No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by RankBajin on Oct 29, 2011 2:57:01 PM
Sir Jimmy Savile dies aged 84

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16099015

So:

  • Kiddly fiddler?
  • Corpse toucher?
  • Other? (please specify)
  • All of the above?

CheBoludo - 22 Nov 2012 11:15:28 (#8541 of 17198)

No need to get snotty, PW. I'm no legal expert, but I strongly suspect that neither are you. AFAIK libel comes under civil law in England. The Graun article that I was responding to was about exploring the possibilities of a criminal investigation using the malicious communications act. Under criminal law the defendant is presumed innocent. So coming forward and admitting liability is hatstand in such a case.

Policywatcher - 22 Nov 2012 11:43:58 (#8542 of 17198)

I'm not being snotty.

I'm pointing out that as so wearyingly often, you are jumping to conclusions and making accusations without evidence and in denial of the facts.

And while I am not a lawyer, I have read the various articles on libel as well as the law itself.

And it is explicitly written into the law that apology and restitution can be a bar to further damages in a libel case, making any further prosecution extremely unlikely.

Libel Act 1843, Section 1

In any action for defamation it shall be lawful for the defendant (after notice in writing of his intention so to do, duly given to the plaintiff at the time of filing or delivering the plea in such action), to give in evidence, in mitigation of damages, that he made or offered an apology to the plaintiff for such defamation before the commencement of the action, or as soon afterwards as he had an opportunity of doing so, in case the action shall have been commenced before there was an opportunity of making or offering such apology.





In short, if he's already made them apologise and pay without a court case, he can't meaningfully go after them again in court.

Questicles - 22 Nov 2012 11:49:35 (#8543 of 17198)

Read his post, PW. There are potentially two cases involved. Civil and criminal. They require different approaches, some would say conflicting ones.

CheBoludo - 22 Nov 2012 11:50:44 (#8544 of 17198)

I'm pointing out that as so wearyingly often, you are jumping to conclusions and making accusations without evidence and in denial of the facts.

Good grief. The article that I was responding to was nothing about libel. It was about the Malicious Communications Act and how it might be used.

Policywatcher - 22 Nov 2012 11:51:54 (#8545 of 17198)

I have.

And it's bullshit.

Criminal Libel was abolished on the 12th of January 2010 by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

He can only raise a civil claim against these people, and that is covered by the terms I have noted.

SharkPatoo - 22 Nov 2012 11:52:26 (#8546 of 17198)

Are you suggesting a very rich old tory fart (fair comment) would have the police at his beck and call? Ah, yes I see what you mean.

CheBoludo - 22 Nov 2012 11:56:26 (#8547 of 17198)

PW, you've jumped in without reading the article and what I posted. McAlpine and his lawyer have threatened people with libel and asked them to come forward and apologise. Now they're looking at the possibility of using the Malicious Communications Act, which comes under criminal law to go after people. I.e., they're being devious cunts.

Questicles - 22 Nov 2012 12:36:49 (#8548 of 17198)

New DG picked.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2012/
nov/22/tony-hall-is-new-bbc-director-general-live-coverage

Leftie - 22 Nov 2012 12:39:20 (#8549 of 17198)

Interesting piece about different ages of consent.

Once you get past the train stuff.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20361339

Policywatcher - 22 Nov 2012 12:49:54 (#8550 of 17198)

> CheBoludo - 22 Nov 2012 11:56:26 ( #8547 of 8549)

There's not a cat in hell's chance that with an apology and restitution on his terms already in place that the DPP would accept that such a prosecution was in the public interest.

