Guidance on libel on NSC

[timbha]

I assume this thread was started in relation to the previous Mike Holland thread which seems to have disappeared and been replaced by a new one. Before that thread was removed and before this issue arose I was struck by the headline on the Argus website in relation to the case and thought it was flying close to the wind with it's tabloid sensationalist choice of words. I've just checked and the headline is still there and it reads, "Killer property tycoon jailed". I think that headline is a bit strong. Yes, he was found guilty of manslaughter by negligence and yes he deserves to go to prison but does that make him a killer? There are circumstances where somebody can kill someone directly and accidentally by their own hand and they are guilty of manslaughter and by their direct actions are also killers but the Holland case certainly wasn't one of them. He wasn't even in the same country when the accident happened. Mr Clark's death wasn't caused by Holland's direct actions but rather by Holland's failure to act. So in those circumstances should he be branded a killer?

The argus deliberately used the word killer in its reporting after a legal (I think) challenge. It explained and justified its use in the Editorial/comments section inside ydays publication - quoting the oxford dictionary

 

[Brighton Mod]

This site will be full of 'it is my understanding', 'I am led to believe', 'it could be considered' et al. However common courtesy should generally be displayed.

 

[Eeyore]

This site will be full of 'it is my understanding', 'I am led to believe', 'it could be considered' et al. However common courtesy should generally be displayed.

All of which can still be construed as libelous.

 

[marlowe]

A manslaughter conviction surely makes you a killer by its very definition ?

I think it's a grey area in this case. I think his inaction certainly contributed to the man's death but i'd hesitate to use the term "killer" regardless of the manslaughter conviction. If the manslaughter had been voluntary then there would be some justification for the use of the term but the fact that it was involuntary and Holland was not even present when the accident occured just makes me wonder if the term killer is appropriate in this instance.

 

[marlowe]

The argus deliberately used the word killer in its reporting after a legal (I think) challenge. It explained and justified its use in the Editorial/comments section inside ydays publication - quoting the oxford dictionary

I didn't realise that it's use had already been challenged and defended.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

Oh gawd what have I done now?

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I assume this thread was started in relation to the previous Mike Holland thread which seems to have disappeared and been replaced by a new one. Before that thread was removed and before this issue arose I was struck by the headline on the Argus website in relation to the case and thought it was flying close to the wind with it's tabloid sensationalist choice of words. I've just checked and the headline is still there and it reads, "Killer property tycoon jailed". I think that headline is a bit strong. Yes, he was found guilty of manslaughter by negligence and yes he deserves to go to prison but does that make him a killer? There are circumstances where somebody can kill someone directly and accidentally by their own hand and they are guilty of manslaughter and by their direct actions are also killers but the Holland case certainly wasn't one of them. He wasn't even in the same country when the accident happened. Mr Clark's death wasn't caused by Holland's direct actions but rather by Holland's failure to act. So in those circumstances should he be branded a killer?

Omitting to do something is as bad as an act and considered so in law.

 

[Braggfan]

I always thought it interesting that David Cameron didn't sue Lord Ashcroft about the whole pig allegations. Because when you think about it those allegations are arguably some of the worst/most outrageous ever made against a Prime Minister. If somebody publicly made those allegations about me, and I’m not in the public eye let alone the PM, I would sue the pants off them. So it does also make you wonder why didn’t Cameron sue him.

Purely speculating, but if in a libel case someone actually did what they were being accused of and knew that someone had a photo etc, they couldn’t sue that person because they’d know that that supporting evidence would turn up and ruin them. I would have thought a better course of action would be to just deny it and say you won’t dignify it with a response, that way it stays in the realms of speculation and is never proven as fact.

 

[Gwylan]

I always thought it interesting that David Cameron didn't sue Lord Ashcroft about the whole pig allegations. Because when you think about it those allegations are arguably some of the worst/most outrageous ever made against a Prime Minister. If somebody publicly made those allegations about me, and I’m not in the public eye let alone the PM, I would sue the pants off them. So it does also make you wonder why didn’t Cameron sue him.

