There you go then.

This being Andrew Mitchell, there was no "bringing" involved, he was already there.

Only in the minds of those who had made their judgements based on prejudice.

Given that Mitchells nickname at public school and henceforth into his adult life was "Thrasher" because of his fondness of discipline and punishment then I'd think that the sort of things he's been accused of would only serve to enhance his hard earned and self appreciated reputation, indeed he didn't deny much of it.

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 w[ia[/ink 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"

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 [itruth[/i 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.

What do you mean unfortunately for me? It was alleged he called police plebs. If he didn't this is defamatory.







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.

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.

genuine question



how much outdoor CCTV has sound recording?