HanoiVillan Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 On 24/12/2018 at 07:07, Demitri_C said: I'm.not saying its right but I'm generally asking woild there be a case against them as they can claim they are just reporting the news? I think this is a fair question. I'm not a libel lawyer, but it seems to me that they've probably left themselves enough plausible deniability to mean that it isn't actually libel, which is essentially the only meaningful check in our press regulation. I would love to be proven wrong, obviously. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 5 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: I think this is a fair question. I'm not a libel lawyer, but it seems to me that they've probably left themselves enough plausible deniability to mean that it isn't actually libel, which is essentially the only meaningful check in our press regulation. I would love to be proven wrong, obviously. I agree, I’m sure they know what they are doing. But in an “innocent until proven guilty” state, they can argue that they have been victimised as a result of the article and punished because of it. The paper didn’t have to publish the picture or their names. They could have waited 24 hours to see if they were charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted December 25, 2018 Administrator Share Posted December 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Genie said: I agree, I’m sure they know what they are doing. But in an “innocent until proven guilty” state, they can argue that they have been victimised as a result of the article and punished because of it. The paper didn’t have to publish the picture or their names. They could have waited 24 hours to see if they were charged. Even if they were guilty, they could now claim that they can't get a fair trial as this has prejudiced any potential jurors. Edited December 25, 2018 by limpid 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 An actual libel lawyer thinks I'm wrong: 'The couple arrested and released without charge in relation to the Gatwick drone incident could win at least £75,000 from the newspapers who identified them, according to a leading libel lawyer. Mark Stephens, head of media law at Howard Kennedy, said they had a strong legal case if they wished to pursue legal action. “Absent of a compelling reason and the police saying you can, you may no longer identify people who have been arrested. “The damage is likely to be in the region of £75,000 to £125,000. It could be more when you total all of the news outlets, because each one is going to pay something for the damage it caused. I don’t see any lawyer who wouldn’t take it on a no-win-no-fee basis.” Stephens said the case is the first major test of privacy law since Sir Cliff Richard’s landmark privacy victory against the BBC earlier this year, which set a higher bar for naming individuals who have been arrested but not charged.' more on link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/25/couple-released-without-charge-over-gatwick-drone-could-win-libel-payout 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post HanoiVillan Posted December 25, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 25, 2018 When your excuses are good: 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 25, 2018 Moderator Share Posted December 25, 2018 2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: An actual libel lawyer thinks I'm wrong: 'The couple arrested and released without charge in relation to the Gatwick drone incident could win at least £75,000 from the newspapers who identified them, according to a leading libel lawyer. Mark Stephens, head of media law at Howard Kennedy, said they had a strong legal case if they wished to pursue legal action. “Absent of a compelling reason and the police saying you can, you may no longer identify people who have been arrested. “The damage is likely to be in the region of £75,000 to £125,000. It could be more when you total all of the news outlets, because each one is going to pay something for the damage it caused. I don’t see any lawyer who wouldn’t take it on a no-win-no-fee basis.” Stephens said the case is the first major test of privacy law since Sir Cliff Richard’s landmark privacy victory against the BBC earlier this year, which set a higher bar for naming individuals who have been arrested but not charged.' more on link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/25/couple-released-without-charge-over-gatwick-drone-could-win-libel-payout You can chuck the compo for wrongful arrest on top of that, which appears to be based on... someone grassed them up with zero corroboration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted December 25, 2018 Moderator Share Posted December 25, 2018 1 hour ago, bickster said: You can chuck the compo for wrongful arrest on top of that, which appears to be based on... someone grassed them up with zero corroboration Looking at those figures I'd have had someone grass me up and shop me to the papers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Looking at those figures I'd have had someone grass me up and shop me to the papers! Choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 25, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted December 25, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: An actual libel lawyer thinks I'm wrong: 'The couple arrested and released without charge in relation to the Gatwick drone incident could win at least £75,000 from the newspapers who identified them, according to a leading libel lawyer. Mark Stephens, head of media law at Howard Kennedy, said they had a strong legal case if they wished to pursue legal action. “Absent of a compelling reason and the police saying you can, you may no longer identify people who have been arrested. “The damage is likely to be in the region of £75,000 to £125,000. It could be more when you total all of the news outlets, because each one is going to pay something for the damage it caused. I don’t see any lawyer who wouldn’t take it on a no-win-no-fee basis.” Stephens said the case is the first major test of privacy law since Sir Cliff Richard’s landmark privacy victory against the BBC earlier this year, which set a higher bar for naming individuals who have been arrested but not charged.' more on link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/25/couple-released-without-charge-over-gatwick-drone-could-win-libel-payout I reckon I would risk the backlash of being wrongly identified by a paper for doing this if I got 125 grand as a result Edited December 25, 2018 by Stevo985 Added a winking smiley so Snowychap knows this isn't a serious post. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: I reckon I would risk the backlash of being wrongly identified by a paper for doing this if I got 125 grand as a result. Of course you would. It's a **** tragedy that this seems to be the standard response to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 25, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted December 25, 2018 1 minute ago, snowychap said: Of course you would. It's a **** tragedy that this seems to be the standard response to this. As opposed to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 1 minute ago, Stevo985 said: As opposed to? A thoughtful response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 25, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted December 25, 2018 Just now, snowychap said: A thoughtful response. Merry Christmas, Snowy. Don't ever change. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 £125k is **** all for spending 36 hours in a cell, having your home searched and having your face plastered over the papers and accused of ruining Xmas! I'd like to start with an apology from the police and newspapers! Then we can talk moolah... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Merry Christmas, Snowy. Don't ever change. That's really your reply? Wow. Edited December 25, 2018 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 25, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted December 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, snowychap said: That's really your reply? Wow. That's really my reply. It's Christmas, I'm not going to spend it arguing with you over a tongue in cheek post I made about a couple getting 125 grand. It wasn't meant to be taken so seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: That's really my reply. It's Christmas, I'm not going to spend it arguing with you over a tongue in cheek post I made about a couple getting 125 grand. It wasn't meant to be taken so seriously. Of course it wasn't. You hide behind your rock. Merry christmas, Steven. Don't ever change. Edited December 25, 2018 by snowychap 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 25, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted December 25, 2018 1 minute ago, snowychap said: Of course it wasn't. You hide behind your rock. Merry christmas, Steven. Don't ever change. @NurembergVillan made a similar post to mine. You might get more of a bite out of him. Happy fishing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: @NurembergVillan made a similar post to mine. You might get more of a bite out of him. Happy fishing. I also responded to Rob's post. Don't you bother reading the threads in which you post? Edit: It's not about 'fishing', it's about honestly responding to the other posts people make. My comment 'choice' in response to NV, was about how much choice the couple subjected to the invasion of the country/world's media had. Edited December 25, 2018 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post NurembergVillan Posted December 26, 2018 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted December 26, 2018 4 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts