A reminder that you are responsible for what you post on NSC and tweet.

El Presidente · Mar 10, 2017

glasfryn said:
good thing JC

JC? Do you mean our lord and saviour Jesus Christ?

He's a regular on NSC, just has a different username.

Titanic · Mar 10, 2017

El Presidente said:
JC? Do you mean our lord and saviour Jesus Christ?

He's a regular on NSC, just has a different username.

Your Mum?

Wrong-Direction · Mar 10, 2017

What about a 24 hour barny "discussing" our support

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

studio150 · Mar 10, 2017

Moshe Gariani said:
Statements of Fact

A plaintiff cannot succeed in his or her online defamation claim if the defendant's defamatory statement was true. For example, if a customer posts a review of your business on Yelp, claiming that there was a rat infestation, you may sue them for defamation. You would then have to prove that there was no rat infestation, and thus, the defendant's statement was false.

Opinions

Following that, the defendant may try to argue that the claimed rat infestation was an opinion. Opinions are privileged under the law. As a result, plaintiffs cannot bring a defamation claim for an opinion. Importantly, however, an opinion that may be viewed as a statement of fact by a reasonable person will be deemed a statement of fact. The courts may interpret, "I think that [restaurant] has a rat infestation problem," as a statement of fact.

This part is very informative and one that some NCS posters need to be fully aware of, given that they often use the defence of 'its my opinion'/ They need to perhaps just delete something they have written in haste and come back afresh an hour or so later.

LlcoolJ · Mar 10, 2017

El Presidente said:
Also known as the 'waking up next to a munter' defence. Sadly this is likely to succeed when you are accused the next time down the pub with your mates of " ****ing that HOUND with the eyes that point in two directions and pubes that resemble Terry Waites allotment"...M'Lord.

You will be found GUILTY.

A variation on the theme of "The Botham Defence". And about as effective when one has allegedly tweeted a picture of one's flaccid cock instead of DMing it to a bird, with a lascivious message.....

But it turned out that your account was hacked. Obviously.

seagully · Mar 10, 2017

Buzzer said:
AS much as Katie Hopkins was due something like this given her approach to Twitter, Jack Monroe didn't exactly arrive at the High Court like some naive Twitter innocent. She was guilty herself of some pretty disgusting Tweets that were every bit as defamatory and hurtful as Hopkins and was extremely lucky that her target never sued her.

Both pricks, the pair of them

symyjym · Mar 10, 2017

Considering Ms Monroe is a poverty activist, you would imagine she would donate the £24k to those less fortunate.

Lord Bracknell · Mar 10, 2017

I would like to make it clear that, despite the opinions of many others that I have heard expressed with great vehemence, I have no evidence whatsoever to confirm whether or not Mr Scott McGleish might be a wanker.

Diablo · Mar 10, 2017

Wrong-Direction said:
What about a 24 hour barny "discussing" our support

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Believe you called me a tosser........I will accept £1000 in damages thankyou !!!

BBassic · Mar 10, 2017

El Presidente said:
Also known as the 'waking up next to a munter' defence. Sadly this is likely to succeed when you are accused the next time down the pub with your mates of " ****ing that HOUND with the eyes that point in two directions and pubes that resemble Terry Waites allotment"...M'Lord.

You will be found GUILTY.

Exactly.

Being drunk is no excuse for being reprehensible so figured I'd take myself out of the equation entirely. Job done.

Nixonator · Mar 10, 2017

seagully said:
Both pricks, the pair of them

Careful, you might get sued, even if it is just an opinion, though I would tend to lean toward fact

Wrong-Direction · Mar 10, 2017

Diablo said:
Believe you called me a tosser........I will accept £1000 in damages thankyou !!!

Are you happy with an out of court settlement of two pints of lager and a packet of crisps?

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Publius Ovidius · Mar 10, 2017

amexer said:
God help those that have disclosed on here somebody has used there ticket

" their"

I hate all of you illiterate soft southern shandy drinking blouse wearing poofs

So sue me.

he he

Diablo · Mar 10, 2017

Wrong-Direction said:
Are you happy with an out of court settlement of two pints of lager and a packet of crisps?

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

That will do nicely...

glasfryn · Mar 10, 2017

El Presidente said:
JC? Do you mean our lord and saviour Jesus Christ?

He's a regular on NSC, just has a different username.

him too!

Gwylan · Mar 10, 2017

Thunder Bolt said:
[MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION] gave a good example of this yesterday. It's a timely warning.

What I was talking about was that if you repeat a libel, it doesn't matter that they weren't your own words, you can still be guilty of defamation. And using the word, 'allegedly' doesn't excuse it.

There are a couple of points that haven't been covered. An untrue statement may not be defamatory, it only is if a 'reasonable person' believes that someone's reputation has been damaged. The first time I was sued for libel, my solicitor advised me to tough it out. I would have had a problem proving that something we had written was true, but the plaintiff was such a 100% lowlife piece of scum, his reputation was hardly damaged,

It's also impossible to libel the dead, so feel free to say what you like about someone no longer living.

MattBackHome · Mar 10, 2017

Buzzer said:
Jack Monroe didn't exactly arrive at the High Court like some naive Twitter innocent.

Nor did she try to portray herself as such - clearly stated on page 3 of the judgement.

Buzzer · Mar 10, 2017

MattBackHome said:
Nor did she try to portray herself as such - clearly stated on page 3 of the judgement.

I don't doubt it. My point is that Monroe's lucky break was that the victim of her abuse wasn't as litigious as herself.

Thunder Bolt · Mar 10, 2017

Gwylan said:
What I was talking about was that if you repeat a libel, it doesn't matter that they weren't your own words, you can still be guilty of defamation. And using the word, 'allegedly' doesn't excuse it.

There are a couple of points that haven't been covered. An untrue statement may not be defamatory, it only is if a 'reasonable person' believes that someone's reputation has been damaged. The first time I was sued for libel, my solicitor advised me to tough it out. I would have had a problem proving that something we had written was true, but the plaintiff was such a 100% lowlife piece of scum, his reputation was hardly damaged,

It's also impossible to libel the dead, so feel free to say what you like about someone no longer living.

The first time? How many times have you been sued for libel?

vegster · Mar 10, 2017

El Presidente said:
There's been a bit of emotive stuff recently, and in the main NSC is an incredibly good self policing board. Having seen what has happened to the fragrant Katie Hopkins today, who has had to pay damages of £24,000 for two tweets, and legal costs that are likely to be very eye watering, can I remind you splendid ladies and gentlemen to keep it within respectable boundaries.

[Tweet]840203940482437121[/Tweet]

Wise words indeed although in this case the fragrant( flagrant shurely ? ) Miss Hopkins was asked to apologize and given a chance to avoid this action but then ramped up her vitriol !

I think that justice has certainly been done in this case.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

A reminder that you are responsible for what you post on NSC and tweet.

The ONLY Gay in Brighton

Super Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Mama said knock you out.

Cock-knobs!

Banned

On fire

Well-known member

I changed this.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

cleaning up cat sick

Well-known member

Well-known member

Languidly Clinical

Silly old bat

Sanity Clause

Share this page