Libel ....

[Mr Gray]

The first can be sued.

libel is  a statement that is untrue...he was tried for murder...therefore it is not libel

[Miss Taken Identity]

libel is  a statement that is untrue...he was tried for murder...therefore it is not libel

No Libel is about damaging someones reputation or reputation of a company to adverse affect. If Colin Stagg applied for a job as a bus driver and you gave a reference as his previous employer, and said he was tried for murder.full stop. and Colin didn't get the job you could be sued.  You would have to declare that he was tried and found NOT GUILTY. That would enable the new employer to quetion him about this if they felt he was a risk.

You must show evidence that you have suffered as a result of  accusations ie you lost a contract or a job or worse.

[Mr Gray]

No Libel is about damaging someones reputation or reputation of a company to adverse affect. If Colin Stagg applied for a job as a bus driver and you gave a reference as his previous employer, and said he was tried for murder.full stop. and Colin didn't get the job you could be sued.  You would have to declare that he was tried and found NOT GUILTY. That would enable the new employer to quetion him about this if they felt he was a risk.

You must show evidence that you have suffered as a result of  accusations ie you lost a contract or a job or worse.

why is it libel if it is true...please explain.......we are talking specifically re libel

if you gave a reference taht was misleading...you could be sued for damages...but not libel

[Alice Purjorick]

There must be few on here who have very lucrative legal practices advising the populace on English defamation law.

"The laws of defamation are a legal minefield, not just for journalists but for potential complainants". 

https://www.carson-mcdowell.com/news-and-events/insights/the-defamation-act-2013-and-its-explanatory-notes

[Miss Taken Identity]

why is it libel if it is true...please explain.......we are talking specifically re libel

if you gave a reference taht was misleading...you could be sued for damages...but not libel

Damages ? under what law? libel? anyway. Alice has given links.

[Alfie]

Part of my job is to protect the forum from legal action and as such I will err on the side of caution.most of the time it is clear cut.

Is it OK for me to suggest that the McCanns are hiding something?

[slartibartfast]

Is it OK for me to suggest that the McCanns are hiding something?

If you give your reasons for thinking so, assuming those reasons are within the scope of your knowledge and experience.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Is it OK for me to suggest that the McCanns are hiding something?

You can say  The McCanns told a story which you don't believe. Or you can say you suspect what they said wasn't true. But don't post  someone elses theory  bad , very bad , very very bad.

[John]

English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defences are justification, fair comment, and privilege. An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation.

A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice. A private individual must only prove negligence to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, which is the case in Portugal.

[Mr Gray]

English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defences are justification, fair comment, and privilege. An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation.

A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice. A private individual must only prove negligence to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, which is the case in Portugal.

a private individual doesn't have to prove anything

[ferryman]

I see why you keep falling foul of the rules.

It would be libel if you told a prospective employer of Colin Stagg that he stood trial for the murder of Rachel Nickel, it is not libel if you stated it on a public forum.

Completely untrue (what you said).

[Alice Purjorick]

"A claimant will need to satisfy the court that the imputation, context, nature, extent and impact of the publication are such that significant reputational damage has been suffered".

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/legal-updates/the-defamation-act-2013/5039959.fullarticle

[Mr Gray]

"A claimant will need to satisfy the court that the imputation, context, nature, extent and impact of the publication are such that significant reputational damage has been suffered".

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/legal-updates/the-defamation-act-2013/5039959.fullarticle

John posted...
. A private individual must only prove negligence to collect compensatory damagesto which I replied a private individual does not have to prove anything

[stephen25000]

John posted...
. A private individual must only prove negligence to collect compensatory damagesto which I replied a private individual does not have to prove anything

So you are an expert in law as well.

[Alice Purjorick]

John posted...
. A private individual must only prove negligence to collect compensatory damagesto which I replied a private individual does not have to prove anything

So?