Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
So if my friend drinks a bottle of rum every night and I suggest he might be an alcoholic that is libellious as I can't prove he is
Truth is no particular defence! You would need to be able to prove it in court. Hence why most sensible editors remove any such accusation.
Still waiting for you to define when
x is an alcoholic is a fair use statement x is an alcoholic is suable
you said I was stupid for not understanding so should be easy to lay out where the line is
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
You are failing to understand my point....most normal people don't work like that they call it as they see it. you drink a bottle of spirits a night we will call you an alcoholic the fact its not accurate as we can't prove it is neither here nor there. For most of us we don't really know what we can get in trouble saying because we don't worry about it as this law really doesn't apply to us as we aren't like to get sued as there is no point.
You cannot give me even now a defining line between x is an alcoholic being fair use and x is an alcoholic being libellious. Go on tell me where I can say a and where I can get sued
I have done so repeatedly.
Once again...
If you publish something saying x is an alcoholic, you are libelling them, unless you can prove it. Now, they might well not sue (and if they did, might chase the publisher rather than you, as the publisher is easier to find and more likely to have the means to pay).
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Again my question how does your average lay person tell the difference between fair comment and libellious....you said I was being stupid so explain it to me in laymans terms I am willing to be educated
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
You are failing to understand my point....most normal people don't work like that they call it as they see it. you drink a bottle of spirits a night we will call you an alcoholic the fact its not accurate as we can't prove it is neither here nor there. For most of us we don't really know what we can get in trouble saying because we don't worry about it as this law really doesn't apply to us as we aren't like to get sued as there is no point.
You cannot give me even now a defining line between x is an alcoholic being fair use and x is an alcoholic being libellious. Go on tell me where I can say a and where I can get sued
I have done so repeatedly.
Once again...
If you publish something saying x is an alcoholic, you are libelling them, unless you can prove it. Now, they might well not sue (and if they did, might chase the publisher rather than you, as the publisher is easier to find and more likely to have the means to pay).
So when is it fair use? Or can I merely never say x is an alcoholic
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
Well it's quite simple. Most of us have been drunk. I have on occasion wondered how I got home. I have certainly stumbled around. I'm not an alcoholic though. being an alcoholic is completely different to liking a drink and sometimes doing it to excess.
We all have I suspect. What I am getting that is there seems to be some line drawn where you can say
x is an alcoholic and be fair use x is an alcoholic and be sued
I am asking where the line is as a lay person because damned if I can work it out and I suspect what it amounts to is black at one end, white at the other and a huge grey area in the middle. The grey area is the problem because without legal training you really have no idea if you are veering into the grey
Well I think it's quite simple. You should not call someone an alcoholic because it's impossible to substantiate. It's not a medical term. It implies someone is dependant on alcohol. You don't, and in fact, can't, know whether that is the case unless you are a close friend, family member or partner and have close personal knowledge of their behaviour. You can say "I saw XXX in the pub the other day and they had several double G&Ts and looked pretty pissed". That's it.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
So if my friend drinks a bottle of rum every night and I suggest he might be an alcoholic that is libellious as I can't prove he is
Truth is no particular defence! You would need to be able to prove it in court. Hence why most sensible editors remove any such accusation.
Still waiting for you to define when
x is an alcoholic is a fair use statement x is an alcoholic is suable
you said I was stupid for not understanding so should be easy to lay out where the line is
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Again my question how does your average lay person tell the difference between fair comment and libellious....you said I was being stupid so explain it to me in laymans terms I am willing to be educated
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Again my question how does your average lay person tell the difference between fair comment and libellious....you said I was being stupid so explain it to me in laymans terms I am willing to be educated
An interesting fact is that the US only has 9 cities larger than Birmingham.
It’s an uninteresting fact given that you are using local authority boundaries - utterly meaningless. Is Leeds bigger than Manchester?
It's still only 15 if you look at US urban areas vs the West Midlands conurbation which is comparing like with like as much as possible.
Yes, that’s true. Most American cities are underwhelming - in both size and content. Some of those in the top ten are unimaginably dull places.
There's New York, San Fancisco, New Orleans and all the rest are Cincinatti.
Whereas we have London, and, um...Edinburgh, Glasgow and Liverpool.
All the rest are Slough.
Manchester, Bristol, Newcastle, Nottingham, Leeds - all very characterful big cities
Leeds is ugly and dull.
Never been to Nottingham, but I haven’t heard good things.
I could give you the rest, but let’s be honest, are they any match for Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia?
Lincoln, York, Chester and Durham are all lovely cities and far nicer to visit than either Chicago or Philadelphia whose only claims to character appear to be their size. Boston is nice though.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
Well it's quite simple. Most of us have been drunk. I have on occasion wondered how I got home. I have certainly stumbled around. I'm not an alcoholic though. being an alcoholic is completely different to liking a drink and sometimes doing it to excess.
We all have I suspect. What I am getting that is there seems to be some line drawn where you can say
x is an alcoholic and be fair use x is an alcoholic and be sued
I am asking where the line is as a lay person because damned if I can work it out and I suspect what it amounts to is black at one end, white at the other and a huge grey area in the middle. The grey area is the problem because without legal training you really have no idea if you are veering into the grey
Well I think it's quite simple. You should not call someone an alcoholic because it's impossible to substantiate. It's not a medical term. It implies someone is dependant on alcohol. You don't, and in fact, can't, know whether that is the case unless you are a close friend, family member or partner and have close personal knowledge of their behaviour. You can say "I saw XXX in the pub the other day and they had several double G&Ts and looked pretty pissed". That's it.
Then alcoholics anonymous should be prosecuted presumably as they encourage you to confront people you care for with the fact they are an alcoholic. Incitement therefore to a crime ( although not sure if civil torts count)
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
So if my friend drinks a bottle of rum every night and I suggest he might be an alcoholic that is libellious as I can't prove he is
If you say it then it is potentially slander. Of you write it and publish it is libel.
But don't forget your friend has to trouble his lawyers before anything happens and if he drinks a bottle of rum a night then even Saul Goodman might talk him out of a challenge.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
Well it's quite simple. Most of us have been drunk. I have on occasion wondered how I got home. I have certainly stumbled around. I'm not an alcoholic though. being an alcoholic is completely different to liking a drink and sometimes doing it to excess.
We all have I suspect. What I am getting that is there seems to be some line drawn where you can say
x is an alcoholic and be fair use x is an alcoholic and be sued
I am asking where the line is as a lay person because damned if I can work it out and I suspect what it amounts to is black at one end, white at the other and a huge grey area in the middle. The grey area is the problem because without legal training you really have no idea if you are veering into the grey
It’s very simple. If x has declared publicly that they are an alcoholic, you’re OK.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
So if my friend drinks a bottle of rum every night and I suggest he might be an alcoholic that is libellious as I can't prove he is
If you say it then it is potentially slander. Of you write it and publish it is libel.
