Newspapers amend articles all the time - that wouldn't be a defence for libel as the original article would still be evidence.
The Huw Edwards situation
- Thread starter Participant
- Start date
- Status
Newspapers amend articles all the time - that wouldn't be a defence for libel as the original article would still be evidence.
You'll need to wait for the outcome of the enquiry and any resulting criminal proceedings now.
A claimant does not need to be named to sue for defamation (if the Sun's claims are untrue of course).
www.humphreys.co.uk
It's a tougher case to prove. But it might apply in this case as his name was widely known before it was announced.
Defamation - Elements of a Claim
Defamation - Elements of a Claim Under Article 10(2) of the Convention, the protection of the reputation of others is a legitimate ground for restricting
www.humphreys.co.uk
It's a tougher case to prove. But it might apply in this case as his name was widely known before it was announced.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
But you are at the front of the pitchfork crowd. What do you say his crimes are?
You know the ones you are making all this fuss about?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,879
for years i believed the report about Hillsborough..... in part tainted perhaps due to my own knowledge about similar events in the same era... but the point is, i ultimately believed them............ in my defence i was young and it seemed crazy to me that a NEWSpaper would print such stuff if they were not convinced it was true.
fool me once however....... well you know how that goes.
Really easily, if it becomes obvious who you were talking about.
This but unironically.
The story from the start was a proxy for stuffing in hate for the BBC, the licence fee, and especially Linekers smug face
A claimant does not need to be named to sue for defamation (if the Sun's claims are untrue of course).
Defamation - Elements of a Claim
Defamation - Elements of a Claim Under Article 10(2) of the Convention, the protection of the reputation of others is a legitimate ground for restricting
It's a tougher case to prove. But it might apply in this case as his name was widely known before it was announced.
But it wasn't obvious which is why other presenters were getting heat from the story.
His name was widely known across the internet, including by myself and other people here. His lawyers would be able to prove that by simply looking on social media and taking screenshots of posts through the week.
Last edited:
As I said allegations have been made that need further investigation by THE BBC and this may result in criminal proceedings - given all that has happened further speculation (including as to his sexuality by you) seems unwise.
As long as it is investigated properly that is all ultimately what the mum was complaining about in the first place..
You what.
The mum was demanding that Huw was punished for how their adult offspring turned out.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Thats all well and good but you were chomping at the bit before these new allegations were put forward.
That has been investigated by two police forces now so that one is out. Now that you know it was a lie by the mother what is your issue now?
No she complained to THE BBC about him and perceived that her complaint wasn't dealt with so went to The Sun instead - everything else you have said is your speculation.
Which new allegations?
The Police found no evidence to support a prosecution for kiddie porn that is all - now THE BBC need to investigate to determine whether he has broken the terms of his employment. Given we know further allegations have been made by other people that could result in other criminal investigations.
Plenty of names were being thrown around. His name included.
To prove it was obvious you need to show that the story had unique traits that clearly pointed at him. Maybe the story does mention unique traits but you haven't shown that. Just being a Male presenter on the BBC isn't enough.
Exactly we only know who it is because his wife told us.
Rubbish!
The Sun must have seen evidence strong enough to run a story deemed in the public interest because the accused being a significant public figure. Regardless of whether there has been criminality involved, his position in public life (delivering news) makes it a story.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Wiat so your whole objection now is he might have broken his terms or employment? Jesus wept.
Last edited:
- Status