|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 28, 2024 19:21:25 GMT
Douglas Murray on Tommy Robinson. This video has 1,958,825 views on YouTube.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 28, 2024 19:32:30 GMT
Does it mean that you can tell the truth, no matter how many people are offended ? You'll end up with the police making records of your "Non-Crime Hate Incidents", which keeps the police busy during Hamas marches. I am sure it will be held against you at some point.
This is the dystopian tyranny these Lefties have campaigned for and the downward trend has only started to warm up.
Defamation is of course a crime. Hence why Tommy Bobbins is in gaol. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 28, 2024 19:43:40 GMT
You'll end up with the police making records of your "Non-Crime Hate Incidents", which keeps the police busy during Hamas marches. I am sure it will be held against you at some point.
This is the dystopian tyranny these Lefties have campaigned for and the downward trend has only started to warm up.
Defamation is of course a crime. Hence why Tommy Bobbins is in gaol. If defamation of character was a crime how come Labour got away with their witch hunt on Johnson, and how come Harris and most of the US media, and UK Labour ministers have made defamation statements regarding Trump.
Also ... e.g.
Emily Thornberry: Trump is a ‘sexual predator’ and ‘racist’
‘A state visit is an honor, and we don’t think that this president deserves an honor,’ says UK shadow foreign secretary.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy defends calling Trump a 'neo-Nazi sociopath'
David Lammy has sought to temper past remarks he made about Donald Trump, saying he will work with whoever ends up in the White House.
Why isn't David Lammy and Emily Thornberry hit with a $100,000 law suit for defamation of Character like Tommy Robinson was?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 28, 2024 19:44:00 GMT
You'll end up with the police making records of your "Non-Crime Hate Incidents", which keeps the police busy during Hamas marches. I am sure it will be held against you at some point.
This is the dystopian tyranny these Lefties have campaigned for and the downward trend has only started to warm up.
Defamation is of course a crime. Hence why Tommy Bobbins is in gaol. The underlying and unanswered question is whether a 15-year old refugee has a sufficiently public reputation that needs to be protected, at least to extent of £100,000 damages and £500,000 costs. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 28, 2024 19:58:08 GMT
Defamation is of course a crime. Hence why Tommy Bobbins is in gaol. The underlying and unanswered question is whether a 15-year old refugee has a sufficiently public reputation that needs to be protected, at least to extent of £100,000 damages and £500,000 costs. The beauty of the judgement is that it’s most likely to be crowd funded, thereby ensuring that at least a few of the like-minded will be paying too… |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Oct 28, 2024 20:14:32 GMT
The underlying and unanswered question is whether a 15-year old refugee has a sufficiently public reputation that needs to be protected, at least to extent of £100,000 damages and £500,000 costs. The beauty of the judgement is that it’s most likely to be crowd funded, thereby ensuring that at least a few of the like-minded will be paying too… So you are in agreement that the entire case is political and a shameless display of two-tier justice. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 28, 2024 20:24:32 GMT
The underlying and unanswered question is whether a 15-year old refugee has a sufficiently public reputation that needs to be protected, at least to extent of £100,000 damages and £500,000 costs. The beauty of the judgement is that it’s most likely to be crowd funded, thereby ensuring that at least a few of the like-minded will be paying too… That's obviously irrelevant to the question posed. If you don't have a reputation as such that needs protection, how can it be defamed? |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 28, 2024 20:27:03 GMT
The beauty of the judgement is that it’s most likely to be crowd funded, thereby ensuring that at least a few of the like-minded will be paying too… So you are in agreement that the entire case is political and a shameless display of two-tier justice. You can construct whatever lying interpretations of other posters’ ideas you like, but that doesn’t make your interpretations true… |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Oct 28, 2024 20:31:34 GMT
The underlying and unanswered question is whether a 15-year old refugee has a sufficiently public reputation that needs to be protected, at least to extent of £100,000 damages and £500,000 costs. The beauty of the judgement is that it’s most likely to be crowd funded, thereby ensuring that at least a few of the like-minded will be paying too… So you are in agreement that the entire case is political and a shameless display of two-tier justice. You can construct whatever lying interpretations of other posters’ ideas you like, but that doesn’t make your interpretations true… I know, but I don't believe I am lying and am simply basing my interpretation on your response, where you showed delight toward the result instead of actually addressing the "unanswered question".