But don't forget your friend has to trouble his lawyers before anything happens and if he drinks a bottle of rum a night then even Saul Goodman might talk him out of a challenge.
See this is what I mean to reasonable people my friend gives every reason to make them believe he is one. Being barred from expressing an opinion on pain of court does not seem reasonable to most
I think i have been to every major US city and i can't say i fell in love with any. Certainly not compared to Vancouver or Toronto in Canada.
I dont care for NYC. Prefer Boston. Downtown Chicago is cool. San Francisco is a dump. Seattle isnt much better. LA, i would prefer to spend a week in Staines. As a former professional gambler, I actually skipped tournaments rather than spend too much time in Las Vegas.
It is what is outside the cities that is much more spectacular. Yosemite, yellowstone, the great lakes, etc etc etc etc etc
I was massively underwhelmed by NY - London is infinitely better - although I visited in a heatwave so need to go again as the oppressive weather killed it.
The national parks and wildernesses in the States are indeed its jewels. I’ve not seen as much as you but can confirm that the Shenandoah is sublime, and the Colorado Rockies awe-inspiring.
Always liked Seattle. You don't have to go far to be in spectacularly beautiful wilderness either.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
So if my friend drinks a bottle of rum every night and I suggest he might be an alcoholic that is libellious as I can't prove he is
If you say it then it is potentially slander. Of you write it and publish it is libel.
But don't forget your friend has to trouble his lawyers before anything happens and if he drinks a bottle of rum a night then even Saul Goodman might talk him out of a challenge.
It’s not slander of you say it privately to him alone.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Again my question how does your average lay person tell the difference between fair comment and libellious....you said I was being stupid so explain it to me in laymans terms I am willing to be educated
An interesting fact is that the US only has 9 cities larger than Birmingham.
It’s an uninteresting fact given that you are using local authority boundaries - utterly meaningless. Is Leeds bigger than Manchester?
It's still only 15 if you look at US urban areas vs the West Midlands conurbation which is comparing like with like as much as possible.
Yes, that’s true. Most American cities are underwhelming - in both size and content. Some of those in the top ten are unimaginably dull places.
There's New York, San Fancisco, New Orleans and all the rest are Cincinatti.
Whereas we have London, and, um...Edinburgh, Glasgow and Liverpool.
All the rest are Slough.
Manchester, Bristol, Newcastle, Nottingham, Leeds - all very characterful big cities
Leeds is ugly and dull.
Never been to Nottingham, but I haven’t heard good things.
I could give you the rest, but let’s be honest, are they any match for Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia?
Lincoln, York, Chester and Durham are all lovely cities and far nicer to visit than either Chicago or Philadelphia whose only claims to character appear to be their size. Boston is nice though.
Yes, but if we’re talking about small cities, then you have to consider places like Monterey.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
So if my friend drinks a bottle of rum every night and I suggest he might be an alcoholic that is libellious as I can't prove he is
If you say it then it is potentially slander. Of you write it and publish it is libel.
But don't forget your friend has to trouble his lawyers before anything happens and if he drinks a bottle of rum a night then even Saul Goodman might talk him out of a challenge.
It’s not slander of you say it privately to him alone.
I will try it tomorrow at work, I will turn up drunk and if they say "You are drunk" I will sue them for slander as they can't prove it then. Sorry the law is an ass here
I think i have been to every major US city and i can't say i fell in love with any. Certainly not compared to Vancouver or Toronto in Canada.
I dont care for NYC. Prefer Boston. Downtown Chicago is cool. San Francisco is a dump. Seattle isnt much better. LA, i would prefer to spend a week in Staines. As a former professional gambler, I actually skipped tournaments rather than spend too much time in Las Vegas.
It is what is outside the cities that is much more spectacular. Yosemite, yellowstone, the great lakes, etc etc etc etc etc
I was massively underwhelmed by NY - London is infinitely better - although I visited in a heatwave so need to go again as the oppressive weather killed it.
The national parks and wildernesses in the States are indeed its jewels. I’ve not seen as much as you but can confirm that the Shenandoah is sublime, and the Colorado Rockies awe-inspiring.
Always liked Seattle. You don't have to go far to be in spectacularly beautiful wilderness either.
I'm supposed to be going on holiday there next May/June. May still happen I suppose.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Again my question how does your average lay person tell the difference between fair comment and libellious....you said I was being stupid so explain it to me in laymans terms I am willing to be educated
An interesting fact is that the US only has 9 cities larger than Birmingham.
It’s an uninteresting fact given that you are using local authority boundaries - utterly meaningless. Is Leeds bigger than Manchester?
It's still only 15 if you look at US urban areas vs the West Midlands conurbation which is comparing like with like as much as possible.
Yes, that’s true. Most American cities are underwhelming - in both size and content. Some of those in the top ten are unimaginably dull places.
There's New York, San Fancisco, New Orleans and all the rest are Cincinatti.
Whereas we have London, and, um...Edinburgh, Glasgow and Liverpool.
All the rest are Slough.
Manchester, Bristol, Newcastle, Nottingham, Leeds - all very characterful big cities
Leeds is ugly and dull.
Never been to Nottingham, but I haven’t heard good things.
I could give you the rest, but let’s be honest, are they any match for Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia?
Lincoln, York, Chester and Durham are all lovely cities and far nicer to visit than either Chicago or Philadelphia whose only claims to character appear to be their size. Boston is nice though.
You are comparing apples with pears. If you are talking about Lincoln, York et al then you might look to Santa Fe, Charleston, Portland (both WA and ME)...etc
Laura K is trending on Twitter, she must have said something to annoy Corbynistas.
Nah see is getting from both sides. From one side taking the piss out of asking a question that has already been answered and the other giving it the usual she is a Tory stooge.
Laura K is trending on Twitter, she must have said something to annoy Corbynistas.
Nah see is getting from both sides. From one side taking the piss out of asking a question that has already been answered and the other giving it the usual she is a Tory stooge.
Laura K is simply terrible. I’ve no idea how she got her job.
I think i have been to every major US city and i can't say i fell in love with any. Certainly not compared to Vancouver or Toronto in Canada.
I dont care for NYC. Prefer Boston. Downtown Chicago is cool. San Francisco is a dump. Seattle isnt much better. LA, i would prefer to spend a week in Staines. As a former professional gambler, I actually skipped tournaments rather than spend too much time in Las Vegas.
It is what is outside the cities that is much more spectacular. Yosemite, yellowstone, the great lakes, etc etc etc etc etc
I was massively underwhelmed by NY - London is infinitely better - although I visited in a heatwave so need to go again as the oppressive weather killed it.
The national parks and wildernesses in the States are indeed its jewels. I’ve not seen as much as you but can confirm that the Shenandoah is sublime, and the Colorado Rockies awe-inspiring.
Always liked Seattle. You don't have to go far to be in spectacularly beautiful wilderness either.
