Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I'm only posting this because the name of the judge was MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT.
he isn't and never has been styled *Judge*, he is currently *Lord Judge* and before that was *His Justice Judge*.
What a wanker I am today.
for the various levels of judge I would encounter. I still have no idea.
He was Lord Justice Judge, then before that Mr Justice Judge. In either case he would have been referred to as "his Lordship" or addressed as "my Lord".
Consider yourself out-wankered, friend.
he's a judge! He could DO YOU
I was once interviewed by a partner with a name that sounded very very like "be an attorney"
Page 12 one paragraph, next two a story about floating cats and Jordans new book?
they should be prohibited from printing and distributing their newspapers for a day/week.
Probs can't be applied to the internet, but it'd be a pretty strong message when Mrs Tabloid Reader is looking for her paper, can't find it, and asks if it has sold out. To be met with the reply explaining how there is no edition of it today cos it's a rag of a publication that has been told to sit things out for bit on the naughty step whilst it thinks about the chaos it has caused to the life of a completely innocent person.
so make the consumer suffer for their wrong choice of newspaper? so these people don't get to read the news for day? and where are they going to read about the correction if there's no newspaper?
newspapers get it wrong sometimes. but we do have very silly libel laws.
but having to read a different newspaper/forego a newspaper for a day is hardly the biggest torment in the world.
I agree our libel laws aren't great but certainly don't think that's the issue here. Within a day of this guy being arrested the newspapers had done a complete hatchet job on him and presented him as a voyeur, creep and depreaved sex fiend to the point where there's no way on Earth he could have had a fair trial and way, way, way beyond what was reasonable and accepable to a guy who had not even been charged of a crime.
It wasn't simply a case of newspapers getting it wrong but newspapers deliberately and maliciously acting without full possession of the facts to destroy what turned out to be an innocent man's reputation. Massive damages and a public apology is entirely right in this case.
but it would be an issue when litigants begin to wonder why the newspaper which defamed them isn't being taken off the shelves when another one (which printed maybe less damaging information about someone)is only paying damages.
This guy is being awarded hundreds of thousands of pounds and I think everyone now conclusively knows he didn't kill her or have any involvement in her murder. There are greater travesties.
The whole idea is, undeniably, a big interference in press freedom. Even if one legitimate news story went unprinted because of this (which it would) it would be achieving the completely wrong result. I think press freedom is more important than this guy's ordeal.
about someone's character, their sex habits etc, brand them a weirdo in big capital letters, before they've even been charged of any crime than the right of people to not have their private lives spread all over the papers when they've done nothing wrong?!
i remember commenting on this when i first saw one of the tabloids front pages with his face and the capitalised headline 'WEIRDO' or something similar. i said then, what if he's innocent?!
I don't think that's VGW's point here. Rather, it's the "chilling" argument often used in human rights contexts: by prohibiting wrongful uses of press freedom, you effectively prohibit valuable uses as well. This is because of possibilities like over-deterrence and the misuse of enforcement powers.
The point is that this effect would be worse than Jeffries' ordeal - which although doubtless terrible, is now conclusively over, and he has been compensated to the extent that money is capable of doing.
Re Wza's suggestion: I actually think it would be better just to force newspapers to print apologies and corrections that were proportionate in their prominence to the libelous stories. The preventive effect wouldn't be as strong as taking them off the shelves, but it would be a good way of correcting the wrong done, and wouldn't be as likely to interfere with press freedom.
we could just do better at enforcing contempt provisions - which seems to be happening in the wake of this anyway.
the offending paper can correct it in their next edition back on the shelves.
and, come on, you should be on board - labour love this kind of hardcore restriction on civil liberties. ;-)
Which newspaper do you recommend they buy?
"A snippety press and a sensational public are outstanding marks of modern times" - Keir Hardie. It's sad, but you do realise your idea would mean the press err on the side of caution and wouldn't print serious allegations for fear of libel? Meaning the truth wouldn't be told and lots of people would be unaccountable...
It definitely wasn't 100% serious but I didn't take it to be. I've heard similar arguments made in the whole hacking scandal thing and there is a point to be made about it.
`This man has been arrested for the murder of...`
but they didn't. They went for...
`OMG! Look at this mental case they've arrested! We've found loads of juicy tidbits about him!!11 See pages 1, 2, 4, 6...`
I paraphrase of course.
But that's not what this is is it?
It's the usual suspects jumping the gun and damning someone because he looks a bit funny.
Maybe they should have err'd on the side of caution.
I've almost certainly said something stupid. That's why I don't post in these threads.
'It's the usual suspects jumping the gun and damning someone because he looks a bit funny. '
because it's correct
I wasn't listening.
You look weird.
don't blow it*!
Nah it's a free press issue and I've explained why. There's no way of making this rule apply only in what you and I see as the really tawdry, personal life stories. It would effectively extend to stories which genuinely are in the public interest - because the same principle of reputation is being defended in both cases. Knowing that 90% of libel cases in England are won by the claimant, editors would back down rather and retract rather than put the facts forth in open court. In English libel law, you're basically considered guilty until proven innocent.
is it really too much to ask for them to use a bit of common sense and not make someone out to be guilty before proven innocent?
Reporting that he is being questioned is one thing. Making him out to be a sinister weirdo is another.
idk, it just seems obvious to me.
It shouldn't be too much to ask, no. But tabloid journalists are a different species.
Its amazing how many of them go on reporting stuff that could be prejudicial to future trial too.
All we can really do is punish those who don't comply with orders and try to restitute when they do inevitably get it wrong sometimes.
The libel laws in this country are skewered but in this case I think the compensation and apology is entirely accurate.