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 28, 2024 20:34:37 GMT
The beauty of the judgement is that it’s most likely to be crowd funded, thereby ensuring that at least a few of the like-minded will be paying too… That's obviously irrelevant to the question posed. If you don't have a reputation as such that needs protection, how can it be defamed? Future employment (and other roles) that depends on others assessments and online searches might be adversely skewed by untrue information lodged online. This guy is lucky to have some compensation in place — if he gets it, of course… |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 28, 2024 20:37:34 GMT
The beauty of the judgement is that it’s most likely to be crowd funded, thereby ensuring that at least a few of the like-minded will be paying too… You can construct whatever lying interpretations of other posters’ ideas you like, but that doesn’t make your interpretations true… I know, but I don't believe I am lying and am simply basing my interpretation on your response, where you showed delight toward the result instead of actually addressing the "unanswered question".
Then it’s you who has to deal with your silly interpretation, not me — I’m not inside your mind… |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Oct 28, 2024 20:49:28 GMT
That's obviously irrelevant to the question posed. If you don't have a reputation as such that needs protection, how can it be defamed? Future employment (and other roles) that depends on others assessments and online searches might be adversely skewed by untrue information lodged online. This guy is lucky to have some compensation in place — if he gets it, of course… So it's all dressed up hypertheticals. I didn't think the courts relied on that. Imagine how much money Nigel Farage could have got for defamation over the years. I know, but I don't believe I am lying and am simply basing my interpretation on your response, where you showed delight toward the result instead of actually addressing the "unanswered question".
Then it’s you who has to deal with your silly interpretation, not me — I’m not inside your mind… I can't help it if I'm gifted. It wasn't like you were being subtle, you really were that transparent. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 28, 2024 21:03:12 GMT
That's obviously irrelevant to the question posed. If you don't have a reputation as such that needs protection, how can it be defamed? Future employment (and other roles) that depends on others assessments and online searches might be adversely skewed by untrue information lodged online. This guy is lucky to have some compensation in place — if he gets it, of course… Again, that's beside the point. Damages for libel (which is what this case was about, not slander) are based on arriving at a sum that [1] compensates him for the damage to his reputation; [2] vindicates his good name; and [3] takes account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication has caused.
Given the claimant was a 15-year old refugee from Syria who had been in the UK less than two years when the offences were supposed to have occured, what damage to reputation, his good name and distress would have been incurred? Certainly not £100,000 worth especially since the offending Facebook posts have long since been disappeared.
Assuming he were to enter the labour force at some future point he would be under no compulsion to disclose these matters.
I'd suggest an award of up to £1,000 would have been more appropriate as damages.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 28, 2024 21:26:38 GMT
Future employment (and other roles) that depends on others assessments and online searches might be adversely skewed by untrue information lodged online. This guy is lucky to have some compensation in place — if he gets it, of course… Again, that's beside the point. Damages for libel (which is what this case was about, not slander) are based on arriving at a sum that [1] compensates him for the damage to his reputation; [2] vindicates his good name; and [3] takes account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication has caused.
Given the claimant was a 15-year old refugee from Syria who had been in the UK less than two years when the offences were supposed to have occured, what damage to reputation, his good name and distress would have been incurred? Certainly not £100,000 worth especially since the offending Facebook posts have long since been disappeared.
Assuming he were to enter the labour force at some future point he would be under no compulsion to disclose these matters.
I'd suggest an award of up to £1,000 would have been more appropriate as damages.
What I can't understand this 15 year old must be legally too young to bring such a case to court, so technically he was a 'minor' therefore ..
someone who has not yet reached the age when they get full legal rights and responsibilities. In the UK this is a person under 18 years old.
So why has this foreign teenager been a exception to the rule?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 28, 2024 21:35:28 GMT
Absolute bloody rubbish, most people don't know the first thing about him. Clueless lefties hear the name Tommy Robinson and without thinking immediately start shouting racist. Here, educate yourself. Assuming ten minutes isn't too taxing for the attention span of a lefty. Jordan Peterson interviews Tommy Robinson... This video has nearly 2 million views on YouTube, YouTube have not banned it. YouTube have not banned this video. Who decided this video should be banned from the forum? Which outraged lefty unilaterally decided it's content was 'inappropriate or offensive' for us fragile souls? My god, you lefties are bloody dangerous. |
|