Its gone downhill massively over the past few years. Same with Portland.
The San Juan Islands an hour north of Seattle are little talked about, but one of my favourite places I have visited in the US.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
So if my friend drinks a bottle of rum every night and I suggest he might be an alcoholic that is libellious as I can't prove he is
If you say it then it is potentially slander. Of you write it and publish it is libel.
But don't forget your friend has to trouble his lawyers before anything happens and if he drinks a bottle of rum a night then even Saul Goodman might talk him out of a challenge.
See this is what I mean to reasonable people my friend gives every reason to make them believe he is one. Being barred from expressing an opinion on pain of court does not seem reasonable to most
Why not restrict yourself to subtantiable facts? "My friend drinks a bottle of rum every night"
I think i have been to every major US city and i can't say i fell in love with any. Certainly not compared to Vancouver or Toronto in Canada.
I dont care for NYC. Prefer Boston. Downtown Chicago is cool. San Francisco is a dump. Seattle isnt much better. LA, i would prefer to spend a week in Staines. As a former professional gambler, I actually skipped tournaments rather than spend too much time in Las Vegas.
It is what is outside the cities that is much more spectacular. Yosemite, yellowstone, the great lakes, etc etc etc etc etc
I was massively underwhelmed by NY - London is infinitely better - although I visited in a heatwave so need to go again as the oppressive weather killed it.
The national parks and wildernesses in the States are indeed its jewels. I’ve not seen as much as you but can confirm that the Shenandoah is sublime, and the Colorado Rockies awe-inspiring.
Always liked Seattle. You don't have to go far to be in spectacularly beautiful wilderness either.
I'm supposed to be going on holiday there next May/June. May still happen I suppose.
Seattle is really really really boring...from an urban perspective. Great landscape tho.
I think i have been to every major US city and i can't say i fell in love with any. Certainly not compared to Vancouver or Toronto in Canada.
I dont care for NYC. Prefer Boston. Downtown Chicago is cool. San Francisco is a dump. Seattle isnt much better. LA, i would prefer to spend a week in Staines. As a former professional gambler, I actually skipped tournaments rather than spend too much time in Las Vegas.
It is what is outside the cities that is much more spectacular. Yosemite, yellowstone, the great lakes, etc etc etc etc etc
I was massively underwhelmed by NY - London is infinitely better - although I visited in a heatwave so need to go again as the oppressive weather killed it.
The national parks and wildernesses in the States are indeed its jewels. I’ve not seen as much as you but can confirm that the Shenandoah is sublime, and the Colorado Rockies awe-inspiring.
Always liked Seattle. You don't have to go far to be in spectacularly beautiful wilderness either.
I'm supposed to be going on holiday there next May/June. May still happen I suppose.
Seattle is really really really boring...from an urban perspective. Great landscape tho.
I think i have been to every major US city and i can't say i fell in love with any. Certainly not compared to Vancouver or Toronto in Canada.
I dont care for NYC. Prefer Boston. Downtown Chicago is cool. San Francisco is a dump. Seattle isnt much better. LA, i would prefer to spend a week in Staines. As a former professional gambler, I actually skipped tournaments rather than spend too much time in Las Vegas.
It is what is outside the cities that is much more spectacular. Yosemite, yellowstone, the great lakes, etc etc etc etc etc
I was massively underwhelmed by NY - London is infinitely better - although I visited in a heatwave so need to go again as the oppressive weather killed it.
The national parks and wildernesses in the States are indeed its jewels. I’ve not seen as much as you but can confirm that the Shenandoah is sublime, and the Colorado Rockies awe-inspiring.
Always liked Seattle. You don't have to go far to be in spectacularly beautiful wilderness either.
Its gone downhill massively over the past few years. Same with Portland..
I think i have been to every major US city and i can't say i fell in love with any. Certainly not compared to Vancouver or Toronto in Canada.
I dont care for NYC. Prefer Boston. Downtown Chicago is cool. San Francisco is a dump. Seattle isnt much better. LA, i would prefer to spend a week in Staines. As a former professional gambler, I actually skipped tournaments rather than spend too much time in Las Vegas.
It is what is outside the cities that is much more spectacular. Yosemite, yellowstone, the great lakes, etc etc etc etc etc
I was massively underwhelmed by NY - London is infinitely better - although I visited in a heatwave so need to go again as the oppressive weather killed it.
The national parks and wildernesses in the States are indeed its jewels. I’ve not seen as much as you but can confirm that the Shenandoah is sublime, and the Colorado Rockies awe-inspiring.
Always liked Seattle. You don't have to go far to be in spectacularly beautiful wilderness either.
I'm supposed to be going on holiday there next May/June. May still happen I suppose.
Seattle is really really really boring...from an urban perspective. Great landscape tho.
Has some nice craft beer, I'm told. Not as much as Portland though.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
You are failing to understand my point....most normal people don't work like that they call it as they see it. you drink a bottle of spirits a night we will call you an alcoholic the fact its not accurate as we can't prove it is neither here nor there. For most of us we don't really know what we can get in trouble saying because we don't worry about it as this law really doesn't apply to us as we aren't like to get sued as there is no point.
You cannot give me even now a defining line between x is an alcoholic being fair use and x is an alcoholic being libellious. Go on tell me where I can say a and where I can get sued
I have done so repeatedly.
Once again...
If you publish something saying x is an alcoholic, you are libelling them, unless you can prove it. Now, they might well not sue (and if they did, might chase the publisher rather than you, as the publisher is easier to find and more likely to have the means to pay).
So when is it fair use? Or can I merely never say x is an alcoholic
I think i have been to every major US city and i can't say i fell in love with any. Certainly not compared to Vancouver or Toronto in Canada.
I dont care for NYC. Prefer Boston. Downtown Chicago is cool. San Francisco is a dump. Seattle isnt much better. LA, i would prefer to spend a week in Staines. As a former professional gambler, I actually skipped tournaments rather than spend too much time in Las Vegas.
It is what is outside the cities that is much more spectacular. Yosemite, yellowstone, the great lakes, etc etc etc etc etc
I was massively underwhelmed by NY - London is infinitely better - although I visited in a heatwave so need to go again as the oppressive weather killed it.
The national parks and wildernesses in the States are indeed its jewels. I’ve not seen as much as you but can confirm that the Shenandoah is sublime, and the Colorado Rockies awe-inspiring.
Always liked Seattle. You don't have to go far to be in spectacularly beautiful wilderness either.
I'm supposed to be going on holiday there next May/June. May still happen I suppose.
Seattle is really really really boring...from an urban perspective. Great landscape tho.
Laura K is trending on Twitter, she must have said something to annoy Corbynistas.
Nah see is getting from both sides. From one side taking the piss out of asking a question that has already been answered and the other giving it the usual she is a Tory stooge.
Laura K is simply terrible. I’ve no idea how she got her job.
