Justice ...or just a nice little earner ?

15 Nov 2012

Quote by flower411
So ....Lord McAlpine is getting £185000 of licence payers money and is now going after tweeters , stating that their tweets are going to cost them a lot of money !!
Having been vindicated by the BBC payout ....shouldn`t he just stop now and move on ?

Would you??
This man was wrongly accused of one of the worst possible offenses,and he certainly does not need the money so it has to be that justice is seen to be done.
Maybe others with big mouths on the internet will now think twice before they make unfounded defamatory comments about someone of the worst kind. I hope that that Sally whats her name gets her arse sued in the courts, horrid woman.

16 Nov 2012

He could give the money to a suitable charity, that would be a good thing to do smile

16 Nov 2012

Quote by flower411
I heard today that an apology in the same medium would probably leave the tweeters difficult to prosecute.
In his position ....with £185000 of free money.....I`d be asking for apologies ...
That should be enough.

But that wouldn't solve anything, would it. What an odd approach.
Idiots would still continue to flout or disrespect people's liberty full in the knowledge that all they have to do is 'apologise'.
No different to breaking the law in other respects, such as speeding is there.
If there is no financial penalty for exceeding the speed limit and all you have to do is apologise to the Officer who catches you, there is no sanction or disincentive to continue the bad trait and people will continue to do it unabated rolleyes

Whatever Baron McAlpine decides to do with the money, I do so hope that he keeps his own counsel. It's got fuck all to do with anyone else how he disposes of the money, his good name having been besmirched in such a dreadful way, and I think he is too much a gentleman to brag about any charitable intentions.
Keep the serfs guessing :lol2:

16 Nov 2012

Quote by GnV
Whatever Baron McAlpine decides to do with the money, I do so hope that he keeps his own counsel. It's got fuck all to do with anyone else how he disposes of the money, his good name having been besmirched in such a dreadful way and I think he is too much a gentleman to brag about any charitable intentions.

Could not agree more GnV.
So a organisation such as the BBC , without any actual proof btw try and destroy a persons good character on a News night broadcast without properly checking their sources. They then find that in fact what they did was about as bad as they could have done and on realising their actions decided very quickly to admit their wrong doings and awarded a sum of money which is irrelevant as to how much. I am also sure that had he of wanted to take the BBC to the high court for slander he would probably have been awarded a six figure sum. The money is not the point but the admission of wrong doing is.
All these people stating that if they had been offered then would just accept the other people's appologies is a complete load of old bollocks. He is not doing this for the money at all. I am getting sick and tired of people being arrested such as DLT or Freddie Star, being publicly named and not charged with a single fucking thing. But we know that the Twitters out there will be readily at their computers writing the most disgusting of things at these people without a shred of evidence to charge let alone convict. If it were me I would be suing every person that made a hateful comment against me, and that is what I hope Mcalpine does with great vigor as well.
People have to now realise that they are responsible for verbal attacks on people face to face, as well as on social networking sites, and if you slander someone on say Twitter without any evidence then you should be held accountable in the courts.
To be accused on national tv of being a on the basis of a man who now admits ' he was wrong 'is disgusting and I hope that Mcalpine gets millions of pounds in damages, and it may just make others sit up and think before they state things that they cannot prove.

16 Nov 2012

@star
:thumbup:

16 Nov 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
......If it were me I would be suing every person that made a hateful comment against me, ............

But you wouldn't be able to afford to do that yet the rich can.
Which is why the rich are able to avoid media exposure.
Which I think is where we came in.

16 Nov 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
......If it were me I would be suing every person that made a hateful comment against me, ............

But you wouldn't be able to afford to do that yet the rich can.
There are plenty of law firms that would taken on such a case for the less well off, if only on a 'no win, no fee' basis.
The ability to defend your honour is not subject to the depth of your pockets.
However, the size of the payout will be proportional to your 'standing' in society.

16 Nov 2012

Can you point me towards one?

Quote by GnV
......If it were me I would be suing every person that made a hateful comment against me, ............

But you wouldn't be able to afford to do that yet the rich can.
There are plenty of law firms that would taken on such a case for the less well off, if only on a 'no win, no fee' basis.
The ability to defend your honour is not subject to the depth of your pockets.
However, the size of the payout will be proportional to your 'standing' in society.

16 Nov 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
......If it were me I would be suing every person that made a hateful comment against me, ............

But you wouldn't be able to afford to do that yet the rich can.
Which is why the rich are able to avoid media exposure.
Which I think is where we came in.
I can and I did in the courts, and I am currently and was at the time unemployed. As GnV rightly states, there are law firms that will take your case on if they feel you have a good case to start with, and I did.
There are many cases going through the courts now where defamation or slander is the crime, and they are certainly not all rich people. The cases the general public ever hear about may well be, but ask yourself the question why those cases are brought to the public's attention and the others are not.
Your comments are slightly blinkered and without knowledge and certainly lack foundation.

