In the UK what constitutes a libel? Any takers?

[slartibartfast]

No it doesn't.

Because if what you say were correct, libel would be the default assumption wherever there are no court proceedings.

There is no such default assumption.

I think you are arguing on the wrong side?

[ferryman]

I think you are arguing on the wrong side?

OK, absence of libel would be the default assumption wherever there are no court proceedings.

That isn't the case.

[slartibartfast]

OK, absence of libel would be the default assumption wherever there are no court proceedings.

That isn't the case.

So you are saying libel is the default assumption?


I.e. Guilt is the default assumption?

[ferryman]

So you are saying libel is the default assumption?


I.e. Guilt is the default assumption?

The classic definition of libel is statements proven untrue that lower reputation.

In England there is no requirement to prove statements untrue.

In Portugal (I think) there is.

In either country, where statements that lower reputation are proven untrue, libel is established.

The only (potential) complicating factor is where person wrongly accused doesn't have a reputation to defend.

If you were to accuse Peter Sutcliffe of stealing sweets from a corner shop when he was a lad, there would be no libel, be the allegation true or false, because Sutcliffe's reputation is in ruins anyway.

Amaral, similarly.

He has a criminal conviction for lying and for covering up for torture ...

The McCanns have a clean reputation that has been unjustly shreded.

[Eleanor]

The British Media in question accepted their guilt, and pleaded guilty by doing so.

[Mr Gray]

So you are saying libel is the default assumption?


I.e. Guilt is the default assumption?

absolutely

[Mr Gray]

The classic definition of libel is statements proven untrue that lower reputation.

In England there is no requirement to prove statements untrue.

In Portugal (I think) there is.

In either country, where statements that lower reputation are proven untrue, libel is established.

The only (potential) complicating factor is where person wrongly accused doesn't have a reputation to defend.

If you were to accuse Peter Sutcliffe of stealing sweets from a corner shop when he was a lad, there would be no libel, be the allegation true or false, because Sutcliffe's reputation is in ruins anyway.

Amaral, similarly.

He has a criminal conviction for lying and for covering up for torture ...

The McCanns have a clean reputation that has been unjustly shreded.

the libelled person does not have to prove anything...on this you are totally wrong

[Mr Gray]

a definition of libel.....



a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.




if someone publishes a defamation regarding me they have committed libel...I can demand damages without court proceedings..  the person has to pay me compensation......The person can agree to pay or can go to court to reduce damages or defend his statments

[Mr Gray]

Of course it does. Dave can I suggest that you pick your battles a little more carefully. Arguing against something that is patently true is not only a waste of time but also rather boring for the reader.

If you read my post re  the definition of libel you will see that you are once more wrong

[ferryman]

the libelled person does not have to prove anything...on this you are totally wrong

I think you miss the distinction between having to prove and proving.

Whether you have to or not, it's a definite bonus if you can.

[Mr Gray]

I think you miss the distinction between having to prove and proving.

Whether you have to or not, it's a definite bonus if you can.

no one accused of libel has to prove anything......lord mcalpine did not have to prove he was not a paedophile

[Mr Gray]

its all about libel...

the mccanns proved with Bennett when they originally allowed him to  settle without asking him for a penny

[jassi]

its all about libel...

the mccanns proved with Bennett when they originally allowed him to  settle without asking him for a penny

Do you think the McCanns would be happy if they won their case but were awarded, say 1 euro?

[slartibartfast]

its all about libel...

the mccanns proved with Bennett when they originally allowed him to  settle without asking him for a penny

Why worry about all the financial information then?

[Mr Gray]

Do you think the McCanns would be happy if they won their case but were awarded, say 1 euro?

yes