admin wrote:mjr wrote:How do you reason that? What part or parts do you think are not satisfied?
- The individuals are not easily identifiable (you would have to go and look up who it might be)
- The statement is not likely to "cause them loss in their trade or profession"
- The statement is not likely to "causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them".
They're all over the news at the moment. I'm pretty sure that would count as easily identifiable.
The next two are "or" so leaving aside the question of loss, I think the flat-out assertion that they have those negative traits is clearly intended to make us think worse of them, so then your defence is that no reasonable person would believe Spinners?
admin wrote:mjr wrote:admin wrote:I'm pretty sure at least The Daily Mail has published much worse statements about named politicians and public figures.
And I'm pretty sure at least The Daily Mail has been found guilty of libel many times, including politicians such as ex-minister Alan Sugar.
Yes, but the Daily Mail has not been sued for libel for statements about politicians, in the front page headline, that are much more explicit about who the individuals are, and are much more likely to change people's opinions of those people.
That politicians (who probably still hope for its support for their party at elections) have not chosen to sue the DM doesn't mean the statements aren't libellous!
admin wrote:However I am not a defamation expert, and should such an expert approach me saying that something on the Forum was libellous, I would of course take suitable action!
Then the forum rules should be changed to state that only experts can expect a fair consideration of reports of illegal activity, to save the rest of us wasting our time reporting stuff that just gets dismissed unfixed.