16 Nov 2012

I doubt your word.
As far as I know the very few law firms who claim to do no win no fee libel cases expect you to pay prohibitive insurance premiums and court fees. The chances of them takin on most cases are negligible.
However you could provide a link to these noble lawyers that are happy to defend the honour of the weekly paid for no charge.

16 Nov 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
I doubt your word.
As far as I know the very few law firms who claim to do no win no fee libel cases expect you to pay prohibitive insurance premiums and court fees. The chances of them takin on most cases are negligible.
However you could provide a link to these noble lawyers that are happy to defend the honour of the weekly paid for no charge.

Doubt as much as you like, I know and have the details also. Calling a person a liar is slanderous remember. lol

Seeing as you fail to answer any of my questions when I ask you to do so, I shall play the same game but with a bit of a twist.
Anyone who would like the name and contact details of the law firm that I used for FREE, send me a pm message and I will gladly pass on their details.
Cannot say any fairer than that Ben can I ? :notes:

16 Nov 2012

Newsnight never mentioned the guy by name and it's libel, not slander.
There wasn't any defamation by Newsnight and they were acting on information given to them by others.
Meanwhile, the person who actually named him, Steve Messham, has apologised and Lord McAlpine said of him
"I was very grateful that he said that. I actually have a deep sympathy with him. He was obviously a man who suffered a lot in his life. I've been blessed and I've been very lucky but he has had a terrible time. But it wasn't me."

16 Nov 2012

Quite.

Quote by Stevie_and_Kitty
Newsnight never mentioned the guy by name and it's libel, not slander.
There wasn't any defamation by Newsnight and they were acting on information given to them by others.
Meanwhile, the person who actually named him, Steve Messham, has apologised and Lord McAlpine said of him
"I was very grateful that he said that. I actually have a deep sympathy with him. He was obviously a man who suffered a lot in his life. I've been blessed and I've been very lucky but he has had a terrible time. But it wasn't me."

16 Nov 2012

Quote by Stevie
...and it's libel, not slander

Hmmmm, interesting.
I'd like to develop that point.
Slander is the action of making a false spoken statement damaging to a persons reputation. Libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a persons reputation. A written defamation.
So, in the case of Baron McAlpine, was he libelled or slandered and (in edit) by whom?
In the case of Mr Messham and or Newsnight, I'd argue slander, not libel - particularly as it was spoken in a 'media' context and not published per se in a journal although there may have been any number if 'twits' for whom, it could be argued, by publishing - writing - inappropriate content on a media website, they could indeed be held guilty of the action of libel.
Or were you just referring to the exchange between star and Ben about calling people liars lol

that opens a whole new can of worms and deserves a thread all of its own

16 Nov 2012

Quote by GnV
...and it's libel, not slander

Hmmmm, interesting.
I'd like to develop that point.
Slander is the action of making a false spoken statement damaging to a persons reputation. Libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a persons reputation. A written defamation.
So, in the case of Baron McAlpine, was he libelled or slandered and (in edit) by whom?
In the case of Mr Messham and or Newsnight, I'd argue slander, not libel - particularly as it was spoken in a 'media' context and not published per se in a journal although there may have been any number if 'twits' for whom, it could be argued, by publishing - writing - inappropriate content on a media website, they could indeed be held guilty of the action of libel.
Or were you just referring to the exchange between star and Ben about calling people liars lol

that opens a whole new can of worms and deserves a thread all of its own
Not quite the definition there GNV, slander is where if 2 parties are conversing and a 3rd hears a defamatory regarding another party then that is slander. Also with slander the burden on proof is to show actual hardship by what was said. it's also termed as defamation in a temporary medium.
Whereas libel is defined as that which remains, so TV radio, newsprint, forum pages...
And there is no burden on proof that libel causes hardship, only for it to have happened.

16 Nov 2012

Yes go after them, sue the asses off them, take every penny he can get, then donate it to a charity that specialises in helping children who have suffered abuse.
Moral high ground and justice achieved.
Never in our history has so much damage been done to innocent people than it has since the internet and networking sites becames so popular, lessons need to be taught to show you cannot just accuse people without thought or recourse.
Other people have been prosecuted and even imprisoned for such offences why shouldn't they ?

16 Nov 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
..........
Never in our history has so much damage been done to innocent people than it has since the internet and networking sites becames so popular, lessons need to be taught to show you cannot just accuse people without thought or recourse.

Such as...........................

