ChatterBank3 mins ago
Katie Hopkins Loses In Court Again !
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. 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.
Samjenko - // That's about the size of it, mikey, and? //
That answer my point then - but just because the judge reaches a conclusion that you don't agree with does not make him an idiot, it makes him a judge you don't agree with, which is not the same thing.
Just because President Trump referred to Meryl Streep as a 'mediocre actress' because she had the temerity to point out some of his many failings doesn't mean she is suddenly not the most awarded actress on the planet.
That answer my point then - but just because the judge reaches a conclusion that you don't agree with does not make him an idiot, it makes him a judge you don't agree with, which is not the same thing.
Just because President Trump referred to Meryl Streep as a 'mediocre actress' because she had the temerity to point out some of his many failings doesn't mean she is suddenly not the most awarded actress on the planet.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
allen Doesn't alter the facts, sam.
//. Calling your political opponents names is the tactic of the intellectually challenged,//
Try joining in the debate sometime, if you're up to it.///
Doesn't alter the facts, allen. Your comment was removed which tells any normal person that you're the last person who should be dishing out advice.
Why don't you try joining any debate instead of spewing your demented invective at anyone who doesn't share your juvenile philosophy.
//. Calling your political opponents names is the tactic of the intellectually challenged,//
Try joining in the debate sometime, if you're up to it.///
Doesn't alter the facts, allen. Your comment was removed which tells any normal person that you're the last person who should be dishing out advice.
Why don't you try joining any debate instead of spewing your demented invective at anyone who doesn't share your juvenile philosophy.
Katie Hopkins: 'I see myself as the Jesus of the outspoken'
http://
The lady likes to court controversy. :o)
http://
The lady likes to court controversy. :o)
// The libel law applies to the printed word - your point is?// AH 2 SJ
the victory lawyer made a variety of victory points which on reflection are quite obvious ( given london is the libel capital of the world - no free speech crap here I can tell you )
1. Tweets are subject to defamation law ( Bercow v McALpine)
2. covered by libel and not slander as they are permanent
3. libel is easier than slander - no need to show special damage
4. New libel law involves showing serious damage to reputation
5. and she did 4 ! or else she wouldnt have won
6 ergo she won under the old rules and the new
well there are 6 points for you
the judgement URL given by Slaney ( morning slaney ! ) is worth a read if you are thinking that this thread is repetitive
but jesus it does go arn and arn ( the judgement - even I got a bit tired altho I am a rabid judgement reader )
at uni you have to decide whether a shellac record is libel or slander - well you play it and it is speech but is the record ( pun intended ha! ) permanent ?
what if you taught a parrot to say " The Ab Editor is a wonker !" is that speech ( slander ) or permanent ( libel )
and other such exercises on a rainy day
( the last one is not by the way as mere abuse is not grounds to sue. That explains why Private Eye got away with referring to libel lawyer Peter Carter Ruck as Peter Carter Frack ( or somethnig near )
the victory lawyer made a variety of victory points which on reflection are quite obvious ( given london is the libel capital of the world - no free speech crap here I can tell you )
1. Tweets are subject to defamation law ( Bercow v McALpine)
2. covered by libel and not slander as they are permanent
3. libel is easier than slander - no need to show special damage
4. New libel law involves showing serious damage to reputation
5. and she did 4 ! or else she wouldnt have won
6 ergo she won under the old rules and the new
well there are 6 points for you
the judgement URL given by Slaney ( morning slaney ! ) is worth a read if you are thinking that this thread is repetitive
but jesus it does go arn and arn ( the judgement - even I got a bit tired altho I am a rabid judgement reader )
at uni you have to decide whether a shellac record is libel or slander - well you play it and it is speech but is the record ( pun intended ha! ) permanent ?
what if you taught a parrot to say " The Ab Editor is a wonker !" is that speech ( slander ) or permanent ( libel )
and other such exercises on a rainy day
( the last one is not by the way as mere abuse is not grounds to sue. That explains why Private Eye got away with referring to libel lawyer Peter Carter Ruck as Peter Carter Frack ( or somethnig near )
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
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.