I'll make this as brief as possible, first I would like to apologise, to one of my fellow Thanet bloggers, for not responding to a report in one of Thanet's inferior newspapers, which unquestionably reported someone suggesting that he had libelled them in some way, however the reporter was so inept that he or she didn't actually attempt to question this accusation made by some local businessman.
Much of last evening was taken up for me, by what I consider the rather patronising email and letter, which apparently sought to explain laws concerning defamation etc., and potentially consequences if I didn't moderate my commentary. Like my bloggs, the letter in question seem to ramble on, and about things which I've never said, and people I'm reasonably sure I haven't insulted either deliberately or indirectly.
Now individuals as well as corporate entities, have the right to protect their reputation, but when you get a letter, from a very large company, suggesting you seek legal advice, your natural reaction, particularly if you don't feel, they have a complaint, is to feel threatened.
I just wonder whether, laws concerning defamation, ought to be amended, so that before accusations are made, they have to withstand some independent scrutiny, since being a cynic I suspect that some entities use the threat of legal action to silence free speech. Since obviously large corporations, can afford to employee lawyers on such tasks.
Assuming I was as the writer, appeared to be suggesting, defamatory, I reckon, if I were truly mischievous, I would be responding in rather a different way.
As I frequently have mentioned on this site, which my correspondent of yesterday is probably unaware, I am not a fan of anonymous bloggs however I can now clearly see their advantage, and rather than spending several hours, responding to these accusations I would of course just said bollix to them, and continued looking at holidays which was my intention.
Finally this post is just my personal, view, assessment, take whatever it is not intended as a factual reference work in fact just bollix OK.
PS I'd rather not revisit this subject on this blog again.
For libel to stick, the accusation must be a lie.
ReplyDeleteAn action is not something to undertake lightly.
ReplyDeleteMargaret Mortlock successfully sued former tory cllr MAISON for libel in 98.
And I still question what Cllr HAYTON may have said on oath at the trial. (And HAYTON still don't answer. Clearly he could answer especially if he has nothing to hide)
At the time of Mrs M's action I spoke with her solicitor and I recall that he told me never believe a libel action is about the alleged lie alone. It is about your record versus the other persons. No matter what the law might say.
And it seems that is what happened at Mr Maison's behest when he asked if Mrs M had ever been bankrupt in business.
well she told the jury yes I was. And I paid back pound on pound. I took work scrubbing floors but I paid my debts and then built up a successful business.
Hard luck Maison. Well done Margaret (and who'd be surprised if after that the jury was eating out of her hand ?)
It seems that Maison's litigant in person position came a tad unstuck due to the judge's discipline of always examining the backs of documents submitted in evidence.
Where the judge found a comtemperanous note about who had maybe borrwoed from the North Thanet tory cash box ? And it wasn't Margaret.
Defence collapsed. Maison guilty of libel and got costs and damages and went bankrupt on them.
Read the reverse side George you prune !! You can bet the Judge will.
No for libel it aint as simple as it must be a lie. It must be a lie which is believable by reasonable people and which damages the named party ?
I had this with Simon Moores a few years ago. If you think its a lie and you think you are reasonable then it aint libellous ?
I went against the Suffolk Chief constable (who subsequently quit the police) representing myself in 2006 accusing him of malicious falsehood.
First thing (and I am no lawyer) approach the party for remedy and set out your case.
Second inform them that you will litigate and offer High Court mediation as an alternative to taking Court time on the case.
A refusal of mediation carries the risk of being awarded costs even if the party later wins !
So you don't rush to Court.
And in my case Suffolk Chief constable refused to disclose documents sought, failed to file a defence on the facts and refused mediation.
My view is that the Courts would only let a Chief constable get away with that. Breaching High Court pre-action protocol. And it is all set out by the Court Service.
I agree with Tony as far as my blog goes.
I have only had one response maybe implying that I could have the history wrong. I published and answered and heard no more.
The first thing anyone I name (and I name plenty) should do if they reckon my word untrue, unfair or irrational is to email me via the blog. I am not anonymous.
If they want their objection published and it meets criteria then I would do so and answer on the blog having amended any offending erroneous script.
Some years ago Kent Police Authority clerk wrote .. and the upshot was I wrote back bring it on. Let's have a judicial determination great. And heard no more.
Bend your knee to no man unless his cause is true eh Tony ?
any takers ?
Oh yes and always a double edged blade
ReplyDeleteIf some0ne published that I libelled them or another I could always sue them ?? For libel. If I could be bothered
And so can you Tony which may be why they send personal emails ?
These letters are what are known as 'heartstoppers.'
ReplyDeleteThey are sent out when someone feels they have been slighted in some way, on average only about 1 in several thousand are acted on due to the high cost of taking action. IF and its a big IF someone WAS going to take action against you the first contact would come directly from Lawyers.
Tell 'em to go swivel and carry on blogging.