You should both get a manager *cough Claire Powell cough* who could probably get a free trip with a bit of product placement here and there. Don't forget to also mention the hotel in your column:rolleyes:
Good point. Funnily enough I "acquired" a new fish tank the other week. I've been trying to sneak the name of the shop into the column ever since.
It was called A Load Of Old Carp.
No . Slander is the spoken word. Libel is the written word.
One would expect someone paid to use the written word to know his basics.
Those are indeed the basics. However, some judges - Lord Justice Eady for one - have said the "give and take" nature of forums means they can be treated more like a spoken conversation.
Any other legal matters I can help you with while I'm lurking?
No . Slander is the spoken word. Libel is the written word.
One would expect someone paid to use the written word to know his basics.
One would also expect that accusations causing either of those words to be used could be avoided, but not so much.
Rather like the idea that the only disabled are those in a wheelchair.
Who'd have thought that two orange, media-whoring, narcissistic vacuums could cause reasonably intelligent adults to lose all sense of perspective to this degree.
Those are indeed the basics. However, some judges - Lord Justice Eady for one - have said the "give and take" nature of forums means they can be treated more like a spoken conversation.
Any other legal matters I can help you with while I'm lurking?
Then some judges are talking carp and messing around with the basic premise. "Spoken is slander. Written is Libel."
These judges ! What are they like Ina eh ?:rolleyes:
Good point. Funnily enough I "acquired" a new fish tank the other week. I've been trying to sneak the name of the shop into the column ever since.
It was called A Load Of Old Carp.
Simple way to include the shops name in your next column is to use it as the title to your next Andres show review, duck
Katie Price may have been a surprise choice of pundit on BBC1’s political show This Week but she actually gave a good account of herself.
Gave a good account of herself how precisely ?
In that she was asked a series of questions to which she gave a series of lucid, and occasionally insightful, replies.
As a reasonable and principled TV critic of some fifteen years standing I thought it only fair to point that out.
Haha. All I said was she held her own. Everything is relative.
Yes, and others disagree with you...not sure why this seems to offend so many in the nudge-nudge manner....particularly when the "mystic meg" thought she (Price) was crap, so presumably also disagrees with your opinion......way too much brown nosing and baiting going on.
Then some judges are talking carp and messing around with the basic premise. "Spoken is slander. Written is Libel."
These judges ! What are they like Ina eh ?:rolleyes:
The basic premise has changed - many laws have to change over time as society, technology and attitudes change. Otherwise it would still be legal to rape your wife and being gay would be illegal.
In that she was asked a series of questions to which she gave a series of lucid, and occasionally insightful, replies.
As a reasonable and principled TV critic of some fifteen years standing I thought it only fair to point that out.
Exactly, that is why I was so surprised when a poster claimed to 'know these things'
To be fair on the FM who said that, I asked my OH who works in law and he agreed with the comment about the nature of forums meaning either can be used. The casuals nature of online chats means the lines have been blurred.
I have the crew on speed dial Azura and I ALWAYS have my passport in my handbag ... I'm ready to go
We just need to decide which one of us is going to be the vacant hair-flicker and which one will be the oompa-loompa with a fear of any height above 6 inches.
If it helps with the decision, my singing is TERRIBLE, but I have got all my own teeth and quite nice hair.:D
Update 2009: High Court ruling on bulletin board cases
The High Court has ruled that defamation on internet bulletin boards is akin to slander rather than libel.
Mr Justice Eady hearing a case regarding posts on an investors bulletin board (or forum) has said that such comments are not to be taken in the same context as a formal newspaper (etc) article and are more like slander due to the casual or conversational nature of them.
Mr Justice Eady stated that posts on bulletin boards "are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out...Those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or 'give and take'."
As such "When considered in the context of defamation law, therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders (this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel actions...People do not often take a 'thread' and go through it as a whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about it."
