- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
So have you signed the petition and sent a message to that effect to your MP then?
Free Speech & Libel Laws - yet another petition - please sign up NOW!
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
Having signed up to the petiotion, I see that you can also automatically send a letter to your MP asking him or her to support Early Day Motion #423 which may be more effective than just signing yet another on-line petition
I think you will find the it is spelt "Petition".
If you are going to constantly harrass others, please get it correct first time, every time yourself.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
So it is, I really must try harderI think you will find the it is spelt "Petition".
If you are going to constantly harrass others, please get it correct first time, every time yourself.
ps - have you signed the petition?
Wouldn't it be an idea to wait till the case has concluded to see how the current laws work first before demanding reform?
Having read a bit more, particularly the actual judgement here first impressions are:
1. That Guardian article is absolute rubbish
2. I don't see what is wrong with what has happened here
A defamation trial is heard by a jury, because of this there has to be a strong case for a Judge to strike out a meaning by way of an interlocutary application - it is the 'golden shot' in that it could effectively end the action there and then - Eady J is not ruling that the words will, eventually be found to be defamatory, but rather that they are capable of being defamatory, and so if need be, be dealt with by a jury.
*edit*
To expand the above by way of example - the point about 'bogus' being 're-defined' by Eady J is simply not the case. The jury will still hear, and decide, the meaning of the pleaded words. All that Eady J decided was that there is an arguable case that it does mean that and so he should allow the matter to proceed rather than intervening and striking out the pleaded meaning - and correctly so IMHO.
Having read a bit more, particularly the actual judgement here first impressions are:
1. That Guardian article is absolute rubbish
2. I don't see what is wrong with what has happened here
A defamation trial is heard by a jury, because of this there has to be a strong case for a Judge to strike out a meaning by way of an interlocutary application - it is the 'golden shot' in that it could effectively end the action there and then - Eady J is not ruling that the words will, eventually be found to be defamatory, but rather that they are capable of being defamatory, and so if need be, be dealt with by a jury.
*edit*
To expand the above by way of example - the point about 'bogus' being 're-defined' by Eady J is simply not the case. The jury will still hear, and decide, the meaning of the pleaded words. All that Eady J decided was that there is an arguable case that it does mean that and so he should allow the matter to proceed rather than intervening and striking out the pleaded meaning - and correctly so IMHO.
Last edited:
stockhausen in misrepresenting the truth shocker!
So it is, I really must try harder
ps - have you signed the petition?
I may when I have had time to study the issue properly. I haven't read the article fully as yet.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Whilst you are about it, you could also look up trafigura and guardian; going back in time, you could also have a look at "goldsmith", "maxwell", "archer", "aitken" and probably "scientology".
I am all in favour of newspapers not destroying innocent people's lives by publishing lies or even irrelevant but salacious details about them. Personally, I am less enthusiastic when a person (e.g. some self-righteous MP) or an organisation tries to conceal the truth about their activities by employing Sue, Grabbit and Runne and invoking libel laws to hush up important facts.