| Rod Liddel in the Times on Lambert 13:06 - Feb 7 with 5215 views | unstableblue |
Mate just sent this from paper:
Ron Liddell today’s Times. “The other comatose sleeping semi-giants , Ipswich Town, are dangling helplessly in mid table, although Paul Lambert’s almost unintelligible post match comments are still worth tuning in for!”
|  |
| |  |
| Rod Liddel in the Times on Lambert on 13:20 - Feb 9 with 245 views | itfc_bucks |
| Rod Liddel in the Times on Lambert on 12:54 - Feb 9 by The_Last_Baron |
Wrong. In libel cases it is down to the person to prove that what they have written is true. |
it worries me how many people post authoritatively on a subject about which they know very little. |  | | |
| Rod Liddel in the Times on Lambert on 13:24 - Feb 9 with 230 views | MattinLondon |
| Rod Liddel in the Times on Lambert on 13:20 - Feb 9 by itfc_bucks |
it worries me how many people post authoritatively on a subject about which they know very little. |
If this worries you , wait until you see what some write about Brexit - you’ll have kittens. |  | | |
| Rod Liddel in the Times on Lambert on 13:29 - Feb 9 with 221 views | Radlett_blue |
| Rod Liddel in the Times on Lambert on 13:07 - Feb 9 by Kievthegreat |
It's also up to the defendant to prove their reputation has been or could be, substantially harmed. His job is to be reviled by one side for provocative views, quite frankly it helps his reputation, not causes any harm. |
English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove that what was said was untrue. However, it's perfectly possible to "win" a case & it be a Pyrrhic victory e.g. Bruce Grobelaar, who was found to have been libelled, but was awarded £1 in damages, while he had to pay The Sun's £500,000 in legal costs. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
