11–20 of 27 posts
« In the course of the UK undercover policing relationships scandal it was revealed that one of the authors of the "McLibel leaflet" was Bob Lambert, an undercover police officer who infiltrated London Greenpeace; John Dines, another undercover officer, was also Helen Steel's partner for two years. »
There's a line in there that really stands out to me: >McDonald's spent several million pounds, while Steel and Morris spent £30,000; this disparity in funds meant Steel and Morris were not able to call all the witnesses they wanted, especially witnesses from South America who were intended to support their claims about McDonald's activities in that continent's rainforests. It's pretty galling that the justice system…
Put a hard limit on the amount of money that is allowed to be spent, and that limit is based on how much the less wealthy can spend.
If the more wealthy wants to spend more, they can give money to the other side so they can spend equally huge amounts.
"English libel defendants must prove that each statement is true" is one of those sentences that rock you for a moment and remind you that you really can't pretend that all Western Democracies are basically the same.
Yes. Worse, as I understand it, public figures may have lawful claims for defamation even if all statements are already known true to the court! This is a mind-boggling situation, and helps contextualize why the United Nations Human Rights Committee recommends that libel and slander be decriminalized. It makes the USA's defamation laws, SLAPP-happy as they are, look positively humane by comparison.
Can you expand on what that means?
In my understanding, courts don't presumptively "already know" anything at all, except law and precedent. The whole point of a suit is that two parties are contesting knowledge, interpretation, or law. Even if a court's judge(s) suppose(s) something to be true, isn't the whole point that the defendent claims it to be false and is therefore entitled to a hearing?
There's a line in there that really stands out to me: >McDonald's spent several million pounds, while Steel and Morris spent £30,000; this disparity in funds meant Steel and Morris were not able to call all the witnesses they wanted, especially witnesses from South America who were intended to support their claims about McDonald's activities in that continent's rainforests. It's pretty galling that the justice system…
> it's a bit tricky to see exactly how to fix this Put a hard limit on the amount of money that is allowed to be spent, and that limit is based on how much the less wealthy can spend. If the more wealthy wants to spend more, they can give money to the other side so they can spend equally huge amounts.
"English libel defendants must prove that each statement is true" is one of those sentences that rock you for a moment and remind you that you really can't pretend that all Western Democracies are basically the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/defamation.html
This is perhaps the most interesting part: « In the course of the UK undercover policing relationships scandal it was revealed that one of the authors of the "McLibel leaflet" was Bob Lambert, an undercover police officer who infiltrated London Greenpeace; John Dines, another undercover officer, was also Helen Steel's partner for two years. »
What an unbelievably shitty thing to do. Some people have no heart.
0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lambert_(undercover_poli...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Worse, as I understand it, public figures may have lawful claims for defamation even if all statements are already known true to the court! This is a mind-boggling situation, and helps contextualize why the United Nations Human Rights Committee recommends that libel and slander be decriminalized. It makes the USA's defamation laws, SLAPP-happy as they are, look positively humane by comparison.
> even if all statements are already known true to the court Can you expand on what that means? In my understanding, courts don't presumptively "already know" anything at all, except law and precedent. The whole point of a suit is that two parties are contesting knowledge, interpretation, or law. Even if a court's judge(s) suppose(s) something to be true, isn't the whole point that the defendent claims it to be false…
Not OP, but the way I understood it was that the court already holds hard evidence confirming the statements to be undoubtedly true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Worse, as I understand it, public figures may have lawful claims for defamation even if all statements are already known true to the court! This is a mind-boggling situation, and helps contextualize why the United Nations Human Rights Committee recommends that libel and slander be decriminalized. It makes the USA's defamation laws, SLAPP-happy as they are, look positively humane by comparison.
> even if all statements are already known true to the court Can you expand on what that means? In my understanding, courts don't presumptively "already know" anything at all, except law and precedent. The whole point of a suit is that two parties are contesting knowledge, interpretation, or law. Even if a court's judge(s) suppose(s) something to be true, isn't the whole point that the defendent claims it to be false…
"English libel defendants must prove that each statement is true" is one of those sentences that rock you for a moment and remind you that you really can't pretend that all Western Democracies are basically the same.
This changed with the 2013 Defamation Act, although not in Northern Ireland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013 https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/defamation.html
This is perhaps the most interesting part: « In the course of the UK undercover policing relationships scandal it was revealed that one of the authors of the "McLibel leaflet" was Bob Lambert, an undercover police officer who infiltrated London Greenpeace; John Dines, another undercover officer, was also Helen Steel's partner for two years. »
Apparently Bob Lambert also had four sexual relationships while undercover, even fathering a child with one of them despite already having a wife and kids. One woman said she felt "raped by the state" when she learned who he really was, another whom he got pregnant got some money in a lawsuit at least. [0] What an unbelievably shitty thing to do. Some people have no heart. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lambe…