Kosh wrote:The papers (and other media) reported the content of a leaked Police report. They were reporting facts. And so far nobody has proven that the report in question was false. All the reports I read were also at pains to point out that Mitchell denied the allegations contained in the report.
If you can't see the difference between this and your average libel case then I guess you must be Mitchell's legal adviser.
But the burden of proof in defamation case defences is on the defendant so no one has to prove that the report was false. The defendant must prove it was true (on the balance of probabilities).
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
Ajw71 wrote:But the burden of proof in defamation case defences is on the defendant so no one has to prove that the report was false. The defendant must prove it was true (on the balance of probabilities).
Bollox.
All anyone accused of libelling another has to prove is that the alleged libel did not defame the "good name" of the allegedly libelled.
If I said "Peter Sutcliffe used to wank dogs on Hessle Foreshore", it's highly doubtfull that any jury would decide that his character had been libelled
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
All anyone accused of libelling another has to prove is that the alleged libel did not defame the "good name" of the allegedly libelled.
If I said "Peter Sutcliffe used to wank dogs on Hessle Foreshore", it's highly doubtfull that any jury would decide that his character had been libelled
It's like arguing with kids.
Wiki:
"However, the common law of libel reverses the traditional positions somewhat: a defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth"
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
Ajw71 wrote::roll:
It's like arguing with kids.
Wiki:
"However, the common law of libel reverses the traditional positions somewhat: a defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth"
Well done on finding the relevant Wikipedia entry. Unfortunately for you, the key word in your quote is 'defamatory'. First and foremost the statement has to be demonstrated to be defamatory. Since the only part of the whole sorry episode that Mitchell denies is the use of the word 'pleb' it's difficult to see how that could be defamatory when he's freely admitted to swearing at the Police.
There is also the problem that you have singularly failed to understand; the newspapers were reporting the contents of the Police report. This is a simple fact and they were reporting the truth about the contents of the report. They were not passing on some gossip from a bloke in the pub. And last but by no means least, a pretty convincing 'public interest' defence could be mounted if necessary.
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Kosh wrote:Well done on finding the relevant Wikipedia entry. Unfortunately for you, the key word in your quote is 'defamatory'. First and foremost the statement has to be demonstrated to be defamatory. Since the only part of the whole sorry episode that Mitchell denies is the use of the word 'pleb' it's difficult to see how that could be defamatory when he's freely admitted to swearing at the Police.
There is also the problem that you have singularly failed to understand; the newspapers were reporting the contents of the Police report. This is a simple fact and they were reporting the truth about the contents of the report. They were not passing on some gossip from a bloke in the pub. And last but by no means least, a pretty convincing 'public interest' defence could be mounted if necessary.
I hope he does take legal action, maybe then someone might just dig out the "proper" cctv evidence which someone is with-holding from public scrutiny for their own reasons.
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece ---------------------------------------------------------- Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork ---------------------------------------------------------- JerryChicken - The Blog ----------------------------------------------------------
Kosh wrote:Well done on finding the relevant Wikipedia entry. Unfortunately for you, the key word in your quote is 'defamatory'. First and foremost the statement has to be demonstrated to be defamatory. Since the only part of the whole sorry episode that Mitchell denies is the use of the word 'pleb' it's difficult to see how that could be defamatory when he's freely admitted to swearing at the Police.
What do you mean unfortunately for me? It was alleged he called police plebs. If he didn't this is defamatory.
Kosh wrote:There is also the problem that you have singularly failed to understand; the newspapers were reporting the contents of the Police report. This is a simple fact and they were reporting the truth about the contents of the report. They were not passing on some gossip from a bloke in the pub. And last but by no means least, a pretty convincing 'public interest' defence could be mounted if necessary.
Yes, it was a fact that the police report said he used the word pleb, but it is not a fact that he actually said the word pleb.
Newspapers cannot repeat libelous staments and I don't really understand why you are making out that someone suing newspapers is a revolutionary step.
JerryChicken wrote:I hope he does take legal action, maybe then someone might just dig out the "proper" cctv evidence which someone is with-holding from public scrutiny for their own reasons.
Yes and I hope Mitchell's lawyers get a chance to Cross x those police officers.
Ajw71 wrote:Yes and I hope Mitchell's lawyers get a chance to Cross x those police officers.
Well I'm sure they will if they carry out their threats, on the other hand, the "proper" cctv, whoever currently holds it, would reveal the undeniable truth for they were all stood well within video and sound range.
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece ---------------------------------------------------------- Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork ---------------------------------------------------------- JerryChicken - The Blog ----------------------------------------------------------
JerryChicken wrote:Well I'm sure they will if they carry out their threats, on the other hand, the "proper" cctv, whoever currently holds it, would reveal the undeniable truth for they were all stood well within video and sound range.
Joined: Jun 19 2002 Posts: 14970 Location: Campaigning for a deep attacking line
Standee wrote:genuine question
how much outdoor CCTV has sound recording?
IIRC there was something from the Information Commissioner a few years ago saying that CCTV shouldn't have audio recording. But I would assume that applied primarily to private/commercial CCTV systems, one would hope high security places like Downing Street would actually record audio.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 246 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