16 Nov 2012

Quote by Stevie_and_Kitty
...and it's libel, not slander

Hmmmm, interesting.
I'd like to develop that point.
Slander is the action of making a false spoken statement damaging to a persons reputation. Libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a persons reputation. A written defamation.
So, in the case of Baron McAlpine, was he libelled or slandered and (in edit) by whom?
In the case of Mr Messham and or Newsnight, I'd argue slander, not libel - particularly as it was spoken in a 'media' context and not published per se in a journal although there may have been any number if 'twits' for whom, it could be argued, by publishing - writing - inappropriate content on a media website, they could indeed be held guilty of the action of libel.
Or were you just referring to the exchange between star and Ben about calling people liars lol

that opens a whole new can of worms and deserves a thread all of its own
Not quite the definition there GNV, slander is where if 2 parties are conversing and a 3rd hears a defamatory regarding another party then that is slander. Also with slander the burden on proof is to show actual hardship by what was said. it's also termed as defamation in a temporary medium.
Whereas libel is defined as that which remains, so TV radio, newsprint, forum pages...
And there is no burden on proof that libel causes hardship, only for it to have happened.
From source:
"Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications."
So I concede on that point Stevie, thanks.

16 Nov 2012

Such as the current topic smile

And I speak of such things as
You Tube - love it
Twitter
Facebook - used to love it till it was taken over by business advertising themselves
Sites dedicated to exposing what they call facts
Sites dedicated to investingating conspiracy theories
now your turn, tell me when more damage was done to innocent people through other media forms such as
British newspapers - only widely distributed in Britain and mostly the tabloid press
British TV - only widely distributed in Britain
British Radio - only widely distributed in Britain
Though of course there is some limited distribution elsewhere in the world.

16 Nov 2012

I am speechless.

16 Nov 2012

Wasn't there an awful lot more damage done to innocent people by the media used by the Nazi propaganda machine

16 Nov 2012

We have just been through a long drawn out and very costly inquiry, with regards to the Levison one where the media as in newspapers have been put through the mill.
I think it is now about time for the Guardian's arm of the media as in the BBC were also investigated in the same way the newspapers have been. I always thought the BBC were impartial but it appears they are no more impartial than the Sun newspaper is towards the Tories.
As I have asked already....who is actually regulating the BBC?

16 Nov 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
We have just been through a long drawn out and very costly inquiry, with regards to the Levison one where the media as in newspapers have been put through the mill.
I think it is now about time for the Guardian's arm of the media as in the BBC were also investigated in the same way the newspapers have been. I always thought the BBC were impartial but it appears they are no more impartial than the Sun newspaper is towards the Tories.
As I have asked already....who is actually regulating the BBC?

You might ask star.
It's the job of the BBC Trust with Lord Patten at it's head as Chairman but it is OFCOM who actually regulates the BBC in certain key areas.

16 Nov 2012

OFCOM?

16 Nov 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
OFCOM?

Yes, OFCOM
The independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries.

Also, the British Broadcasting Standards Commission.
Too many people, one might argue. No wonder it's in a mess.

16 Nov 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
I doubt your word.
As far as I know the very few law firms who claim to do no win no fee libel cases expect you to pay prohibitive insurance premiums and court fees. The chances of them takin on most cases are negligible.
However you could provide a link to these noble lawyers that are happy to defend the honour of the weekly paid for no charge.

The firms that do work on a "no win, no fee" basis are very careful about which cases they take on. They only usually take cases on that basis where there is a very strong chance of a win AND where the person being sued is worth suing (i.e. has deep pockets). They do get paid if they win.
It is not possible in this country to work on the basis that the firm receives a percentage of the damages (which is how they do it in the States), so the way it's done is to set inflated fees (i.e. Higher hourly rates than usual) and then once the client has won, the fees are charged. Often there'll also be a costs order against the losing party though, so the fees are paid by them (although, the courts determine the amount of any costs order, so if it doesn't cover all the fees, the client pays the difference).
It isn't about lawyers being noble and defending people's honour for no charge. They get paid if they win, so they only take on the strongest cases. Most of the time, the case will settle before trial, and that will also count as a win.
Always read the small print!! lol

16 Nov 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
Wasn't there an awful lot more damage done to innocent people by the media used by the Nazi propaganda machine

Now that one I concede, though I would point out that it took an awfull lot more money, manpower (sorry pc peoplepower) time and effort than can be done with a few twits on twitter.

16 Nov 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
I am speechless.

That's ok being unable to answer my question, almost the same question you asked speaks me, volumes so you don't have to.
luckily Trevuanance was able to come up with at least one instance as an answer lol

16 Nov 2012

I am sorry mids that was rude of me. I will try not to do it again.
To answer your question, the internationalness of the media is not, in my opinion, of any great import.
The media you cite have caused enormous distress as I am sure you will acknowledge.

16 Nov 2012

Yes they have caused immense distress, but thier audience is limited when compared to the World Wide Web, they have also had a lot more time to cause distress, by comparison the internet and especially multimedia sites and networking sites are but infants when put up against the likes of Newspapers (713 AD the first recorded weekly News Sheet) TV news (late 1920s)
For example when did you last read a Chinese newspaper, now how many Chinese do you think read the World News reports on the Internet today ?