OT: Unorthodox cat keeping

[dennis]

To do what, record the images, at least you got that bit correct.

I don't need to swear. You can't help but swear. Guess which of us has a problem?

[dennis]

will find a bit about DPA and article 8.

BTW it is defamation by definition, look up the word defamation if you don't understand the word.

[Mark Spice]

Do you mean the part that says: "There has not yet been court case that determines whether or not an image of a person, without any other identifying information, would be caught by the act" or the part that says: "The act also contains an exception for processing undertaken with a view to publication of any journalistic, literary or artistic material"

It would appear from the interest from the media that there was journalistic interest in the material.

I looked up defamation and found this site:

contains the following:

"Defences to a Claim of Defamation Justification (Truth)

It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the defamatory statement is substantially true. It is not necessary for a defendant to show that there was a public interest in publication and it does not matter whether he or she acted maliciously."

Are you saying that you don't think the video is true - remember that the person concerned has admitted the actuality of the action ?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [e-mail] ---

[dennis]

It was written in 2009.

Was there at the time it was posted on youtube? I thought not.

> which contains the following:

Just because its true doesn't mean it isn't defamation. If its true then it isn't libel which is a subclass of defamation which many people get confused over. You will probably notice that nearly all the court cases are about libel for which it being true is a pretty good defense. It being true will affect the damages you can get in either case.

[Mark Spice]

>>> which contains the following:

Where is libel mentioned in the above?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [e-mail] ---

[dennis]

>>>>> which contains the following:

Well if you are suing for defamation then you aren't claiming it was a lie. You are claiming it was a lie if you are suing for libel. The defence of it being true appears to be odd if you never claimed it was a lie in the first place.

Maybe you should consult a lawyer.

[Mark Spice]

>>>>>>> which contains the following:

Maybe you should read the link I supplied along with the extract from it. The link does not discuss libel at all; it does however state that : "It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the defamatory statement is substantially true."

If there is a complete defence then there will be no damges at all.

Is it your belief that you are not allowed to publish anything that may be damaging to a person no matter if it is true? This may cut back drastically on the news that is reported. In fact I think Peter Sutcliffe may have a lot of cases forth coming - after all if it is defamation to publish a video of an action that the person concerned has admitted to then all those headlines about Mr Sutcliffe being less than polite to women in the Yorkshire area must have been very defaming...

... unless, of course, the fact that the allegations have been found to be true has an effect on the matter.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [e-mail] ---

[dennis]

He was convicted, you can report that. You try that with someone that hasn't been convicted. Then you can report back.

[mike]

So now you're arguing that nothing is true unless it's resulted in a conviction?

[Man at B&Q]

It's just Dennis wriggling again.

MBQ

[dennis]

I'm not arguing anything, you are. I have stated what I think. If the poster of the video opts for trial by jury and I am on it I will find him guilty.

[John Rumm]

>>>>>>>> which contains the following:

Its not, but you know denis, as he finds one argument slipping between his fingers, he quickly extends it to a different one in the hope that no one notices, and he can argue that on more solid ground than the ephemera of his original statements.

[John Rumm]

And so is up to date, or do you have another point?

>>>>> which contains the following:

It means exactly that. That is what the words "It is a complete defence" mean above. If you demonstrate that what you have published about someone is true (or substantially so), then there is no legal case of defamation to argue.

[mike]

And what would be the point of a trial if the jury consisted of brain- addled simpletons like yourself who'd already decided on a verdict before hearing the evidence?

Just to underline your hypocrisy, Dennis, here's a couple of quotes from you earlier in the thread:

"He has the right to report it to the authorities, he does not have the right to be judge, jury and make his verdict public."

"Has she been convicted? Has she even been charged? She is no more guilty than you are unless convicted."

[ARWadsworth]

>>>>>>>> which contains the following:

Two words.

Jonathan Aitken

[dennis]

Well have you checked to see if there have been any court cases since then as that was your point.

>>>>>>>> which contains the following:

So you agree its defamation then?

[dennis]

Well everyone else has assumed guilt, I just decided to join in!

[Mark Spice]

>>>>>>>>>>> which contains the following:

Reading really isn't your strong point is it?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [e-mail] ---

[ARWadsworth]

We know. That is why we are taking the piss out of you.

[dennis]

Not very well though. You have failed at that too.