Your responsibilities under the Defamation Act

Quoted from Boris Johnson

some people might be about to find out

Tell us more BJ? Sounds like you are in the know.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Tell us more BJ? Sounds like you are in the know.

Not at all, obviously John has spent today perusing the site, cant see any other reason why the OP has appeared.

I’d love him to try claiming defamation. It will cost him quite a lot in legal bills.

Au contraire Rob I am reasonably conversant with the implications of the Defamation Act 2013 and there 3 conditions that have to be met to successfully argue a fair comment defence. Without boring you with a lot of legalise perhaps the most pertinent is the authority set by the ruling in Joseph v Spiller.In brief the  2013 Act made it much easier for the respondent to have a common law defence of ''Fair Comment'.Your call.

Quoted from friskneymariner

Au contraire Rob I am reasonably conversant with the implications of the Defamation Act 2013 and there 3 conditions that have to be met to successfully argue a fair comment defence. Without boring you with a lot of legalise perhaps the most pertinent is the authority set by the ruling in Joseph v Spiller.In brief the  2013 Act made it much easier for the respondent to have a common law defence of ''Fair Comment'.Your call.

To be fair to Rob he did show the responsibilities of both respondent and claimant.

If Fenty took any of us to court he would have no chance:

In the Blue corner, weighing in at £2m pounds, John ‘Reckless’ Fenty...

A man who caused the club to pay compensation as a result of ‘accidentally’ tapping up employees of another company via an untrustworthy agent

That’d be the icing in the cake. Further humiliation for him. All self-inflicted.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

I’d love him to try claiming defamation. It will cost him quite a lot in legal bills.

Yes, not something one of his mates could do. And even if he wins he would realistically only claim back 60% of his costs.

If Fenty took any of us to court it would cost him more than its worth.

We could go in our hundreds and testify the things Fent y has done over the years to warrant all this name calling .I

Bring it on sucker !!!!!!

Quoted from marinerdazza

Yes, not something one of his mates could do. And even if he wins he would realistically only claim back 60% of his costs.

It’s a tall order proving defamation if you’ve already traduced your own character by forming a redevelopment business partnership with a known fraudster, then introducing him to the council where you were a senior member of cabinet responsible for redevelopment, then considered accepting the same fraudster’s money at a company that you controlled. You’d think that you wouldn’t want to highlight cases where you might have broken conflict of interest principles. Much less give someone the opportunity in a public forum like a court to answer accusations that you had breached public safety regulations by inviting a member of the public to an event from which members of the public were banned.

Only an idiot would want to draw that to the attention of the courts and have your actions scrutinised again.

Of course it might not be ‘Honest’ John bringing a case of defamation. Imagine if you were a person who’d spent his whole career in the legal profession, and were now the director of a high profile local public company, trying to prove defamation when you’d defended doing business with a convicted fraudster on the basis that ‘no individuals were victims only banks or building societies’. Imagine what a laughing stock you’d make of yourself in court.

Imagine what an idiot either of those people would be to try this.