I’ve no idea either. She’s a bloody crap journalist. Her perceived bias is small beer compared to her inability to break stories or offer any insight.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
So if my friend drinks a bottle of rum every night and I suggest he might be an alcoholic that is libellious as I can't prove he is
If you say it then it is potentially slander. Of you write it and publish it is libel.
But don't forget your friend has to trouble his lawyers before anything happens and if he drinks a bottle of rum a night then even Saul Goodman might talk him out of a challenge.
It’s not slander of you say it privately to him alone.
I will try it tomorrow at work, I will turn up drunk and if they say "You are drunk" I will sue them for slander as they can't prove it then. Sorry the law is an ass here
It’s fairly easy to prove someone is drunk.
It’s rather trickier to prove they are an alcoholic.
What was excruciating, and in the first case quite disgusting, about this interview was Piers Morgan suggesting Helen Whately was laughing about people dying in care homes, when she was obviously exasperated by his continual interruptions and refusal to let her answer, and his misinformed claim that she voted against NHS workers pay rise, as noted by fullfact. Now he is acting like some man of the people ‘asking the important questions’ when it’s just loud mouthed, rude, ignorant, bullying
... One PPE vendor that we know did $80M in revenue last year, and currently has $2B or more worth of demand for his products. They would need a 50% down payment to lock in this capacity. Even in normally functioning credit markets, this would probably be unrealistic for a business of their scale to secure. There is a lot of risk in the production process when scaling manufacturing capacity 20x. And banks have difficulty quantifying this risk, since they are not manufacturing or quality control experts. In the midst of a pandemic that has spooked lenders, getting this degree of financing is likely impossible without some form of government guarantee....
The CEO of a German ventilator manufacturer that also makes PPE was saying the problem with ramping up PPE production is that it can only realistically be made with full automation. Once you run the machines 24 hours a day you have no other way of increasing production. Ventilators, which are relatively labour intensive to produce, are more amenable to surge production.
You build a new line. Or ten. Which is where “there is a lot of risk in scaling” comes in.
The sort of risk that could be dealt with by a handsome cheque from Boris or Angela. Small change for a government already spending hundreds of billions.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
So if my friend drinks a bottle of rum every night and I suggest he might be an alcoholic that is libellious as I can't prove he is
If you say it then it is potentially slander. Of you write it and publish it is libel.
But don't forget your friend has to trouble his lawyers before anything happens and if he drinks a bottle of rum a night then even Saul Goodman might talk him out of a challenge.
It’s not slander of you say it privately to him alone.
I will try it tomorrow at work, I will turn up drunk and if they say "You are drunk" I will sue them for slander as they can't prove it then. Sorry the law is an ass here
But if you are drunk they will probably be able to prove it by giving evidence to the court about your conduct, smell, speech, coordination etc. (and they won't just say you are drunk, they will sack you for gross misconduct). And for reasons too tedious to explain they will have additional defences of qualified privilege and all sorts. The law is indeed an ass, but over the years it has fine-tuned its asininity to the extent it's not quite as stupid as you think it is.
... One PPE vendor that we know did $80M in revenue last year, and currently has $2B or more worth of demand for his products. They would need a 50% down payment to lock in this capacity. Even in normally functioning credit markets, this would probably be unrealistic for a business of their scale to secure. There is a lot of risk in the production process when scaling manufacturing capacity 20x. And banks have difficulty quantifying this risk, since they are not manufacturing or quality control experts. In the midst of a pandemic that has spooked lenders, getting this degree of financing is likely impossible without some form of government guarantee....
The CEO of a German ventilator manufacturer that also makes PPE was saying the problem with ramping up PPE production is that it can only realistically be made with full automation. Once you run the machines 24 hours a day you have no other way of increasing production. Ventilators, which are relatively labour intensive to produce, are more amenable to surge production.
You build a new line. Or ten. Which is where “there is a lot of risk in scaling” comes in.
The sort of risk that could be dealt with by a handsome cheque from Boris or Angela. Small change for a government already spending hundreds of billions.
Yes, it could. But most of the manufacturing is in China and there are questions of trust....
You could build domestic production, and though that would probably take longer and be costlier, it might be a worthwhile investment.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
So if my friend drinks a bottle of rum every night and I suggest he might be an alcoholic that is libellious as I can't prove he is
If you say it then it is potentially slander. Of you write it and publish it is libel.
But don't forget your friend has to trouble his lawyers before anything happens and if he drinks a bottle of rum a night then even Saul Goodman might talk him out of a challenge.
It’s not slander of you say it privately to him alone.
I will try it tomorrow at work, I will turn up drunk and if they say "You are drunk" I will sue them for slander as they can't prove it then. Sorry the law is an ass here
But if you are drunk they will probably be able to prove it by giving evidence to the court about your conduct, smell, speech, coordination etc. (and they won't just say you are drunk, they will sack you for gross misconduct). And for reasons too tedious to explain they will have additional defences of qualified privilege and all sorts. The law is indeed an ass, but over the years it has fine-tuned its asininity to the extent it's not quite as stupid as you think it is.
Damage to reputation also needs to be demonstrated, of course. If you wander around obviously pissed, that’s going to be difficult.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Again my question how does your average lay person tell the difference between fair comment and libellious....you said I was being stupid so explain it to me in laymans terms I am willing to be educated
An interesting fact is that the US only has 9 cities larger than Birmingham.
It’s an uninteresting fact given that you are using local authority boundaries - utterly meaningless. Is Leeds bigger than Manchester?
It's still only 15 if you look at US urban areas vs the West Midlands conurbation which is comparing like with like as much as possible.
Yes, that’s true. Most American cities are underwhelming - in both size and content. Some of those in the top ten are unimaginably dull places.
There's New York, San Fancisco, New Orleans and all the rest are Cincinatti.
Whereas we have London, and, um...Edinburgh, Glasgow and Liverpool.
All the rest are Slough.
Manchester, Bristol, Newcastle, Nottingham, Leeds - all very characterful big cities
Leeds is ugly and dull.
Never been to Nottingham, but I haven’t heard good things.
I could give you the rest, but let’s be honest, are they any match for Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia?
Lincoln, York, Chester and Durham are all lovely cities and far nicer to visit than either Chicago or Philadelphia whose only claims to character appear to be their size. Boston is nice though.
Yes, but if we’re talking about small cities, then you have to consider places like Monterey.
Oh I agree. But then the UK versions win hands down.
The big cities really have no redeeming factors. They are just urban sprawling dumps, all one step away from the next Detroit.
Trump is taking a hell of an obvious gamble pushing the US toward reopening on 1 May
He would be, if he was in charge of a centralised country like the UK. But he isn't. The majority of Governors will not go along with it and so there won't be the negative consequence of a rapid resurgence in deaths. And Trump is then able to blame the Governors for the economic damage - he wanted to open the economy, not his fault.
We wait to see whether enough voters will buy that crap, but I can't rule it out.