Post by deleted user
Policywatcher - 22 Nov 2012 12:55:14 (#8552 of 17198)

:-)

Post deleted by user
CheBoludo - 22 Nov 2012 13:24:48 (#8554 of 17198)

Again, PW, you seem to be stuck on libel law, which is THE classic example of a law that comes under consideration of public interests. Criminal law is generally a whole different kettle of fish. Which I suspect is why McAlpine is looking at that option.

springplease - 22 Nov 2012 14:26:17 (#8555 of 17198)

On McAlpine and Twitter and the need to press criminal charges...

http://socialmedianmeanandmode.wordpress.com/2012/
11/21/332/


Apparently, in the letter asking people to apologize, his lawyers request that tweeters send him their name, address, and situation, and his lawyers will use this to determine how much they should pay to the charity of his choice because he doesn't want to cause hardship to tweeters.

Strategically, a good move on the part of his lawyers. The possibility of him suing tweeters without this voluntary confirmation of their identity would be impossible, it seems.

Some of the offending tweets and retweets:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/
9689098/Alan-Davies-apologises-over-Lord-McAlpine-tweet.html


Any tweeter sued by McAlpine really should sue the BBC.

His case against tweeters seems totally impossible to win. They were going by a media report. The BBC have admitted responsibility. The public trusted the BBC. But he is wealthy and powerful with expensive lawyers and it seems that this is intimidating tweeters.

Could it be true that wealthy lordy men in British society have this much power still? As a North American, I'm left raising an eyebrow, wondering if this is an indicator of a far bigger problem...a failure of democracy to even put a dent in old power structures...

McAlpine has gone from being terrified, to having his name cleared and being respected, a sort of hero, to being seen as a wealthy Lordy Lord with way too much entitlement and way too Machiavellian tactics. And resented for taking a lot of media attention from the BBC and the Savile case and its victims.

And it looks like it'll also end up with a BBC charity receiving a bunch of donations. Hopefully none of the retweeters were victims of Savile at the BBC. They might have emotional issues donating to a charity associated with the BBC.

Policywatcher - 22 Nov 2012 15:21:13 (#8556 of 17198)

> CheBoludo - 22 Nov 2012 13:24:48 ( #8554 of 8555)

> Again, PW, you seem to be stuck on libel law, which is THE classic example of a law that comes under consideration of public interests

Again, Che, you seem to be stuck on your own interpretation of events and other peoples' beliefs and motives, trying to get everything to fit your own worldview.

I am not "stuck on libel law" as I have already pointed out, and you might care to explain why, if "libel law [...] is THE classic example of a law that comes under consideration of public interests", the DPP went out of his way to explain in the announcement of the prosecution of Brooks et al that public interest had played a factor.

And just to get things straight, a reminder that libel is CIVIL law, so in fact your claim that "libel law [...] is THE classic example of a law that comes under consideration of public interests", is complete and utter bollocks of the dumbest kind.

solomongursky - 22 Nov 2012 15:46:11 (#8557 of 17198)

Jimmy Savile fancy dress night lands student rugby club with ban.



St Cuthbert's team members, from Durham University, posed as disgraced TV star and young girls meant to be his victims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/nov/22/ji
mmy-savile-fancy-dress-rugby-club

Isolde - 22 Nov 2012 15:56:58 (#8558 of 17198)

Good points there, sp.

GreenFuture - 22 Nov 2012 16:51:54 (#8559 of 17198)

This is long, but pertinent and vital to more disturbing potential elements of the broader issues if much is true.

It suggests a point to read up to if time is scarce.

I was directed to it by someone who says they are a direct victim of behaviour described.

It may be debunked and counter debunked online, I don't know. This stuff is a hall of mirrors. Most things are obviously true and complete bollocks at the same time according to the internets. Schrodinger might explain.

Schrodinger also explains a core and inescapable tension to this issue that all should remember:

Every claim of abuse should be treated as true in the first instance, and every alleged abuser treated as innocent.



http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/es
p_sociopol_mindcon03.htm

JohnIlly - 22 Nov 2012 18:09:30 (#8560 of 17198)

The BBC News has just said that McAlpine is setting the plod on people who are repeating the allegations on Twitter.

Check Subscriptions
|
Home » Media