My guess on this is that Ashcroft had spoken to a couple of people who said it had happened and would be prepared to swear so in court. It's also the case that CMD was definitely a member of the Bullingdon Club, an organisation that does have a reputation for some unsavoury deeds - so the pig incident wouldn't certainly not be too far-fetched. In fact, even if the pig episode were not true, some other unseemly incidents of Cameron's past could come to light.

So, it may well come down to "Whose word do you believe" and it's a bit of a lottery when it comes to juries. Our former PM has quite a reputation for slipperiness, I'm not sure he'd want to test his integrity against members of the public.

 

[OzMike]

I was blocked from a thread for stating a fact, it wasn't mean't to be an offensive comment, just a straight forward answer to the question asked.
I was surprised really considering some of the comments I have read, mine was not as offensive by a long chalk.

 

[Braggfan]

The fact he didn't sue suggests he had a lot to lose by doing so. It was interesting that he was put to the test so pubicly though.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Although libel can be vague and people dont know where the lines are drawn for example quips that are in effect professional misconduct I would think posters on here are more likely to fall foul of the malicious communications act. " Jamsieing" for example or other forms of harassment.

This is important. Not many of us could afford to sue for libel, which is a civil matter.

The Malicious Communications Act is a criminal law which covers things like harassment, distress and taken to extreme, revenge porn.

 

[blue'n'white]

All of which reminds me of the following :

Player : 'Ere ref - am I allowed to call you a cvnt ?
Ref : No I send you off for that and you'd get fined
Player : But how about if I thought the same
Ref : Well I can't send you off for your thoughts
Player : In that case ref I think you're a cvnt !

 

[Bozza]

I was blocked from a thread for stating a fact, it wasn't mean't to be an offensive comment, just a straight forward answer to the question asked.
I was surprised really considering some of the comments I have read, mine was not as offensive by a long chalk.

I've no idea of the specifics, nor if it were me or not.

However, you will not know whether action has been taken against anyone or not. When warnings etc are given to people, they are the only person who knows that. So, it could be the case that every single one of the offensive posts you believe you've read resulted in a warning to the poster. Alternatively they were never read by a moderator and no one bothered to report them.

This is similar to "I can't believe they were allowed to post that" comments I get from time to time. We can only ever be reactive. We can't stop anyone posting anything on NSC - we can only deal with it where required after the post has been made.

On the whole libel thing, it's really not difficult. If you are going to be saying something negative about someone, you should make sure you could absolutely prove what you have said is true if challenged to do so. In most cases you won't be able to, so keep it to yourself.

 

[marlowe]

This is important. Not many of us could afford to sue for libel, which is a civil matter.

The Defamation Act 1996 provides that you can sue for defamation using the fast track system for claims under £10,000. I believe that the cost of launching a civil suit for that amount would be around £690.

Sir Alec Ferguson was awarded £7500 in 2002 using this system for an article claiming he was greedy and mercenary.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The Defamation Act 1996 provides that you can sue for defamation using the fast track system for claims under £10,000. I believe that the cost of launching a civil suit for that amount would be around £690.

Sir Alec Ferguson was awarded £7500 in 2002 using this system for an article claiming he was greedy and mercenary.

£690 would be beyond my budget.

 

[Whoislloydy]

Did you just learn a new word?

 

[Weststander]

All of which reminds me of the following :

Player : 'Ere ref - am I allowed to call you a cvnt ?
Ref : No I send you off for that and you'd get fined
Player : But how about if I thought the same
Ref : Well I can't send you off for your thoughts
Player : In that case ref I think you're a cvnt !

Rodney Marsh.

 

[marlowe]

£690 would be beyond my budget.

Not sure that it's such a good idea to let certain individuals on here know that.

 

[Commander]

On the whole libel thing, it's really not difficult. If you are going to be saying something negative about someone, you should make sure you could absolutely prove what you have said is true if challenged to do so. In most cases you won't be able to, so keep it to yourself.

It really is very simple. If you ever find yourself asking yourself the question "Could this potentially be libellous?", then just don't post it, regardless of the answer to the question.