| The_Long_Run |
14-08-2009 01:36 PM |
Quote:
Originally posted by BB22
English and Scottish law is sufficiently similar on the particular point in question for the description to hold, I think, although despite my knowledge of these matters from my past career I would be happy to be corrected on the point by an expert.
The analogue is as follows: in a defamation case, a person can only have been defamed if the words involved tended to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; so if someone has already been convicted or recognised to have behaved in a way equal to or worse than that contained within the words which the claim relates to then an action for defamation is unlikely to succeed. So, to illustrate, if a journalist were to write a story accusing Ronnie Biggs of robbing a jewellery store in 1962 it is unlikely that Mr Biggs would be able to succeed in an action for defamation, even if the story was completely untrue, since he is in fact a convicted robber and former fugitive from justice. The accusation would not further lower him in the estimation of right-thinking people.
I am sure the analogue is quite clear. I hope that helps.
On a further note, the capitalisation was merely a part of the over the top reaction I identified. I also mentioned your "emotive language".
On a final note, I would not say your posts in this thread have been in a particularly "good humour". You seem rather tetchy, actually.
|
I see no supportive analogy in your explanation. Charlie has been playful with the intention of amusing, sometimes without adequate forethought. In my humble right thinking opinion no right thinking person would accuse him of malice in these actions. The pouring of oil on someone's bed is a malicious act, even if done in pique.
If charlie were found to have done that, it would surprise me and lower him in the estimation of this right thinking member of society. I note that Vicky withdrew the claim and I respect her for responding appropriately in making that correction.
My original post appears to have been taken in good part by Vicky with my self parodying use of vaulting vocabulary, which was intended to make a nodding reference to Bea's 'blinding HMs wih science' language. Other people put in their two penn'orth and pereptuated this highly amusing and in place enlightening exchange. I defend robustly, don't apologise for that and will continue to challenge profane posts.
BB is a pantomime. "oh yes he did, oh no he didn't, oh yes he did....." Charlie did not pour oil on anyone's bed. Oh no he didn't.... NOW is the time to laugh, if you will excuse the capitals.
Charlie is a scamp, not a villain. |
