You are wrong, the libelous laws are the way they are for good reasons. If I were to accuse you of doing something that you had not, then the burden of proof is on me to back up my own statement; not upon you to prove yourself innocent. Therefore the accused are protected and the accuser must provide evidence, thus the responsibility lies upon the accuser. This essentially means that the people are stopped from making slanderous and incorrect statements without consequences.
I am sorry, however I simply do not agree. If you are rich then you would be better able to cope with Mr. Brigstocke's proposed libelous laws; as a richer person would be able to afford the legal fees which would come with the system he propses. i.e. I could say something that was completly untrue about yourself and then you would have to defend yourself, thus I can say what I like and am almost completly defended by these stupid libelous laws. H
@Liorte1973 However the person to whom I make the comment is left to pick up the pieces and often with a damaged reputation. However, under the currant system, the accuser is the person who must provide evidance to prove his comments. This is how it should be, as it means that people will only make a comment that could be judged as liblous if they are sure that it is correct. Thus if they are asked to provid evidance then it is not a problem and they can and shoul have to prove themselves right.
UK libel laws are poor. To the point where there is a culture of libel terrorism. Singh never should have been sued for example. Free speech and questioning especially in terms of science and medicine where questioning should be encouraged for the development of science.
couldnt agree more with marcus
teamwingdalers 1 year ago
Comment removed
teamwingdalers 1 year ago
Comment removed
snowballwest 1 year ago
Mr. Brickstock,
You are wrong, the libelous laws are the way they are for good reasons. If I were to accuse you of doing something that you had not, then the burden of proof is on me to back up my own statement; not upon you to prove yourself innocent. Therefore the accused are protected and the accuser must provide evidence, thus the responsibility lies upon the accuser. This essentially means that the people are stopped from making slanderous and incorrect statements without consequences.
snowballwest 1 year ago
@snowballwest But as he says at the beginning, this means that people with lots of money only benefit. Ever hear of the McLibel case?
Liorte1973 1 year ago 5
Comment removed
snowballwest 1 year ago
@Liorte1973
I am sorry, however I simply do not agree. If you are rich then you would be better able to cope with Mr. Brigstocke's proposed libelous laws; as a richer person would be able to afford the legal fees which would come with the system he propses. i.e. I could say something that was completly untrue about yourself and then you would have to defend yourself, thus I can say what I like and am almost completly defended by these stupid libelous laws. H
snowballwest 1 year ago
@Liorte1973 However the person to whom I make the comment is left to pick up the pieces and often with a damaged reputation. However, under the currant system, the accuser is the person who must provide evidance to prove his comments. This is how it should be, as it means that people will only make a comment that could be judged as liblous if they are sure that it is correct. Thus if they are asked to provid evidance then it is not a problem and they can and shoul have to prove themselves right.
snowballwest 1 year ago
@snowballwest You spelt Brigstocke wrong in your first comment.
FreddieStourton 10 months ago
@snowballwest
UK libel laws are poor. To the point where there is a culture of libel terrorism. Singh never should have been sued for example. Free speech and questioning especially in terms of science and medicine where questioning should be encouraged for the development of science.
Carlos13th 9 months ago