We just need to decide which one of us is going to be the vacant hair-flicker and which one will be the oompa-loompa with a fear of any height above 6 inches.
If it helps with the decision, my singing is TERRIBLE, but I have got all my own teeth and quite nice hair.:D
So that makes you Andre then... :D:D I can flick my hair if necessary
To be fair on the FM who said that, I asked my OH who works in law and he agreed with the comment about the nature of forums meaning either can be used. The casuals nature of online chats means the lines have been blurred.
Agreed. But it has to be written as a fact, and not as an opinion (IMO) A question is not a fact. Otherwise we'd all be up for libel/slander on a daily basis!
Agreed. But it has to be written as a fact, and not as an opinion (IMO) A question is not a fact. Otherwise we'd all be up for libel/slander on a daily basis!
I'm suprised some aren't when I read the comments posted on here sometimes
Comments
Good point. Funnily enough I "acquired" a new fish tank the other week. I've been trying to sneak the name of the shop into the column ever since.
It was called A Load Of Old Carp.
I could offer a few suggestions ... but in the interests of thread harmony, I'll keep my gob shut.
Schoolboy error.
Maybe you should give Betty the job after all.
I'd be more than happy to stand in for TV Kev.
Those are indeed the basics. However, some judges - Lord Justice Eady for one - have said the "give and take" nature of forums means they can be treated more like a spoken conversation.
Any other legal matters I can help you with while I'm lurking?
Does that mean you and I get to go on the holiday instead of Ian and Kev?? Yipppeee
It's the hair, isn't it?
No you didn't say that.
What you said was.
Katie Price may have been a surprise choice of pundit on BBC1’s political show This Week but she actually gave a good account of herself.
Gave a good account of herself how precisely ?
Exactly, that is why I was so surprised when a poster claimed to 'know these things'
One would also expect that accusations causing either of those words to be used could be avoided, but not so much.
Rather like the idea that the only disabled are those in a wheelchair.
Who'd have thought that two orange, media-whoring, narcissistic vacuums could cause reasonably intelligent adults to lose all sense of perspective to this degree.
Then some judges are talking carp and messing around with the basic premise. "Spoken is slander. Written is Libel."
These judges ! What are they like Ina eh ?:rolleyes:
Definitely;)
Although I doubt I have quite his level of suave sophistication.
@Betty - pack your passport and alert the camera crew, we're off!
How rude. Oops. Yours has just *accidently* fallen in a pile of dogsh*t in that case.
Simple way to include the shops name in your next column is to use it as the title to your next Andres show review, duck
In that she was asked a series of questions to which she gave a series of lucid, and occasionally insightful, replies.
As a reasonable and principled TV critic of some fifteen years standing I thought it only fair to point that out.
I have the crew on speed dial Azura and I ALWAYS have my passport in my handbag ... I'm ready to go
Yes, and others disagree with you...not sure why this seems to offend so many in the nudge-nudge manner....particularly when the "mystic meg" thought she (Price) was crap, so presumably also disagrees with your opinion......way too much brown nosing and baiting going on.
The basic premise has changed - many laws have to change over time as society, technology and attitudes change. Otherwise it would still be legal to rape your wife and being gay would be illegal.
and I agree with you Ian:D:D:D
To be fair on the FM who said that, I asked my OH who works in law and he agreed with the comment about the nature of forums meaning either can be used. The casuals nature of online chats means the lines have been blurred.
We just need to decide which one of us is going to be the vacant hair-flicker and which one will be the oompa-loompa with a fear of any height above 6 inches.
If it helps with the decision, my singing is TERRIBLE, but I have got all my own teeth and quite nice hair.:D
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
The suggestions I had in mind were not against you! Heaven forfend! :eek:
So that makes you Andre then...
Agreed. But it has to be written as a fact, and not as an opinion (IMO) A question is not a fact. Otherwise we'd all be up for libel/slander on a daily basis!
I'm suprised some aren't when I read the comments posted on here sometimes