http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778 The NewsBiscuit Community en-US Mon, 20 May 2013 07:37:10 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/search.php http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149143 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:01:16 +0000 quango 149143@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Brilliant - stars from me... </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149127 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:16:54 +0000 Tripod 149127@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p><blockquote>At its simplest, anything which is published (rather than just printed or written) which causes damage to someone's reputation is libellous.</blockquote></p> <p>And people are forgetting that airing jaundiced opinions on Twitter, or some online forum, is 'publishing'... in the same way that something a book or magazine is publishing. Some online 'commentators' may find they've made an expensive mistake... </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149126 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:12:59 +0000 AReader 149126@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I've never understood the difference between "criminal libel" and defamation. I assume that there must be a legal difference? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149123 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:02:56 +0000 jamsieoconnor 149123@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>At its simplest, anything which is published (rather than just printed or written) which causes damage to someone's reputation is libellous. The greater the damage to the reputation, the more you get sued for. There is a defence of fair comment e.g. That an allegation is true, but an allegation can be false and still not be libellous if it doesn't damage a reputation or if there is no real reputation worth speaking of to be damaged. </p> <p>That'll be £250. </p> <p>Oh, there's also a potential crime of interfering with an investigation/perverting the course of justice/contempt if you start flinging round allegations while a police investigation is ongoing, as a criminal case may have to be pulled if the Defendant can't get a fair trial due to jurors potentially seeing allegations against him. Also, I think you still have the wonderful concept of criminal libel in England, so if you publish any libellous accusations you may be sent to jail. Hah! What a great country!</p> <p>Just to keep me covered, none of this is an official legal opinion and should not be treated as such. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149074 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:03:30 +0000 beau-jolly 149074@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Here's my take on it for what its worth: DLT has been named as the man arrested and bailed. There are <em>allegations</em> of sexual assault by at least one girl who was 17 at the time. Prior to being arrested these allogations were unsubstantiated. The police would not have made the arrest had they and the CPS not concidered that a prosecution was likely. So if someone were to call him, for example, the <em>hairy porn flake</em> it would not be unreasonable and if he were in a mind to sue that person he would have to prove that he was not, "in the balance of probabilities" a sexual predator. The fact he was arrested for sexual assault would probably not go in his favour. Nor would the Sunday Times article printed earlier this year which stopped just short of an accusation.<br /> The hubris that he has always exuded has been a good enough reason for disliking him but not, until yesterday, in itself a reason for <em>suspecting</em> him of forcing his unwanted attention on young ladies.</p> <p>EDIT &lt;My assumption is probably wrong here. CPS may not be involved yet. See other room DLT thread&gt; </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149053 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:23:44 +0000 Rootin Tootin 149053@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I sometimes watch old TOTPs from the 70s and you can't help but notice the lecherous type behaviour of all of the presenters from time to time.</p> <p>It was Kid Jensen sounding a little bit sleazy last night! </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149049 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:10:00 +0000 godly1966 149049@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Go with Noakes? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149046 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:17:58 +0000 AReader 149046@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Please, please don't let John Noakes be arrested...my childhood is being re-written into a horror story </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149044 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:06:40 +0000 Sinnick 149044@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Oh, and another thing.</p> <p>There's the "burden of proof". For someone to be convicted of a criminal offence, such as murder or theft, this must be proven by the court "beyond reasonable doubt".</p> <p>For a civil case, such as libel or employment complications, the burden of proof is "on the balance of probabilities", which can be somewhat subjective but easier to determine or negotiate.</p> <p>So, passing comment on a DJ that might upset him is a really really bad idea. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149041 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 06:58:12 +0000 dvo4fun 149041@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>In England there are a whole swathe of sexual activities that are no-no.some of which might cause you do a double-take ... </p> <p>Dig out a copy the the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for an err ..'illuminating' hour. "Have sexual activity with what!?!" </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149018 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 01:02:16 +0000 The All New Jeni B 149018@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Precisely Id.</p> <p>You're correct about the age thing, but if I remember correctly, if one of the parties is under 18, or 'a vulnerable person', then the age of the other will still be considered.</p> <p>I'm not 100% certain though, and as I've now been awake for almost 24hrs, I'm not even sure who I am at the moment. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149017 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:53:52 +0000 Ironduke 149017@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>So is it safe to say it is a matter of public record that he is a 'Beardie', but as yet it is a matter of merely idle conjecture as to whether he is a 'Weirdie'?</p> <p>And without moralising, justifying or expressing any other interest at all...I thought over sixteen was legal, whether the other party is 16 or 86? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149014 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:47:09 +0000 The All New Jeni B 149014@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Yikes will know more than I do, but the reports that I have read all clearly state that the man arrested was 'believed' to be DLT, and the police had not, at last checking, confirmed that fact.</p> <p>Labelling someone a 'paedo' is a dangerous game, and one which I would advise against unless there is substantial proof, and as Yikes says, two 17 year olds are not equal to 300+ under 16s.</p> <p>Until such time as this man is charged, whoever he may be, I wouldn't be making too many illfounded comments... </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149010 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:36:23 +0000 dvo4fun 149010@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>@Sinnick: "So, if he's innocent (and he is until proven guilty)"</p> <p>And that's the point I think. With Savile, people could pretty well say what they wanted. As I [last] understood things it's not possible, in England, to libel a dead person. On the other hand, as we have seen today with the Beeb's settlement, making claims that prove to be unfounded about one of the living can have very expensive consequences. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-149002 Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:21:59 +0000 Ironduke 149002@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Surely if you have to negotiate someone saying that they hold you 'in great esteem' as part of a financial settlement...well...perhaps that casts a weeny bit of doubt on the sincerity?</p> <p>In the negotiations- 'How about £185k and a 'sorry' in return for a ringing endorsement and exclusive interview?' </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-148992 Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:36:37 +0000 Tripod 148992@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/15/bbc-lord-mcalpine-compensation-newsnight">McAlpine's lawyers aren't hanging about...</a> </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-148987 Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:12:55 +0000 Sinnick 148987@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Posted in exactly the right place for those that play the libel lottery. Just hoping others on this forum will take the hint.</p> <p>My own crime is spelling libellous incorrectly. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-148974 Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:07:13 +0000 Yikes 148974@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>The innocent before proven guilty thing isn't the biggest issue here - although to be safe papers will talk about someone being "charged with xyz" or "alleged to have done xyz".</p> <p>The real problem is that DLT has been arrested in relation to 17 year old girls so calling him a paedo will be libellous no matter what. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-148972 Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:48:53 +0000 MADJEZ 148972@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Fill your boots...</p> <p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20336798">DLT Arrested</a> </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-148959 Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:18:28 +0000 Tripod 148959@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Libelous? Indeed so. And, even worse, you've posted in the wrong place... </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=51778#post-148958 Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:16:03 +0000 Sinnick 148958@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Hopefully, dvo or Jeni can help</p> <p>I'm under the impression that DLT has been arrested and held on suspicion of sexual offences. That's what the BBC says.</p> <p>I have seen nothing to confirm these suspicions, and nor would I while the police are looking at the matter, and the courts have yet to make an absolute decision on the matter. DLT could be innocent or guilty of whatever it is he's suspected of doing.</p> <p>So, if he's innocent (and he is until proven guilty), then surely the latest wave of anti-paedo jokes could be deemed libelous ? </p>