Author Topic: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner  (Read 43774 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline faithlilly

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #30 on: August 03, 2020, 11:20:15 PM »
If wishing it made it true.....
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2020, 11:24:35 PM »
It seems that wishes are all the CB Supporters club have as far as this particular issue is concerned (unless of course they plan to turn wishes into hard cold cash and raise the requisite £300k like was done for Corbyn). 
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline G-Unit

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2020, 11:53:04 PM »
Seems I was wrong if the article I quoted above is right.  Bruckner would have to prove that allegations made by the media had caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his (already in tatters) reputation.  Only a lawyer not in full command of his faculties would take on this case in a no win no fee basis imo.

Barry George won damages against the media for suggesting that he killed Jill Dando. Brueckner is guilty of other crimes, but it still can't be suggested that he abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #33 on: August 03, 2020, 11:59:31 PM »
Barry George won damages against the media for suggesting that he killed Jill Dando. Brueckner is guilty of other crimes, but it still can't be suggested that he abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann.
It’s been suggested for years that Ghislaine Maxwell was Epstein’s pimp and fellow paedo but I don’t remember her sueing, and she’s loaded. 
What year did Barry George win his damages?  I think the law has changed since then, and as I quoted above the claimant has to prove serious harm to his reputation, in any case was this not after he had been acquitted and did they not make up false quotes attributed to him?
« Last Edit: August 04, 2020, 12:03:58 AM by Vertigo Swirl »
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2020, 12:09:11 AM »
Barry George won damages against the media for suggesting that he killed Jill Dando. Brueckner is guilty of other crimes, but it still can't be suggested that he abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann.
If this is true by the way then you as a moderator of this forum better start deleting all the threads which repeat all the so-called libels that have appeared in press articles about Brückner’s that have been copied here.  Are you going to do so as this forum’s owner does not tolerate libellous allegations.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #35 on: August 04, 2020, 12:10:10 AM »
forum rules

                                   

* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
* Libellous or defamatory material will be removed on sight
* Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2020, 12:10:49 AM »
I expect all threads mentioning allegations against CB to be removed by morning.

Good night!
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline faithlilly

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #37 on: August 04, 2020, 12:15:34 AM »
Barry George won damages against the media for suggesting that he killed Jill Dando. Brueckner is guilty of other crimes, but it still can't be suggested that he abducted and murdered Madeleine McCann.

Just so and like Brueckner had a criminal past including indecent assault.

[edit]
George adopted several pseudonyms, starting at school, where he used the name Paul Gadd, the real name of singer Gary Glitter.[8] In 1980, after George failed in his attempt to join the Metropolitan Police, he posed as a policeman, having obtained false warrant cards. For this he was arrested and prosecuted. In May 1980,[5] he appeared in court clad in glam rock clothing and untruthfully stated his name to be Paul Gadd,[10] and stated his occupation as 'unemployed musician' and former managing director of a company that handled three rock bands.[5] At Kingston Magistrates' Court he was convicted and fined £25.[6] In the early 1980s he appeared in a local newspaper claiming to be the winner of the British Karate Championship. He gave his name as Paul Gadd and his occupation as 'a singer with the band Xanadu and a session musician with the Electric Light Orchestra'. He was exposed as a fraud by another newspaper. He then assumed the identity of the cousin of Electric Light Orchestra singer Jeff Lynne and created a fictional company called Xanadu Constructional and Mechanical Engineers.[5] In 1980, George joined the Territorial Army, but was discharged the following year.[6] He then adopted the persona of SAS member Tom Palmer, one of the soldiers who ended the 1980 Iranian Embassy Siege.[3] George was charged with two counts of indecent assault in June 1981;[5] he was acquitted of indecent assault against one woman, and convicted of indecent assault against another woman, for which he received a three-month sentence, suspended for two years.[11]
He assumed the identity of Steve Majors and claimed to be a stuntman; he convinced a stadium to stage a show in which he would jump over four double-decker buses on roller skates, and injured himself attempting this stunt.[5] In March 1983 George was convicted at the Old Bailey under the pseudonym of Steve Majors for the February 1982 attempted rape of a woman in Acton,[5] for which he served 18 months of a 33-month sentence.[11] On 10 January 1983,[5] as was revealed after his arrest for the Dando murder, George had been found in the grounds of Kensington Palace, at that time the home of Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales. He had been discovered hiding in the grounds wearing a balaclava and carrying a poem he had written to Prince Charles.[8]
On 2 May 1989 at Fulham register office, George married a 35-year-old Japanese student, Itsuko Toide, in what Toide described as a marriage "of convenience – but nonetheless violent and terrifying".[5][12] After four months she reported to the police that he had assaulted her. On 29 October 1989, George was arrested and charged, but the case was dropped and did not go to court;[5] the marriage ended in April 1990.[11][6]
In April 1990, and again in January 1992, George was arrested and charged with indecent assault. Neither case went to court.[5]
Before his trial for the Dando murder, George was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome.[13] Prosecution psychologists studying George concluded that he had several different personality disorders: [ censored word]ocial, histrionic, narcissistic and possibly paranoid,[5] as well as somatization and factitious disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.[14] He was said to be epileptic and to have an IQ of 75;[10] however, a prior assessment found George to be of average intelligence.[5] George has also been likened to a "lone obsessive, Walter Mitty-type figure" for his desire to impersonate famous figures.[15]

I would think if Brueckner is never charged he would have a stronger case than George to sue as George was charged and tried.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline The General

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #38 on: August 04, 2020, 07:44:45 AM »
Looks like we successfully hive-minded the libel laws in my absence.
I'm proud of you guys (even my mortal enemies).

