose.
It would also be interesting to find out if the 'story' was at the prompting of politicians who had an interest in attacking both the BBC and troublesome 'lefties' who have prominent social media presence.0 -
-
Jezyboy said:
You'd imagine The Sun got full legal advice before they published.
Like they did on Hillsborough.0 -
That was just a meme - nothing to do with the Sun.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:orraloon said:Ignore all that #toryscumMP groping, sexual assault, rape stuff ongoing ad infinitum, some (non gender specific) bloke that works for BBC is alleged to have been a bit naughty. Headlines!
Who knew? The Sun makes stuff up. Just as well no-one started frothing at the mouth about who it could be."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
In other news, Johnson hasn't turned over his pre-2021 phone by 4pm today, as ordered by the High Court, as he "doesn't know if he can turn it on safely". Yeah, right.0
-
What are the elements of the tort of trade libel?rick_chasey said:
The sun on the bbc.First.Aspect said:
Well they haven't named anyone and so there is no defamation. Do you think there's been trade libel against the BBC? If so, by who? The Sun, or the mother? Or has there been defamation by the Twitterati against various celebs who have issued denials?rick_chasey said:
Gotta be the end of the sun if they got it properly wrong0 -
I mean if leching at school girls is that socially acceptable that a mainstream tabloid can print a regular inside cover feature until 2003, it's not really surprising that we had to report a local shopkeeper to the police for exactly that. Whatever the details the Sun really are the last people on earth who can take a stand on this1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Hypocrisy isn't an element of a libel case.1
-
What legal repercussions did they face for their reporting on Hillsborough?briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:You'd imagine The Sun got full legal advice before they published.
Like they did on Hillsborough.
I suspect the reputational risk is bigger than the legal one, and they reckon they can ride out or maybe even combat any reputational damage.
0 -
-
If you worked back from her claimed age she was even younger than that. 😉skyblueamateur said:The Sun who printed topless photos of Sam Fox on page 3 when she was 16 years old.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I find it interesting that the victim and mother have separate lawyers.
Not all sunshine and cake at home then?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
pblakeney said:
I find it interesting that the victim and mother have separate lawyers.
Not all sunshine and cake at home then?
That the mother took the story to The Sun rather than the police might tell you something.0 -
Oh, I have preformed opinion.briantrumpet said:pblakeney said:I find it interesting that the victim and mother have separate lawyers.
Not all sunshine and cake at home then?
That the mother took the story to The Sun rather than the police might tell you something.
But little facts to base it on. Yet.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
She can’t even get her own story straight. She previously said she went to the press as no-one from the BBC would speak to her and now says she spent an hour on the phone with them back in May.briantrumpet said:pblakeney said:I find it interesting that the victim and mother have separate lawyers.
Not all sunshine and cake at home then?
That the mother took the story to The Sun rather than the police might tell you something.0 -
I read it is a he.pblakeney said:
If you worked back from her claimed age she was even younger than that. 😉skyblueamateur said:The Sun who printed topless photos of Sam Fox on page 3 when she was 16 years old.
0 -
The girl who was on page 3?TheBigBean said:
I read it is a he.pblakeney said:
If you worked back from her claimed age she was even younger than that. 😉skyblueamateur said:The Sun who printed topless photos of Sam Fox on page 3 when she was 16 years old.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Oops.pangolin said:
The girl who was on page 3?TheBigBean said:
I read it is a he.pblakeney said:
If you worked back from her claimed age she was even younger than that. 😉skyblueamateur said:The Sun who printed topless photos of Sam Fox on page 3 when she was 16 years old.
0 -
Brian Moore is pitching in because someone suggested on Twitter that he was the presenter in questionbriantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Well they haven't named anyone and so there is no defamation. Do you think there's been trade libel against the BBC? If so, by who? The Sun, or the mother? Or has there been defamation by the Twitterati against various celebs who have issued denials?rick_chasey said:
Gotta be the end of the sun if they got it properly wrong
My rugby namesake is pitching in.
I'm not sure how someone could sue for defamation when they haven't been named, but if by going early without a name they could have predicted that several 'prominent BBC presenters' would be wrongly suspected, that might be grounds for a group action, I suppose.
It would also be interesting to find out if the 'story' was at the prompting of politicians who had an interest in attacking both the BBC and troublesome 'lefties' who have prominent social media presence.Wilier Izoard XP0 -
Bloody pervert.laurentian said:
Brian Moore is pitching in because someone suggested on Twitter that he was the presenter in questionbriantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Well they haven't named anyone and so there is no defamation. Do you think there's been trade libel against the BBC? If so, by who? The Sun, or the mother? Or has there been defamation by the Twitterati against various celebs who have issued denials?rick_chasey said:
Gotta be the end of the sun if they got it properly wrong
My rugby namesake is pitching in.
I'm not sure how someone could sue for defamation when they haven't been named, but if by going early without a name they could have predicted that several 'prominent BBC presenters' would be wrongly suspected, that might be grounds for a group action, I suppose.
It would also be interesting to find out if the 'story' was at the prompting of politicians who had an interest in attacking both the BBC and troublesome 'lefties' who have prominent social media presence.0 -
Why is it up to the employer to investigate? And why has the PM just been asked for comment? Is it really that important?0
-
laurentian said:
Brian Moore is pitching in because someone suggested on Twitter that he was the presenter in questionbriantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Well they haven't named anyone and so there is no defamation. Do you think there's been trade libel against the BBC? If so, by who? The Sun, or the mother? Or has there been defamation by the Twitterati against various celebs who have issued denials?rick_chasey said:
Gotta be the end of the sun if they got it properly wrong
My rugby namesake is pitching in.
I'm not sure how someone could sue for defamation when they haven't been named, but if by going early without a name they could have predicted that several 'prominent BBC presenters' would be wrongly suspected, that might be grounds for a group action, I suppose.
It would also be interesting to find out if the 'story' was at the prompting of politicians who had an interest in attacking both the BBC and troublesome 'lefties' who have prominent social media presence.
The 'someone' was trying to be clever, claiming that his indirect comment couldn't be libellous, because it wasn't explicit. But eventually he did remove the offending tweet, after lengthy persuading from Moore.0 -
I can't understand why the first port of call for an alleged crime is the employer closely followed by the gutter press rather than the press (well, I can but not when looking at it as a concerned parent).kingstongraham said:Why is it up to the employer to investigate? And why has the PM just been asked for comment? Is it really that important?
0 -
There's plenty of legal discussions around statements such as "there's a rumour briantrumpet thinks Brexit is great". To avoid libel, it is not enough to prove that there is a rumour, the "sting" must also be true.briantrumpet said:laurentian said:
Brian Moore is pitching in because someone suggested on Twitter that he was the presenter in questionbriantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
Well they haven't named anyone and so there is no defamation. Do you think there's been trade libel against the BBC? If so, by who? The Sun, or the mother? Or has there been defamation by the Twitterati against various celebs who have issued denials?rick_chasey said:
Gotta be the end of the sun if they got it properly wrong
My rugby namesake is pitching in.
I'm not sure how someone could sue for defamation when they haven't been named, but if by going early without a name they could have predicted that several 'prominent BBC presenters' would be wrongly suspected, that might be grounds for a group action, I suppose.
It would also be interesting to find out if the 'story' was at the prompting of politicians who had an interest in attacking both the BBC and troublesome 'lefties' who have prominent social media presence.
The 'someone' was trying to be clever, claiming that his indirect comment couldn't be libellous, because it wasn't explicit. But eventually he did remove the offending tweet, after lengthy persuading from Moore.
See Wagatha Christie as an example.
0
