Word of warning about derogatory posts

[NorfolkJim]

My lawyer friend told me to be quick to use "allegedly" and "In my Opinion" when expressing an opinion. I don't know if such use might have spared this individual from litigation

[Neil D]

As always, my posts will remain rogatory in the extreme.

[Burt]

My lawyer friend told me to be quick to use "allegedly" and "In my Opinion" when expressing an opinion. I don't know if such use might have spared this individual from litigation

I believe this only helps if you are attributing any statement to an official source that you are in a position to report on.

So, contrary to popular belief, saying that "John Doe is a molester of sheep. Allegedly." will not protect you. Whereas if a source had said that, then saying that "according to certain sources, John Doe is alleged to have molested a sheep or two" may afford some protection.

In other words, if you are reporting that someone else alleged something, you may be OK. If you are the one doing the alleging, the inclusion of the term "allegedly" probably won't help you.

Of course, a person far more qualified than me may be able to put us both right on this, but that is my basic understanding...allegedly  :dft011:

[snarks]

Actually Burt I don't think it would, especially following the Sally Bercow litigation.

When you consider that her tweet "Why is Lord McAlpine trending  :005:" was defamatory. Even attributing something libellous to a source would also be defamatory.

The only defences are really truth and honest opinion. so if on the facts known at the time it was reasonable to come to the conclusion that you did, that may be honest opinion, even if subsequent facts prove it to be false.

It's a minefield essentially and hence why the Lawyers that do regularly it are highly specialised.

Although saying that something has been alleged by someone else, would only be OK if it's reporting facts, as I understand things, otherwise you could be repeating the allegation as with all those who repeated Sally B's tweet.

[Logicalman]

Actually Burt I don't think it would, especially following the Sally Bercow litigation.

When you consider that her tweet "Why is Lord McAlpine trending  :005:" was defamatory. Even attributing something libellous to a source would also be defamatory.

The only defences are really truth and honest opinion. so if on the facts known at the time it was reasonable to come to the conclusion that you did, that may be honest opinion, even if subsequent facts prove it to be false.

It's a minefield essentially and hence why the Lawyers that do regularly it are highly specialised.

Although saying that something has been alleged by someone else, would only be OK if it's reporting facts, as I understand things, otherwise you could be repeating the allegation as with all those who repeated Sally B's tweet.

Interesting point.

Would repeating the defamatory allegation in it's entirety to simply deny it's allegations then be considered an offence. e.g. "Fred said that Jon Doe had been molesting sheep, and I find that totally untrue".

[Logicalman]

Actually Burt I don't think it would, especially following the Sally Bercow litigation.

When you consider that her tweet "Why is Lord McAlpine trending  :005:" was defamatory. Even attributing something libellous to a source would also be defamatory.

The only defences are really truth and honest opinion. so if on the facts known at the time it was reasonable to come to the conclusion that you did, that may be honest opinion, even if subsequent facts prove it to be false.

It's a minefield essentially and hence why the Lawyers that do regularly it are highly specialised.

Although saying that something has been alleged by someone else, would only be OK if it's reporting facts, as I understand things, otherwise you could be repeating the allegation as with all those who repeated Sally B's tweet.

Interesting point.

Would repeating the defamatory allegation in it's entirety to simply deny it's allegations then be considered an offence. e.g. "Fred said that Jon Doe had been molesting sheep, and I find that totally untrue".

Indeed, the question I would like to ask is, have you any photographs, independent witnesses, and forensic evidence to support these Third Party, hear say allegations.

No.

[Burt]

I've hidden the sheep now, they've had a baaaaaaaaaa-d day and need a rest.

[Burt]

I've hidden the sheep now, they've had a baaaaaaaaaa-d day and need a rest.

I am forbidden to be able to make a statement until my Lawyer arrives.

Will he be bringing the mint sauce and gravy?

[HatterDon]

" In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King ". 

I always thought that the one-eyed man was a dick.

[Neil D]

" In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King ". 

I always thought that the one-eyed man was a dick.

Just to keep the metaphor alive: do you mean trouser snake?

[Blanco]

Your absolutely correct Bianco.
I am quite vexed that it appears that it is inappropriate to call you a Kipper.

I'm not quite sure if you are calling me a fish or a fan of the best poliical party in britain.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Your absolutely correct Bianco.
I am quite vexed that it appears that it is inappropriate to call you a Kipper.

I'm not quite sure if you are calling me a fish or a fan of the best poliical party in britain.

I can confirm a fan of the best political party in the Land.

[Woolly Mammoth]

My lawyer friend told me to be quick to use "allegedly" and "In my Opinion" when expressing an opinion. I don't know if such use might have spared this individual from litigation

I believe this only helps if you are attributing any statement to an official source that you are in a position to report on.

