Housing crisis. Number 10 apologises over tory slur e-mail

lostinrates

treliac wrote: »

A bit of Googling finds it lir!

I've been trying, I get articles but not links to the things themselves! I'm probably using bizarre search terms, I do that ...I'll get Dh to have a go.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Zagu - intent is not libel! I'm not making the law up - the libel occurs on publication. That wasn't done by the author of the email, it was done on the blog and then by every media outlet which has printed the details of the contents of the email.

I suspect - as Optimist points out above - that a malicious falsehood claim would be her option. Its easy to thrown terms like "Libel" around, but there's a pretty strict definition as to whats Libellous and what isn't. Its not libel by McBride because he didn't publish. Its not slander as he didn't say it in public. It might be malicious falsehood if she can demonstrate that it was published by McBride. On the legal definition of that she may struggle. If McBride & Draper had actually published material on their smear website then it would all be very clear - when its the content of an email between private individuals that gets leaked its much harder to define legally.

Optimist

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Zagu - intent is not libel! I'm not making the law up - the libel occurs on publication. That wasn't done by the author of the email, it was done on the blog and then by every media outlet which has printed the details of the contents of the email.

I suspect - as Optimist points out above - that a malicious falsehood claim would be her option. Its easy to thrown terms like "Libel" around, but there's a pretty strict definition as to whats Libellous and what isn't. Its not libel by McBride because he didn't publish. Its not slander as he didn't say it in public. It might be malicious falsehood if she can demonstrate that it was published by McBride. On the legal definition of that she may struggle. If McBride & Draper had actually published material on their smear website then it would all be very clear - when its the content of an email between private individuals that gets leaked its much harder to define legally.

The legal definition is really quite simple. In media law to publish merely means to communicate an allegation to a person or persons. It really does not matter if its one person or indeed millions of people. Nor indeed does it matter if it was published by a newspaper or by a electronic source such as email !

treliac

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

The leaks are smears. Aside from the £10 on the !!!!!! films no MPs have broken any rules - its all suggestion and innuendo. The purpose of the leaks is to damage their careers.

How do we know. I think we all now believe that the facts, as we know them, are only the tip of the iceberg.

Its not libel by McBride because he didn't publish. Its not slander as he didn't say it in public. It might be malicious falsehood if she can demonstrate that it was published by McBride.

Whatever else it is, it's nasty, vicious and the work of the sort of human being who is to be despised and certainly not positioned at the heart of our government.

How can anyone, whatever their political leaning, offer an explanation that appears to defend such a sinister individual?

Rochdale_Pioneers

Optimist wrote: »

The legal definition is really quite simple. In media law to publish merely means to communicate an allegation to a person or persons. It really does not matter if its one person or indeed millions of people. Nor indeed does it matter if it was published by a newspaper or by a electronic source such as email !

If I understand English law correctly it disagrees with you. Its different in Scotland I know where they would allow it.

It probably doesn't matter anyway - a firm of celebrity lawyers would pick the case up and hope that the obvious embarrassment would bring an out of court settlement.

Zagu

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Zagu - intent is not libel!

Oh, right. So why did you say....

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Someone needs to point out to her that for it to be libel he would have needed to have published them or intended to do so - which he didn't.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Zagu wrote: »

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

I think you are confusing two separate things. You were suggesting that it was Libel because they intended to publish smears which hadn't been written yet - the smears would have been libellous. Saying "am I going to do X" and not doing it doesn't make you guilty of doing so, even under civil proceedings.

I am saying that the email - where writing such smears was suggested - claimed as libellous was never intended for wider publication in that it was written by one person to three others. In making your comment above you are confusing the two. Easy to clip words out of their context and come to a false conclusion as you have just demonstrated.

Perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about - its been a good decade since the term-long module on media law as part of my Journalism degree, and I know there has been plenty of precidents laid down in case law since. Anyway, as I said above its a non-issue - if libel proceedings are issued they'll have the backing of celebrity lawyers who chase this kind of case and will aim for an out of court settlement.

Rochdale_Pioneers

treliac wrote: »

How can anyone, whatever their political leaning, offer an explanation that appears to defend such a sinister individual?

Please read my various condemnations of McBride and his odious plot posted ad nauseum in this thread.

What I have done is looked at a legal definition of Libel. Is that defending him?

bluey890

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Please read my various condemnations of McBride and his odious plot posted ad nauseum in this thread.

What I have done is looked at a legal definition of Libel. Is that defending him?

Given McBride has gone, my question to you is this.
Are you going to be applying for the job?

treliac

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Please read my various condemnations of McBride and his odious plot posted ad nauseum in this thread.

What I have done is looked at a legal definition of Libel. Is that defending him?

Fair enough then. My reaction is influenced by your persuasion, which shines though every post.

It's unfortunate for New Labour that they can't help banging nails into their own coffin. Integrity seems completely shot.