81% of Americans want to wait until it is safe rather than going by an arbitrary deadline.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Again my question how does your average lay person tell the difference between fair comment and libellious....you said I was being stupid so explain it to me in laymans terms I am willing to be educated
An interesting fact is that the US only has 9 cities larger than Birmingham.
It’s an uninteresting fact given that you are using local authority boundaries - utterly meaningless. Is Leeds bigger than Manchester?
It's still only 15 if you look at US urban areas vs the West Midlands conurbation which is comparing like with like as much as possible.
Yes, that’s true. Most American cities are underwhelming - in both size and content. Some of those in the top ten are unimaginably dull places.
There's New York, San Fancisco, New Orleans and all the rest are Cincinatti.
Whereas we have London, and, um...Edinburgh, Glasgow and Liverpool.
All the rest are Slough.
Manchester, Bristol, Newcastle, Nottingham, Leeds - all very characterful big cities
Leeds is ugly and dull.
Never been to Nottingham, but I haven’t heard good things.
I could give you the rest, but let’s be honest, are they any match for Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia?
Lincoln, York, Chester and Durham are all lovely cities and far nicer to visit than either Chicago or Philadelphia whose only claims to character appear to be their size. Boston is nice though.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
Saying it’s your opinion doesn’t avoid libel. There’s an exception on fair comment and ‘common abuse’ - e.g. you can call someone a dickhead but not a liar.
see and you expect us lay people to understand it, where does observing someone stumbling around looking drunk cross over to the point where we can say in my opinion he is an alcoholic....you say I am being daft however I am expressing an opinion a lot of perfectly reasonable people would come to. Where is the line where I cant say x and I can say x
I’ve just explained it to you.
I can call you a rum sort but not a criminal.
Do you grasp the difference?
So if my friend drinks a bottle of rum every night and I suggest he might be an alcoholic that is libellious as I can't prove he is
If you say it then it is potentially slander. Of you write it and publish it is libel.
But don't forget your friend has to trouble his lawyers before anything happens and if he drinks a bottle of rum a night then even Saul Goodman might talk him out of a challenge.
It’s not slander of you say it privately to him alone.
I will try it tomorrow at work, I will turn up drunk and if they say "You are drunk" I will sue them for slander as they can't prove it then. Sorry the law is an ass here
You can't sue someone for slander (or libel) on the basis of something they say to you unless there are other people present. Even if there were, the person making the statement may be able to use the defence of "honest opinion" - see below. But a lawyer would almost certainly tell you that this wasn't worth taking to court anyway.
To successfully sue someone for libel or slander over a statement they have made about you, you have to prove that they made the statement to a third party, that the statement is defamatory and that it refers to you. Note that it doesn't have to name you as long as it would be clear to the third party that it referred to you.
If someone sues you for libel or slander you have a number of possible defences:
- that your allegation was substantially true - that you were expressing an honest opinion - that publishing your statement was in the public interest - that your statement was protected by privilege
On the "honest opinion" defence (which has replaced the previous "fair comment" defence), to use that defence your statement has to be a statement of opinion, must state the basis of your opinion and it must be an opinion which an honest person could hold on the basis of the facts.
If a statement is capable of being proved true (e.g. whether or not X is an alcoholic) it is not a statement of opinion so that defence is not available. If a statement is not capable of being proved true the defence of honest opinion may be available to you. If you don't have all the facts a qualifying statement such as "in my opinion" is not going to protect you where the allegations are very serious.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Again my question how does your average lay person tell the difference between fair comment and libellious....you said I was being stupid so explain it to me in laymans terms I am willing to be educated
An interesting fact is that the US only has 9 cities larger than Birmingham.
It’s an uninteresting fact given that you are using local authority boundaries - utterly meaningless. Is Leeds bigger than Manchester?
It's still only 15 if you look at US urban areas vs the West Midlands conurbation which is comparing like with like as much as possible.
Yes, that’s true. Most American cities are underwhelming - in both size and content. Some of those in the top ten are unimaginably dull places.
There's New York, San Fancisco, New Orleans and all the rest are Cincinatti.
Whereas we have London, and, um...Edinburgh, Glasgow and Liverpool.
All the rest are Slough.
Manchester, Bristol, Newcastle, Nottingham, Leeds - all very characterful big cities
Leeds is ugly and dull.
Never been to Nottingham, but I haven’t heard good things.
I could give you the rest, but let’s be honest, are they any match for Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia?
Lincoln, York, Chester and Durham are all lovely cities and far nicer to visit than either Chicago or Philadelphia whose only claims to character appear to be their size. Boston is nice though.
I found Philadelphia utterly charming.
Philly is a great city. Better food, music and art than NYC in my opinion.
Not quite, Trump actually said states could only ease off lockdown if they have had 2 weeks of decline in the rate of Covid 19 cases and robust testing in place
Laura K is trending on Twitter, she must have said something to annoy Corbynistas.
Nah see is getting from both sides. From one side taking the piss out of asking a question that has already been answered and the other giving it the usual she is a Tory stooge.
Laura K is simply terrible. I’ve no idea how she got her job.
I remember when Laura K had quite a fanclub on here.
What was excruciating, and in the first case quite disgusting, about this interview was Piers Morgan suggesting Helen Whately was laughing about people dying in care homes, when she was obviously exasperated by his continual interruptions and refusal to let her answer, and his misinformed claim that she voted against NHS workers pay rise, as noted by fullfact. Now he is acting like some man of the people ‘asking the important questions’ when it’s just loud mouthed, rude, ignorant, bullying
If I were Boris and noticed the incident at all, I'd be infuriated that some rating-chasing TV interviewer tried to tell me who I should sack, and she would become completely unsackable - wouldn't want to give him the satisfaction.
Unless lockdowns are proven not to make any difference, it’s a bit silly to not mention that this bad flu season sized spike coincided with worldwide lockdowns isn’t it?
Unless lockdowns are proven not to make any difference, it’s a bit silly to not mention that this bad flu season sized spike coincided with worldwide lockdowns isn’t it?
It's a spectacularly stupid comment. It is like building a massive wall of sandbags to cope with an enormous flood and water flowing a bit over the top, then saying "well it was only as bad as pipe leak damage, it was crazy to waste all that money on sandbags".
Unless lockdowns are proven not to make any difference, it’s a bit silly to not mention that this bad flu season sized spike coincided with worldwide lockdowns isn’t it?
I think i have been to every major US city and i can't say i fell in love with any. Certainly not compared to Vancouver or Toronto in Canada.
I dont care for NYC. Prefer Boston. Downtown Chicago is cool. San Francisco is a dump. Seattle isnt much better. LA, i would prefer to spend a week in Staines. As a former professional gambler, I actually skipped tournaments rather than spend too much time in Las Vegas.
It is what is outside the cities that is much more spectacular. Yosemite, yellowstone, the great lakes, etc etc etc etc etc
I was massively underwhelmed by NY - London is infinitely better - although I visited in a heatwave so need to go again as the oppressive weather killed it.