Be careful with your wording.

The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline Mr Gray

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #39 on: August 04, 2020, 08:23:29 AM »
I don't see CB has any case to sue anyone for libel....particularly with the defence of honest opinion.

Could those who think otherwise cite a staement that they consider libellous...I think they will struggle

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #40 on: August 04, 2020, 08:27:31 AM »
No overnight mass deletions of all the posts containing links to libellous news reports I see.  Why on earth not?  Do you want the forum owner to be sued too?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #41 on: August 04, 2020, 08:31:39 AM »
I don't see CB has any case to sue anyone for libel....particularly with the defence of honest opinion.

Could those who think otherwise cite a staement that they consider libellous...I think they will struggle
Apparently any article that puts his name together with that of Madeleine McCann or any missing child is libellous so the man is going to be spoilt for choice about who to sue, including this forum for repeating the libels.  John must be quaking in his boots and I wouldn’t be surprised if the forum is shut down by the end of the day for a major clean up operation.  I doubt we’ll even be allowed to refer to CB by name going forward.  Job done, the libel scaremongers have won, let’s shut down the debate and get back to libelling the parents instead..
« Last Edit: August 04, 2020, 08:33:49 AM by Vertigo Swirl »
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Mr Gray

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #42 on: August 04, 2020, 08:39:23 AM »
Supreme Court clarifies 'serious harm' in defamation law
OUT-LAW NEWS | 17 Jun 2019 | 11:22 am | 2 min. read

Share via email

Share on social
A statement will not be defamatory unless the claimant proves that it has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation, the UK's highest court has confirmed.
The Supreme Court's unanimous judgment will be widely welcomed by media publishers, although the publishers in this case lost their appeal on the facts, according to defamation law expert Alex Keenlyside of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com. This is because the issue which the Court was addressing - the correct approach to the 'serious harm' threshold in section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 - was decided in a way that will make it harder for claimants to bring successful libel claims, he said.

Under the Defamation Act 2013, claimants must demonstrate that the publication of a statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation in order to bring a claim for defamation against the publisher of the statement. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal have considered what constitutes 'serious harm' since the Act came into force, but this is the first time the issue hasreached the Supreme Court.

The case concerns articles published by the Independent, the 'i', the Huffington Post and the London Evening Standard, which reported allegations of domestic violence and kidnap made against aerospace engineer Bruno Lachaux by his ex-wife. In July 2015, the High Court found that the allegations made would cause serious harm to Lachaux's reputation.

The publishers appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal. In September 2017, the Court of Appeal held that while the High Court judge had reached the correct outcome on the preliminary issue, it disagreed on various aspects of his approach to the interpretation of the serious harm test under the Act.

High Court judge Mr Justice Warby had ruled that the Act requires a claimant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the statement has in fact caused serious harm to their reputation, or probably will do so. According to the judge, parliament’s intention was that the court should consider not just the meaning of the statement but all the relevant circumstances, including what harm had actually occurred.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the judge's approach, concluding that by introducing section 1, parliament had merely “given statutory status to the decision in Thornton [the 2011 case which established a substantial harm test] whilst at the same time raising the threshold from one of substantiality to one of seriousness”, and that this was “both the extent of and limit to the change in the law”.
The Supreme Court once again dismissed the publishers' appeal on the facts. However, it also overturned the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the Act, preferring the approach adopted by the High Court judge. The Supreme Court found that section 1 of the Act “raises the threshold of seriousness”above that envisaged in the case law prior to the Act, and“requires its application to be determined by reference to the actual facts about [the statement in question’s] impact and not just to the meaning of the words”.

"The Court of Appeal’s strained interpretation of the serious harm test can now be put to one side in favour of a more logical and literal reading of the statute," said Alex Keenlyside of Pinsent Masons.

"What’s less clear at the moment is what this decision will mean for case management. An important driver for the introduction of the 'serious harm' requirement was to eliminate those cases at the more trivial end of the spectrum in which substantial amounts of court time and legal costs could still be generated. The challenge for judges now is to find a way of managing cases efficiently such that in appropriate cases the 'serious harm' point can be tested at an early stage in proceedings, rather than at trial when all of that time and cost has been incurred,” he said.

https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/supreme-court-clarifies-serious-harm-in-defamation-law

This is why I have often said nothing posted here would pass the libel test of serious harm. The audience is simply too small.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #43 on: August 04, 2020, 08:48:31 AM »
This is why I have often said nothing posted here would pass the libel test of serious harm. The audience is simply too small.
Best not to risk it though, I suggest John insists that all discussion re: CB cease with immediate effect, the guy is soon to go on a sueing rampage according to those who have his best interests at heart.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: All the lies the Media have told about Christian Bruckner
« Reply #44 on: August 04, 2020, 08:54:21 AM »
“Are there time limits for suing for defamation?
Yes, to sue for defamation, a claim must be made within one year of the statement having been made.  The one year period runs from the date of the publication of the defamatory statement”.

Can you sue for defamation while you are serving time for drugs and sex offences?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly