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


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

xbod72 - 22 Nov 2012 18:13:05 (#8561 of 17198)

Can you explain what you mean, Illy.

JohnIlly - 22 Nov 2012 18:21:56 (#8562 of 17198)

I just heard it on the radio whilst cooking but there is something on the site. It's after the news about Schofield's settlement:

Mr Reid added that they had spoken to "senior officers" at Scotland Yard to discuss criminal behaviour on Twitter.

"There are a hard core of people who are re-tweeting and who are basically acting maliciously. This is an offence."

xbod72 - 22 Nov 2012 18:23:26 (#8563 of 17198)

I assumed from the very beginning of the Twitter aspect of the McAlpine story that retweets were included.

JohnIlly - 22 Nov 2012 18:28:50 (#8564 of 17198)

Yes, but persisting in doing it after it has been made clear that McAlpine was not involved is, presumably, criminal.

Post by deleted user
JohnIlly - 22 Nov 2012 18:35:17 (#8566 of 17198)

Well, since the Beeb has settled after not even mentioning the name, such behaviour could perhaps be actionable.

It probably all comes down to what a reasonable person would understand was meant.

I am not a lawyer.

Policywatcher - 22 Nov 2012 18:40:33 (#8567 of 17198)


"If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred."

So a statement that is valid but loaded with sufficient sarcasm as to make a meaning clear to a reader, or sufficiently loaded as in "Brutus was an honourable man", could fall under this, I think.

Post by deleted user
Brunothecat - 22 Nov 2012 18:47:09 (#8569 of 17198)

Sarcasm worked for Dougie Piranha, so why not?

bevernbridge - 22 Nov 2012 18:47:31 (#8570 of 17198)


Nice one GF. Though of course Dion Fortune was a woman.

Lawlsie - 22 Nov 2012 18:55:32 (#8571 of 17198)

Could it be true that wealthy lordy men in British society have this much power still?

Yes. Though it's not strictly necessary to be a lord. Just rich, powerful (which tends to go with) and well connected (ditto).

We're no closer to being a classless society or even anything approaching it than we were 100 years ago.

bevernbridge - 22 Nov 2012 19:04:17 (#8572 of 17198)

But anyone who thinks this is less the case in North America is totally deluded.

xbod72 - 22 Nov 2012 19:07:43 (#8573 of 17198)

No, the upper classes don't include new money: stuff that came into the family less than 300 years ago.

moto748 - 22 Nov 2012 19:30:37 (#8574 of 17198)

But anyone who thinks this is less the case in North America is totally deluded.

Of course, but they do have a more robust approach to libel.

CaptainBlack - 22 Nov 2012 19:47:24 (#8575 of 17198)

Letter in the new Viz (which goes to town on JS): if everybody at the BBC knew, why didn't Doctor Who do something?

Leftie - 22 Nov 2012 21:08:47 (#8576 of 17198)


xbod72 - 23 Nov 2012 00:28:27 (#8577 of 17198)

Richard Bacon was on BBC's This Week programme to talk about McAlpine and Twitter. He said it was a watershed moment for Twitter with people waking up and realising it's not just like talking down the pub with your mates.

But, here's the good bit, he said that it's the anonymity of internet posters that emboldens people and he namechecked the Guardian forums as one of the places of nastiness and anarchy!

JollityFarm - 23 Nov 2012 00:31:20 (#8578 of 17198)

He might have meant CiF?

Ripliad - 23 Nov 2012 00:34:23 (#8579 of 17198)

On account of there not being a Guardian forum site? I think you could be right!

Lawlsie - 23 Nov 2012 10:23:12 (#8580 of 17198)

Sigh... it's not just the anonymity that causes the nastiness. It's the lack of consequences.

Check Subscriptions
Home » Media