The national parks and wildernesses in the States are indeed its jewels. I’ve not seen as much as you but can confirm that the Shenandoah is sublime, and the Colorado Rockies awe-inspiring.
Always liked Seattle. You don't have to go far to be in spectacularly beautiful wilderness either.
Its gone downhill massively over the past few years. Same with Portland.
The San Juan Islands an hour north of Seattle are little talked about, but one of my favourite places I have visited in the US.
That's what I'm talking about. Pootle over the border to Saltspring. The Seattle Vancouver Victoria triangle is heavenly.
Unless lockdowns are proven not to make any difference, it’s a bit silly to not mention that this bad flu season sized spike coincided with worldwide lockdowns isn’t it?
It's a spectacularly stupid comment. It is like building a massive wall of sandbags to cope with an enormous flood and water flowing a bit over the top, then saying "well it was only as bad as pipe leak damage, it was crazy to waste all that money on sandbags".
Unless lockdowns are proven not to make any difference, it’s a bit silly to not mention that this bad flu season sized spike coincided with worldwide lockdowns isn’t it?
Unless lockdowns are proven not to make any difference, it’s a bit silly to not mention that this bad flu season sized spike coincided with worldwide lockdowns isn’t it?
I think i have been to every major US city and i can't say i fell in love with any. Certainly not compared to Vancouver or Toronto in Canada.
I dont care for NYC. Prefer Boston. Downtown Chicago is cool. San Francisco is a dump. Seattle isnt much better. LA, i would prefer to spend a week in Staines. As a former professional gambler, I actually skipped tournaments rather than spend too much time in Las Vegas.
It is what is outside the cities that is much more spectacular. Yosemite, yellowstone, the great lakes, etc etc etc etc etc
I was massively underwhelmed by NY - London is infinitely better - although I visited in a heatwave so need to go again as the oppressive weather killed it.
The national parks and wildernesses in the States are indeed its jewels. I’ve not seen as much as you but can confirm that the Shenandoah is sublime, and the Colorado Rockies awe-inspiring.
Always liked Seattle. You don't have to go far to be in spectacularly beautiful wilderness either.
Its gone downhill massively over the past few years. Same with Portland.
The San Juan Islands an hour north of Seattle are little talked about, but one of my favourite places I have visited in the US.
That's what I'm talking about. Pootle over the border to Saltspring. The Seattle Vancouver Victoria triangle is heavenly.
Why harry and megan didn't want to stay on Vancouver Island is beyond me. Stunning place and if you have money easy access to major cities and onward travel.
Unless lockdowns are proven not to make any difference, it’s a bit silly to not mention that this bad flu season sized spike coincided with worldwide lockdowns isn’t it?
We are booked into a hotel in France on May 31st. We can cancel for free before May 10th. Macron is reviewing the lockdown on the 11th. Here’s what the hotel are saying
“In accordance with the legal Order No 2020-315, of March 25, 2020, regarding the financial conditions of the cancelation of certain travel contracts and tourist vacations in case of exceptional and unavoidable circumstances or -force majeure-, I am pleased to send you this voucher that once this health crisis over, it will allow you to re-book a stay in our establishment. You can find the official French Version HERE
This credit is valid for eighteen (18) months from the date of issue listed on the credit voucher. It can be used on one or more occasions and is subject to availability on the desired dates.
In accordance with the provisions of this order, if this voucher is not used within eighteen (18) months from the date of issue, the customer will be reimbursed for the amounts paid in advance or the remaining credit balance in the form of the original payment methods.“
We are booked into a hotel in France on May 31st. We can cancel for free before May 10th. Macron is reviewing the lockdown on the 11th. Here’s what the hotel are saying
“In accordance with the legal Order No 2020-315, of March 25, 2020, regarding the financial conditions of the cancelation of certain travel contracts and tourist vacations in case of exceptional and unavoidable circumstances or -force majeure-, I am pleased to send you this voucher that once this health crisis over, it will allow you to re-book a stay in our establishment. You can find the official French Version HERE
This credit is valid for eighteen (18) months from the date of issue listed on the credit voucher. It can be used on one or more occasions and is subject to availability on the desired dates.
In accordance with the provisions of this order, if this voucher is not used within eighteen (18) months from the date of issue, the customer will be reimbursed for the amounts paid in advance or the remaining credit balance in the form of the original payment methods.“
Bit strange I thought
You'll probably only get that refund if they aren't bankrupt though...
We are booked into a hotel in France on May 31st. We can cancel for free before May 10th. Macron is reviewing the lockdown on the 11th. Here’s what the hotel are saying
“In accordance with the legal Order No 2020-315, of March 25, 2020, regarding the financial conditions of the cancelation of certain travel contracts and tourist vacations in case of exceptional and unavoidable circumstances or -force majeure-, I am pleased to send you this voucher that once this health crisis over, it will allow you to re-book a stay in our establishment. You can find the official French Version HERE
This credit is valid for eighteen (18) months from the date of issue listed on the credit voucher. It can be used on one or more occasions and is subject to availability on the desired dates.
In accordance with the provisions of this order, if this voucher is not used within eighteen (18) months from the date of issue, the customer will be reimbursed for the amounts paid in advance or the remaining credit balance in the form of the original payment methods.“
Bit strange I thought
You'll probably only get that refund if they aren't bankrupt though...
I can’t see us being able to commit to going by the 10th. Haven’t paid anything anyway
We are booked into a hotel in France on May 31st. We can cancel for free before May 10th. Macron is reviewing the lockdown on the 11th. Here’s what the hotel are saying
“In accordance with the legal Order No 2020-315, of March 25, 2020, regarding the financial conditions of the cancelation of certain travel contracts and tourist vacations in case of exceptional and unavoidable circumstances or -force majeure-, I am pleased to send you this voucher that once this health crisis over, it will allow you to re-book a stay in our establishment. You can find the official French Version HERE
This credit is valid for eighteen (18) months from the date of issue listed on the credit voucher. It can be used on one or more occasions and is subject to availability on the desired dates.
In accordance with the provisions of this order, if this voucher is not used within eighteen (18) months from the date of issue, the customer will be reimbursed for the amounts paid in advance or the remaining credit balance in the form of the original payment methods.“
Bit strange I thought
You'll probably only get that refund if they aren't bankrupt though...
I can’t see us being able to commit to going by the 10th. Haven’t paid anything anyway
That is strange if you haven't paid anything. Maybe you have a free holiday in 2022?
We are booked into a hotel in France on May 31st. We can cancel for free before May 10th. Macron is reviewing the lockdown on the 11th. Here’s what the hotel are saying
“In accordance with the legal Order No 2020-315, of March 25, 2020, regarding the financial conditions of the cancelation of certain travel contracts and tourist vacations in case of exceptional and unavoidable circumstances or -force majeure-, I am pleased to send you this voucher that once this health crisis over, it will allow you to re-book a stay in our establishment. You can find the official French Version HERE
This credit is valid for eighteen (18) months from the date of issue listed on the credit voucher. It can be used on one or more occasions and is subject to availability on the desired dates.
