Kosh wrote:Do you actually understand what defamatory means in the legal sense?
Yes, I studied it, amongst other Torts at University.
Kosh wrote:
It is, however, an uncontested fact that he had an altercation with the police and that he swore at them. And this is where we come back to defamatory.
Not quite, he said he swore in their presence, not directly at them.
Kosh wrote:People do sue papers and lose, something you seem to be unaware of.
I never suggested otherwise.
You seem to be suggesting that it is cut and dried that Mitchell has no case. This is obviously not correct, as demonstrated by 1) the fact we are having this discussion and 2) the fact Mitchell's lawyers have begun action.