Good Riddance

[Spicerack]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43101434

No doubt the pervert will be back when the coast is clear.

[-Talbot-]

I won’t waste any more time conversing with idiots.



Is that really appropriate coming from a mod?

[emmie]

all sounds rather sleazy to be honest..

[THECORBYLOON]

There is no criminal libel in the UK now, only civil. Regardless of that fact, I think it better for folk to be very careful of what they say about Mr Cox's alleged actions.

[Gromit]

Spicerack

I am unaware what the original paragraph said what was removed. But rather than the change being an editorial decision, I would suspect it was on the advice of lawyers, keen not to see the BBC prosecuted for publishing defamatory matetial (something which you seem to not be bothered about).

[ichkeria]

"Anti British Broadcasting Corporation.
"
No you've misheard:
It's "Auntie, the British Broadcasting Corporation..."
Bit of humour there ...

[-Talbot-]

Last week Brendan Cox's lawyers contacted the BBC threatening possible legal action over this ... something has obviously changed.

[Spicerack]

It's very simple, gromit. I copied & pasted the original paragraph and criticised it. You defended it. It has now been removed and replaced with a 'trickier' one that suggests the same thing but has the outright lies removed.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//I won’t waste any more time conversing with idiots. This thread is clearly for the chop when the AB Editor is aware of the criminal libel contained herein.//

You just can't get the staff these days, can you?

[-Talbot-]

Bit of humour but comment on the actual OP

James obviously doesn't know about AB.

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/965150865907765248

[Gromit]

You cannot publish writing calling someone a pervert without proof.
Proof would be a conviction in a court of law, not heresay in a newspaper.
If you recklessly defame (as the OP has done) you could be prosecuted. More more likely, the website could be prosecuted, and fined.
I really should remove it, but then I would be accused of bias and anti free speech. And I find it quite funny.

[Jackdaw33]

Hearsay, Gromit, not Heresay.

[-Talbot-]

Has Trump been convicted as a 'Pervert'?

[Gromit]

Oh no, not the grammar police.

[Jackdaw33]

No, not the grammar police, just the spelling police. We are a sub-branch of the former.

[Gromit]

// Has Trump been convicted as a 'Pervert'? //

No. He has been recorded as saying “You can grab them [women] by the pussy”. And his lawyer paid a porn star, Stormy Daniels, $130,000. But no conviction, which is why no one here has called him a pervert. We may have an opinion that he is sleazy, but we have the two above facts to base our opinion rather than a prosecution.

[-Talbot-]

"I bet the Republicans are regretting putting that ghastly racist, boorish, ignorant, boastful and lying pervert forward"

[pixie374]

You can give your opinion on anything without proof. To be done for libel Mr Cox would have to prove it was untrue.

[Spicerack]

Please don't tell me gromit wrote that, Talbot.
a)It would be so funny
b) this thread will definitely disappear

[Jackdaw33]

The defence doesn't have to prove anything. The onus is on the plaintiff (now called the claimant) to prove it was true.

[Spicerack]

Yes, pixie, he could end up in Reading Gaol.