As to whether it restricts editors publishing stories in the public interest, for me the differentiation here is that the guy was already being questioned by police and already potentially in line for criminal proceedings so I don't really see where press intervention was helpful or necessary.
If the press have uncovered wrongdoing nobody is yet aware of then they obviously have a duty to uncover that but that wasn't what was going on here and I don't agree it was in the public interest to provide a load of information on a suspect for a crime that would have potentially prejudiced a fair trial.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that, between arrest and release or prosecution of an invidual, newspapers should be restrained in what they report and stick to facts rather than speculation. I don't agree that impinges on press freedom or undermnines the possibility of stories being published that are in the public interest.
But I do favour the idea (that I think I may have seen someone suggest on here a while back) that an apology & correction be printed with prominence matching the offending article. So a front page headline libel would lead to a front page headline apology, rather than be squirrelled away in a one-inch column on page 47.
`Full apology with pictures of the weirdo on pages 1, 4, 5...`
this was a really horrific case from the start. the psychological damage, severance of connections - he had to completely move city, and continued invasion of privacy - irrelevant of how many people know of his innocence, and it's almost certainly not as many that connected with the murder when it was implied on the front page of 8 of the major newspapers, even the ones who have followed the story to it's denouement have gained irrelevant, damaging and not necessarily true insights into his private life that don't disappear because of his victory today. imo, all that can hardly really be counted for in terms of monetary reimbursement. i'd almost feel justifed in saying they destroyed his life because all those things seem directly contrary that they did seem directly contrary to what seemed like a life built on modesty and privacy and just getting on with things.
i also think there's a clear difference between printing allegations or even evidence substantive related character witnesses and printing things that would (as far as i know) not be acceptable as evidence in a court of law...stuff like anonymous ex-pupils implying *they thought* he was gay, to me seems completely beyond the line whether the allegations concern an innocent, private, upstanding member of the community (as Chris Jefferies is. and tbh i've met him once or twice. and this is perhaps why this shocked me so much) or the biggest cunt in the world. not only that, but when someone's been arrested, there's not even a negligible public interest defence in printing that either. it's *solely* to sell papers.
i know that there are big problems with the way that exiting libel laws, and i don't have the knowledge of them to defend them but i really don't want to live in a society where the press have the power to do this sort of stuff and escape unpunished.
oh only the mirror and the sun who were in contempt of court
The Sun - £18,000 and the Daily Mirror to pay £50,000
here's a reminder of some of the stories
stepping away from srs discussion for a moment, that Oscar Wilde article was the worst thing i've ever read. and the journalist who wrote it and signed their name to it! should really be shot at dawn.
This article says the other guy "is currently awaiting trial after being prosecuted for the killing.”
Did nobody pay any attention in Law for Journalists 101?
oh yeh. i didn't read that bit. it's a stupid website tho. that one & liberalconspiracy. all those websites are stupid & ugly.
How many important stories will not run because of this ruling. Cases like this simply stifle our democracy and ultimately limit our own personal freedoms. On the other hand, having just read that Al Qaeda are taking the Sun to court for blaming them for the Norway killings, I'm starting to get a liking for these court cases..
A summary of british tabloid bullshit, basically. Any of these papers could've chosen to operate some restraint and not been to be such shithouses. But none of them did.
Perhaps the they would've been in the same category as The Guardian, Times, Independent, Telegraph and Herald - all papers who have avoided a bollocking, because they apparently managed to managed to find it within themselves to scrape together a modicum of integrity.
None of the latter papers are whining that they can't print important news and journalism due to some sort of freedom of press restrictions. The rags are in the middle of a sequence of fuckups purely because of circumstances of their own choosing.
I posted this last night and forgot about it. It was all meant to be satire, sober I can see where I went wrong. But yeah it's only a bunchy of shitty tabloids that have a problem with this.
r.e. this point in 2004, the star had to pay £60,000 for contempt of court so this isn't really a landmark case that could somehow scare of newspapers from libelling innocent old men.
*ground-breaking perhaps rather than landmark
Yesterday the Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and other newspapers apologised in court for the publication of false allegations about the retired school master Christopher Jefferies, who, we had wrongly suggested, was strongly to be suspected of having killed his former tenant Joanna Yeates.
The Daily Mirror wrongly suggested that he had invaded his tenants' privacy, was associated with a convicted paedophile and might have had something to do with an unsolved murder dating back to 1974.
The Sunday Mirror wrongly suggested that he had acted inappropriately towards his pupils in the past.
We accepted that these allegations were untrue and that far from being involved in the crime, Mr Jefferies helped the police with their inquiries as best he could.
We have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs.
^Shit! I'd forgotten about half of it. Real gruesome stuff.
Eight newspapers apologised to Mr Christopher Jefferies in the High Court yesterday. Reports of the investigation into the death of Joanna Yeates had wrongly suggested that Mr Jefferies, who was arrested but released without charge, was suspected of killing Ms Yeates, may have had links to a convicted paedophile and an unresolved murder. It was also wrongly alleged that the former school master had acted inappropriately to pupils. The newspapers, including the Daily Mail, agreed to pay Mr Jefferies substantial damages and legal costs.
Later the Daily Mirror was fined £50,000 and the Sun ,£18,000 for contempt of court in relation to their reports.
^can't even get their grammar right.
but seriously what you're after is like 'Woman's World' or something...i can't even remember what these magazines are called, maybe this:
anyway they do the whole:
'i slept with the ghost of my dead brother, while my husband was cheating on me with a local weatherman....(turn overleaf)...and what's worse: we both ejaculated at the exact same time!'
but i think the one above may be a toned-down version of that
oh wow. amazing stuff.