In accordance with the provisions of this order, if this voucher is not used within eighteen (18) months from the date of issue, the customer will be reimbursed for the amounts paid in advance or the remaining credit balance in the form of the original payment methods.“
Bit strange I thought
You'll probably only get that refund if they aren't bankrupt though...
I can’t see us being able to commit to going by the 10th. Haven’t paid anything anyway
That is strange if you haven't paid anything. Maybe you have a free holiday in 2022?
If we don’t cancel by 10th May they take the full amount whether we go or not.
I think i have been to every major US city and i can't say i fell in love with any. Certainly not compared to Vancouver or Toronto in Canada.
I dont care for NYC. Prefer Boston. Downtown Chicago is cool. San Francisco is a dump. Seattle isnt much better. LA, i would prefer to spend a week in Staines. As a former professional gambler, I actually skipped tournaments rather than spend too much time in Las Vegas.
It is what is outside the cities that is much more spectacular. Yosemite, yellowstone, the great lakes, etc etc etc etc etc
I was massively underwhelmed by NY - London is infinitely better - although I visited in a heatwave so need to go again as the oppressive weather killed it.
The national parks and wildernesses in the States are indeed its jewels. I’ve not seen as much as you but can confirm that the Shenandoah is sublime, and the Colorado Rockies awe-inspiring.
Always liked Seattle. You don't have to go far to be in spectacularly beautiful wilderness either.
Its gone downhill massively over the past few years. Same with Portland.
The San Juan Islands an hour north of Seattle are little talked about, but one of my favourite places I have visited in the US.
That's what I'm talking about. Pootle over the border to Saltspring. The Seattle Vancouver Victoria triangle is heavenly.
Why harry and megan didn't want to stay on Vancouver Island is beyond me. Stunning place and if you have money easy access to major cities and onward travel.
Yep.It is a bit dull though. If excitement is your thing.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Again my question how does your average lay person tell the difference between fair comment and libellious....you said I was being stupid so explain it to me in laymans terms I am willing to be educated
An interesting fact is that the US only has 9 cities larger than Birmingham.
It’s an uninteresting fact given that you are using local authority boundaries - utterly meaningless. Is Leeds bigger than Manchester?
It's still only 15 if you look at US urban areas vs the West Midlands conurbation which is comparing like with like as much as possible.
Yes, that’s true. Most American cities are underwhelming - in both size and content. Some of those in the top ten are unimaginably dull places.
There's New York, San Fancisco, New Orleans and all the rest are Cincinatti.
Whereas we have London, and, um...Edinburgh, Glasgow and Liverpool.
All the rest are Slough.
Manchester, Bristol, Newcastle, Nottingham, Leeds - all very characterful big cities
Leeds is ugly and dull.
Never been to Nottingham, but I haven’t heard good things.
I could give you the rest, but let’s be honest, are they any match for Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia?
Lincoln, York, Chester and Durham are all lovely cities and far nicer to visit than either Chicago or Philadelphia whose only claims to character appear to be their size. Boston is nice though.
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Defamation was the last topic in my Tort lectures, presumably as it didn't fit neatly with the rest of the subject. As such it was very close to Finals, and all the wannabe-lawyers were stressed juggling revision schedules with this new content. Their cost-benefit analysis was being constantly recalculated over the course of the lecture, and a steady stream walked out back to the Law Library once they appreciated just how bitty it was and how many cases there were to learn. About a third of the cohort hadn't even descended to the lecture hall for the start as they'd chosen to give this one a miss.
Enraged not so much by the low attendance as the noise and disruption of those fleeing the lecture, trying to get past their seated peers and ascending the steps, the good professor stopped what he was doing and just shouted for anyone who felt they might not be interested to please leave immediately so as not to distract those who intended to remain, with the deal being that anyone who didn't would have to stick it out.
He went on to spell out the pros. Defamation was only one small part of the course and the one or two exam questions that involved defamation would stick out like sore thumbs. Many other topics were very subtle and examiners liked to make a question appear at first glance to be about X, but only closer further analysis would reveal there were also issues of Y or Z. The relevance or not of defamation, though, was impossible to hide, and difficult to mix up with most of the causes of action the course covered. Since all questions were optional with only a certain number requiring to be answered, ignoring defamation was a carefully calculated gamble that would pay off if you learned the rest of the course thoroughly - indeed if you found the syllabus overwhelming, it was the one thing you could safely skip over. On the other hand, the advantage of staying and learning the material was, by the same principles, you'd at least be able to spot which question in the exam it was about, whereas many of the other questions it would be possible to completely miss the point if your powers of analysis were not up to the job. It was also, in his opinion (he was a defamation specialist) the most fun part of the course.
At this point almost everybody left the room, apparently secure in their belief that the very fact they'd been admitted to this great university indicated their powers of analysis were well up to snuff, but they were busy people whose time was valuable, unlikely to work in defamation, and had far too much crud to memorise already. I must have been one of about 10% of the cohort who stayed for the rest of the lecture, though whether I actually answered the question on it in the exam has been lost in the mists of time and memory.
I have the horrible feeling there are a lot of apparently well-qualified professional lawyers out there whose grip on defamation is rather less secure than one might hope!!
Utter garbage from Pagan on PT regarding libel law. It’s relatively simple: if you accuse someone of something that could damage their reputation among right-thinking people, you had better be able to prove it. So, yes, accusing someone of being an alcoholic would be libellous unless you could prove it. They might not sue, but that’s a different matter.
Sorry not apologising for not understanding it as from what I hear it being true in this country isn't a defence against it being libellious. Also why i made sure to say that in my opinion he was rather than state it as a fact. Where did I misunderstand?
No longer a lawyer, and when I was I didn't do defamation. My understanding is, it is a good defence to show that what you said is substantially true, BUT the burden of proof is on you to show it's true. Secondly, opinions are fine if they really are opinions. "X is not a good actor" is fine "X is a child molester" is not, and you can't convert it to an opinion by saying "In my opinion X is a child molester."
Correct. Nor is “in my opinion X is an alcoholic” an avoidance of libel.
Your actor example is covered under fair comment in media law.
Again my question how does your average lay person tell the difference between fair comment and libellious....you said I was being stupid so explain it to me in laymans terms I am willing to be educated
An interesting fact is that the US only has 9 cities larger than Birmingham.
It’s an uninteresting fact given that you are using local authority boundaries - utterly meaningless. Is Leeds bigger than Manchester?
It's still only 15 if you look at US urban areas vs the West Midlands conurbation which is comparing like with like as much as possible.
Yes, that’s true. Most American cities are underwhelming - in both size and content. Some of those in the top ten are unimaginably dull places.
