Dispatches tonigh

baggers44

hugopal all publishers are liable for defamatory statements unless they can advance a legal defence. So the publishers are a) the person making the allegations and b) the organisations publishing them. one legal defence to defamation is to assert the ‘truth’ of the statement. that usually results in a trial on the facts. the burden of establishing the truth in England is on the publisher. In the Heard case in England the judge considered the truth defence based on the credibility of Heard’s allegations and found them to be probably credible and therefore not defamatory, so the newspapers won. In England publishers cannot hide behind the fact that their witness did not come up to proof - if the statements are false and defamatory the newspaper is on the hook. In the US the case was tried broadly the same facts but before a jury and probably with different rules of evidence. There Depp sued Heard personally and not the newspapers because tactically it was easier. Most commentators consider that it is actually easier for publishers in the US because the burden of proof is reversed i.e the complainant has to prove that the allegations were false and sometimes not only false but published with malice. In the US case Depp won because a jury listened to the same evidence and assessed Depp to be truthful and that he had proved that Heard was a liar. Which shows the difference between a trial of the facts by a judge and by a jury and maybe also the differences between the US and UK. Here, assuming that he has the resources to sue (and he probably does), if Brand is confident that the evidence against him is weak he will sue and we will all get to assess the evidence as it comes out. If he does not sue and just continues to run his ‘media conspiracy’ argument what conclusions can we draw other than he has been advised that he would lose on the facts?

hugopal

baggers44 a jury listened to the same evidence

That’s not entirely true. There was more evidence presented in the US trial.

Also, importantly, in the US Heard was able to be cross-examined.

hugopal

baggers44 all publishers are liable for defamatory statements unless they can advance a legal defence. So the publishers are a) the person making the allegations and b) the organisations publishing them

This doesn’t seem the case necessarily - as here the publishers don’t seem to be making the allegations, just publishing the news that others have made allegations. If what you claim here is true, which sounds unlikely, newspapers would be on the hook for libel any time they report a story that someone has been accused of something by someone else, eg when reporting the stories that Mendy and Antony had been accused of things.

Along_the_Wire

Baggers trying to out-weed Hugo is an interesting development. And more interesting.

baggers44

Along_the_Wire i am boring myself now!

baggers44

hugopal Yeah - different rules of evidence but she was cross-examined in England - see for e.g para 499

If you read the whole judgment you can see why he lost - see for eg para 573. the difference is that in our system the judge has to give reasons which stand up to independent scrutiny and meet minimum standards of logic/reasoning/being evidence based etc. The judgment was not successfully appealed. Juries don’t have to worry about all that and can just go with their own personal assessment which they do not have to justify. You can see why you may get different outcomes from different systems.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Judgment-FINAL.pdf

hugopal

Funky The 16 year old now works in telly so he did groom her but from the legal age, schofield I don’t think was ever proven he groomed that young fella underage.

Was it said anywhere though that it was Brand who got the girl in to telly? With Schofield he actually arranged to get the guy a job.

Cankles-McJeggings

Schofield was caught taking him to lunch when he was 12. Absolutely nothing wrong with that though according to some fucking pricks on here.

hugopal

Cankles-McJeggings Schofield was caught taking him to lunch when he was 12.

They were at least 16 if not older.

Mad_Cyril

Cankles-McJeggings Schofield was caught taking him to lunch when he was 12. Absolutely nothing wrong with that though according to some fucking pricks on here.

I can’t recall anyone on here defending the sexual abuse of children you daft bake. Happy to stand corrected but that’s a bit of an assertion, whoever it may be aimed at, to be making.

Can you provide examples, or are you just fabricating bollocks, it wouldn’t be the first time would it?

Also interested to hear of any criminal proceedings against Schofield, I can’t remember any. Maybe he’s been charged and a trial pending?

baggers44

hugopal reporting of statements made in court proceedings is indeed publishing but it is subject to an exemption known as absolute privilege under s.14 of the Defamation Act 1996. non court based reporting is not so exempt. That is why so many ‘rumours’ about ‘what everyone knows’ are never published by standard media organisations because they need to have the evidence to back up what they publish if they are sued. Even retweeting a defamatory statement can in theory amount to actionable publishing.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/31/section/14

Cankles-McJeggings

YouTube have nailed him now too.

Along_the_Wire

It’s okay lads, Nigel Farage has got Brand’s back.

Cankles-McJeggings

So has musk , the fucking ghoul.

Cankles-McJeggings

He definitely wasn’t , the video is online plain to see.

hugopal

Cankles-McJeggings He definitely wasn’t , the video is online plain to see.

The person was born in 1996 and the video is from 2013.

Old-Dutch

Cankles-McJeggings He definitely wasn’t , the video is online plain to see.

Was he eating a Happy Meal?

Smallman1

Looks like math isn’t Dermo’s strong point.

Which is no surprise seeing as he’s a complete thicket.

Cankles-McJeggings

Who’s have guessed Mong Centrals pedo sympathiser phone rang.

Mad_Cyril

Classic

bosstrabs

Sounds like you need the hammer 🔨 MC.

bosstrabs

The ‘MC Hammer’ ⚒️

Smallman1

Beijing Dave’s in the house!

hugopal

Smallman1 Beijing Dave’s in the house!

Yes, the whorehouse - in China, a country where 14 year-old prostitutes are not counted as being underage.

Hursty

hugopal perhaps Dave can give us the full low down on this claim?

« Previous Page Next Page »