So, contrary to popular belief, saying that "John Doe is a molester of sheep. Allegedly." will not protect you. Whereas if a source had said that, then saying that "according to certain sources, John Doe is alleged to have molested a sheep or two" may afford some protection.

In other words, if you are reporting that someone else alleged something, you may be OK. If you are the one doing the alleging, the inclusion of the term "allegedly" probably won't help you.

Of course, a person far more qualified than me may be able to put us both right on this, but that is my basic understanding...allegedly  :dft011:

Well John Doe it is alleged, from a third party and hearsay, was standing with a colleague on the top of a hill overlooking a valley full of sheep.
His colleague who was a lot younger than John Doe, who will not be named for legal reasons. It is alleged, suggested that they both RUN down the hill into the valley, and molest a sheep each.
It is alleged, from a third party, and this is hearsay, that John Doe replied.
" I have a better idea, let's save our energy and WALK down the hill into the valley and molest the lot of them ".
This report is of course alleged, third party and hearsay, see you in court.

[f321ffc]

Can you call someone a Kipper ?

As a person of advancing years  ( Some might say old git ) I quite like a kip in the afternoon, so anyone wants to call me a Kipper feel free.  092.gif

[NogoodBoyo]

I have 250 sheep.  I should sue the bloody lot of you.
Nogood "while shepherds provide you with food and clothing you all treat them worse than Kit, isit" Boyo
P.S. Just kidding.  Or lambing actually.

[Berserker]

Someone once called me a puppet of Oracle, is that  being defamatory?

[win-dup]

In that case, I wish to state that all postings under my name referring to our beloved chairman as Ernie Khan, were made by my wife, without my consent, knowledge or agreement. Furthermore, when a luxury kitchen is standing on what was the centre spot at Craven Cottage, I shall still agree with all those who called me, er, I mean my wife, an idiot for suggesting such a thing could happen.

[YankeeJim]

Seems incredible that you can no longer state your opinion on someone or something without having charges brought against you. Am I right in saying that this doesn´t happen in the USA? I´m pretty sure freedom of speech is still a thing in America. Peoples opinions still seem to be ok instead of making laws to shut everyone up.

Freedom of speech, here in the US, is under constant assault by political correctness. Several universities have banned the use of gender specific pronouns because they are micro-aggressive whatever the hell that means. The president of the University of Missouri and the chancellor of the main campus resigned in the last few days because they wouldn't apologize for "white privilege"; as if an accident of birth makes one evil. Many retail businesses forbid things such as "Merry Christmas" because it might offend. A cross erected a hundred years ago in southern California near San Diego as  part of a war memorial on government land was ordered removed so as insure the separation of church and state. The inmates are running the asylum. 

People flocked to America to seek freedom from various oppressions and now they come to escape their old country by changing their new country to what they had at home. Sound familiar?

[HatterDon]

Seems incredible that you can no longer state your opinion on someone or something without having charges brought against you. Am I right in saying that this doesn´t happen in the USA? I´m pretty sure freedom of speech is still a thing in America. Peoples opinions still seem to be ok instead of making laws to shut everyone up.

Freedom of speech, here in the US, is under constant assault by political correctness. Several universities have banned the use of gender specific pronouns because they are micro-aggressive whatever the hell that means. The president of the University of Missouri and the chancellor of the main campus resigned in the last few days because they wouldn't apologize for "white privilege"; as if an accident of birth makes one evil. Many retail businesses forbid things such as "Merry Christmas" because it might offend. A cross erected a hundred years ago in southern California near San Diego as  part of a war memorial on government land was ordered removed so as insure the separation of church and state. The inmates are running the asylum. 

People flocked to America to seek freedom from various oppressions and now they come to escape their old country by changing their new country to what they had at home. Sound familiar?

A quick comment: much of the above is incorrect; the rest is just silly, but carry on.

[YankeeJim]

Seems incredible that you can no longer state your opinion on someone or something without having charges brought against you. Am I right in saying that this doesn´t happen in the USA? I´m pretty sure freedom of speech is still a thing in America. Peoples opinions still seem to be ok instead of making laws to shut everyone up.

Freedom of speech, here in the US, is under constant assault by political correctness. Several universities have banned the use of gender specific pronouns because they are micro-aggressive whatever the hell that means. The president of the University of Missouri and the chancellor of the main campus resigned in the last few days because they wouldn't apologize for "white privilege"; as if an accident of birth makes one evil. Many retail businesses forbid things such as "Merry Christmas" because it might offend. A cross erected a hundred years ago in southern California near San Diego as  part of a war memorial on government land was ordered removed so as insure the separation of church and state. The inmates are running the asylum. 

People flocked to America to seek freedom from various oppressions and now they come to escape their old country by changing their new country to what they had at home. Sound familiar?

A quick comment: much of the above is incorrect; the rest is just silly, but carry on.

Donnie, old boy, exactly what above is incorrect. I'll give you everything after my opinion (inmates forward), but the rest is factual.