There's New York, San Fancisco, New Orleans and all the rest are Cincinatti.
Whereas we have London, and, um...Edinburgh, Glasgow and Liverpool.
All the rest are Slough.
Manchester, Bristol, Newcastle, Nottingham, Leeds - all very characterful big cities
Leeds is ugly and dull.
Never been to Nottingham, but I haven’t heard good things.
I could give you the rest, but let’s be honest, are they any match for Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia?
Lincoln, York, Chester and Durham are all lovely cities and far nicer to visit than either Chicago or Philadelphia whose only claims to character appear to be their size. Boston is nice though.
I found Philadelphia utterly charming.
I've never been there. Nor Washington DC.
Of all the US cities I visited in my long trip last year, I thought DC (north of the centre, where I was) was more like London than any other US city. Chicago is impressive, rather than attractive, and very noisy. I have heard Philadelphia is worth visiting; I have flown into the airport once and driven round it on the interstate twice; the outskirts don't sell its attractions.
Unless lockdowns are proven not to make any difference, it’s a bit silly to not mention that this bad flu season sized spike coincided with worldwide lockdowns isn’t it?
It's a spectacularly stupid comment. It is like building a massive wall of sandbags to cope with an enormous flood and water flowing a bit over the top, then saying "well it was only as bad as pipe leak damage, it was crazy to waste all that money on sandbags".
Depends how much the sandbags cost. If the sandbags end up costing you so much you lose your house...
Comments
Used to have to visit Cincinnati for work. I won't be going back.
I don’t know if you noticed, but Lisa Nandy’s campaign for the Labour leadership was not successful.
x is an alcoholic is a fair use statement
x is an alcoholic is suable
you said I was stupid for not understanding so should be easy to lay out where the line is
Once again...
If you publish something saying x is an alcoholic, you are libelling them, unless you can prove it. Now, they might well not sue (and if they did, might chase the publisher rather than you, as the publisher is easier to find and more likely to have the means to pay).
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1250798510452113408
Fair comment would be “he loved to party”.
But don't forget your friend has to trouble his lawyers before anything happens and if he drinks a bottle of rum a night then even Saul Goodman might talk him out of a challenge.
If x has declared publicly that they are an alcoholic, you’re OK.
I'll get my coat...
Translation: When it all goes to shit, I'll be dumping my veep before November.
If you are talking about Lincoln, York et al then you might look to Santa Fe, Charleston, Portland (both WA and ME)...etc
I’ve no idea how she got her job.
The San Juan Islands an hour north of Seattle are little talked about, but one of my favourite places I have visited in the US.
It’s rather trickier to prove they are an alcoholic.
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1250348764830695430?s=21
https://twitter.com/AndrewRestuccia/status/1250884189492215812
But most of the manufacturing is in China and there are questions of trust....
You could build domestic production, and though that would probably take longer and be costlier, it might be a worthwhile investment.
If you wander around obviously pissed, that’s going to be difficult.
The big cities really have no redeeming factors. They are just urban sprawling dumps, all one step away from the next Detroit.
To successfully sue someone for libel or slander over a statement they have made about you, you have to prove that they made the statement to a third party, that the statement is defamatory and that it refers to you. Note that it doesn't have to name you as long as it would be clear to the third party that it referred to you.
If someone sues you for libel or slander you have a number of possible defences:
- that your allegation was substantially true
- that you were expressing an honest opinion
- that publishing your statement was in the public interest
- that your statement was protected by privilege
On the "honest opinion" defence (which has replaced the previous "fair comment" defence), to use that defence your statement has to be a statement of opinion, must state the basis of your opinion and it must be an opinion which an honest person could hold on the basis of the facts.
If a statement is capable of being proved true (e.g. whether or not X is an alcoholic) it is not a statement of opinion so that defence is not available. If a statement is not capable of being proved true the defence of honest opinion may be available to you. If you don't have all the facts a qualifying statement such as "in my opinion" is not going to protect you where the allegations are very serious.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52319462
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52314866
Then she got the top job.
https://twitter.com/famedcelebrity/status/1250919332567150593?s=21
Phoenix is America's Stoke, an accumulation of several small towns rolled into one city.
Cue "Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more...." But I'm guessing - maybe 2,000 folk living in one, you know, military cruise ship?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52308073
“In accordance with the legal Order No 2020-315, of March 25, 2020, regarding the financial conditions of the cancelation of certain travel contracts and tourist vacations in case of exceptional and unavoidable circumstances or -force majeure-, I am pleased to send you this voucher that once this health crisis over, it will allow you to re-book a stay in our establishment. You can find the official French Version HERE
This credit is valid for eighteen (18) months from the date of issue listed on the credit voucher. It can be used on one or more occasions and is subject to availability on the desired dates.
In accordance with the provisions of this order, if this voucher is not used within eighteen (18) months from the date of issue, the customer will be reimbursed for the amounts paid in advance or the remaining credit balance in the form of the original payment methods.“
Bit strange I thought
50% of Americans think the lockdown should last for a maximum of 6 more weeks
https://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/disease/36_say_it_s_time_for_america_to_get_back_to_work
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1250931730741149697?s=20
Enraged not so much by the low attendance as the noise and disruption of those fleeing the lecture, trying to get past their seated peers and ascending the steps, the good professor stopped what he was doing and just shouted for anyone who felt they might not be interested to please leave immediately so as not to distract those who intended to remain, with the deal being that anyone who didn't would have to stick it out.
He went on to spell out the pros. Defamation was only one small part of the course and the one or two exam questions that involved defamation would stick out like sore thumbs. Many other topics were very subtle and examiners liked to make a question appear at first glance to be about X, but only closer further analysis would reveal there were also issues of Y or Z. The relevance or not of defamation, though, was impossible to hide, and difficult to mix up with most of the causes of action the course covered. Since all questions were optional with only a certain number requiring to be answered, ignoring defamation was a carefully calculated gamble that would pay off if you learned the rest of the course thoroughly - indeed if you found the syllabus overwhelming, it was the one thing you could safely skip over. On the other hand, the advantage of staying and learning the material was, by the same principles, you'd at least be able to spot which question in the exam it was about, whereas many of the other questions it would be possible to completely miss the point if your powers of analysis were not up to the job. It was also, in his opinion (he was a defamation specialist) the most fun part of the course.
At this point almost everybody left the room, apparently secure in their belief that the very fact they'd been admitted to this great university indicated their powers of analysis were well up to snuff, but they were busy people whose time was valuable, unlikely to work in defamation, and had far too much crud to memorise already. I must have been one of about 10% of the cohort who stayed for the rest of the lecture, though whether I actually answered the question on it in the exam has been lost in the mists of time and memory.
I have the horrible feeling there are a lot of apparently well-qualified professional lawyers out there whose grip on defamation is rather less secure than one might hope!!
https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/tomswalkforthenhs
https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1230634136102064128