Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
The Sun Vs Jimmy Savile: Common Rumour?
18 Answers
Sorry, discussing him again. Couldn't the Sun claim "Common Rumour" or "Widespread Rumour" here? After all legally there is "Common Knowledge"?
http://
http://
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Marshwarble. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I assume you mean 'couldn't The Sun HAVE claimed...'.
It's odd because there were lots of stories and I remember comedians making jokes about Savile well before he died but for whatever reason there was not enough to evidence t prove anything and probably not even enough to make strong hints in a national paper.
It's odd because there were lots of stories and I remember comedians making jokes about Savile well before he died but for whatever reason there was not enough to evidence t prove anything and probably not even enough to make strong hints in a national paper.
Liberace successfully sued the Sunday Mirror and its columnist, Cassandra, when he wrote casting aspersions on the pianists masculinity. When the truth about him eventually got out they wrote a piece asking if they could have their money back.
Could The Sun do the same and claim from Savile's estate?
Could The Sun do the same and claim from Savile's estate?
The test in law is simply whether a person has been 'defamed', based upon 'the balance of probabilities'. For the publishers of the Sun to have won a court case, brought against them for defamation by JS, they would have to have shown that it was more likely than not that JS was guilty of the offences that they'd alleged. They obviously had insufficient evidence to do so.
I think Sandy has hit the nail on the head.
the law reports are full of accounts where people successfully sued over thing s they had in fact done
such as Tommy sheridan - Linford Christie - are modern example
Narty narty examples are the libel trial Geo Carman QC as wiki says:
" He became known for producing new and decisive evidence towards the end of a trial, examples including the libel cases involving Gillian Taylforth, Neil Hamilton and Jonathan Aitken."
he needed the court fees (Carman) so arranged for the decisive evidence to be produced half way thro ... ( he's dead so he cant sue me)
Tommy Sheridan was subjected later to a trial for perjury
otherwise the lately winning side starts an action on account to claw back the damages they paid and court costs ( Linford Christie I think )
the law reports are full of accounts where people successfully sued over thing s they had in fact done
such as Tommy sheridan - Linford Christie - are modern example
Narty narty examples are the libel trial Geo Carman QC as wiki says:
" He became known for producing new and decisive evidence towards the end of a trial, examples including the libel cases involving Gillian Taylforth, Neil Hamilton and Jonathan Aitken."
he needed the court fees (Carman) so arranged for the decisive evidence to be produced half way thro ... ( he's dead so he cant sue me)
Tommy Sheridan was subjected later to a trial for perjury
otherwise the lately winning side starts an action on account to claw back the damages they paid and court costs ( Linford Christie I think )
Invented stories
In January 1987, MacKenzie published a front-page story alleging that pop singer Elton John had had sex with underage rentboys. These claims were without any foundation and entirely false. Shortly after, MacKenzie published further allegations that the singer had had the voiceboxes of his guard dogs removed because their barking kept him awake at night. Not only were these additional claims also completely untrue, but MacKenzie confirmed their inaccuracy shortly after publication by sending a reporter to the singer's house, who quickly discovered that all of his guard dogs were quite capable of barking (MacKenzie later admitted that in retrospect he found it difficult to understand why he had believed, never mind published, the claims about the guard dogs which he later realised were self-evidently absurd). Elton John sued The Sun for libel over both these claims and was later awarded £1,000,000 in damages
(from Wikipedia)
In January 1987, MacKenzie published a front-page story alleging that pop singer Elton John had had sex with underage rentboys. These claims were without any foundation and entirely false. Shortly after, MacKenzie published further allegations that the singer had had the voiceboxes of his guard dogs removed because their barking kept him awake at night. Not only were these additional claims also completely untrue, but MacKenzie confirmed their inaccuracy shortly after publication by sending a reporter to the singer's house, who quickly discovered that all of his guard dogs were quite capable of barking (MacKenzie later admitted that in retrospect he found it difficult to understand why he had believed, never mind published, the claims about the guard dogs which he later realised were self-evidently absurd). Elton John sued The Sun for libel over both these claims and was later awarded £1,000,000 in damages
(from Wikipedia)
incidentally, I never heard of "common rumour" being a defence to a libel claim. Truth may be, but there's a vast distance between rumour and truth. In theory Savile could have sued those spreading the common rumours but it would have been difficult to find them. It's not difficult to find the Sun and it has a lot of money to be sued for.
The old defences before the NEW defamation Act were
privilege ( absolute and partial ) truth and fair comment
( these four ) and I think that was it... near truth or everyone thinks .... doesnt feature
Private Eye tried: he doesnt have a reputation to tarnish
I think that was Mohd Sayed the owner of Harrods
The judge ruled he did
Justice Cocklecarrot was wheeled out for a lot of these - real life Oliver Popplewell - because he was the only one who understood the arcane rules a lot of which were topsy turvy compared to other branches of civil law. ( once the plaintiff showed the statement was libellous the defence then had to show one of the defences or else paid. Completely the opposite to other cases where the plaintiff has to prove his case )
privilege ( absolute and partial ) truth and fair comment
( these four ) and I think that was it... near truth or everyone thinks .... doesnt feature
Private Eye tried: he doesnt have a reputation to tarnish
I think that was Mohd Sayed the owner of Harrods
The judge ruled he did
Justice Cocklecarrot was wheeled out for a lot of these - real life Oliver Popplewell - because he was the only one who understood the arcane rules a lot of which were topsy turvy compared to other branches of civil law. ( once the plaintiff showed the statement was libellous the defence then had to show one of the defences or else paid. Completely the opposite to other cases where the plaintiff has to prove his case )
not much really ( agree I mean )
it is so much to do with money - his will has been suspended by the high court ( high court has granted an order halting distribution of assets under the will ) until this fol-de-rol reaches its conclusion
why else discuss interminably what a dead man did or did not do ?
it is so much to do with money - his will has been suspended by the high court ( high court has granted an order halting distribution of assets under the will ) until this fol-de-rol reaches its conclusion
why else discuss interminably what a dead man did or did not do ?
1 to 18 of 18
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.