|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 28, 2024 22:02:18 GMT
It's completely obvious that a 15-year old from Syria who has been in the UK less than two years has neither a reputation nor a good name to be protected - he hasn't earned either yet - the clear agenda here is that this was yet another 'Get Tommy' exercise.
As for how it came to trial, apart from the Tommy angle that remains a mystery.
As does the financing of the whole show, which required the services of a top-tier London firm of solicitors, Burlingtons Legal, as well as two barristers (one a QC) from Matrix Chambers, Cherie Blair's old gig. Their total fees are reported to have stretched to £500K plus, but it is unclear who bankrolled the job in the first place.
Inquiring minds want to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 29, 2024 8:06:58 GMT
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?
Yes, a minor (someone under 18) in the UK can bring a defamation case, but there are specific conditions: 1. Through a Litigation Friend: Since minors lack legal capacity, they must act through a "litigation friend," usually a parent or guardian, who will handle the legal process on their behalf. 2. Requirements for a Defamation Claim: Like any defamation case, the claim must show that the statement was defamatory, false, published to a third party, and likely to cause serious harm to the minor's reputation. The serious harm threshold, set out in the Defamation Act 2013, applies to minors as well. 3. Time Limit Considerations: Typically, defamation claims in the UK must be brought within one year of the defamatory statement being published. However, because minors have legal protections, the one-year limitation period doesn’t start until they turn 18, giving them until age 19 to bring the case independently if no action was taken while they were underage. Defamation cases involving minors are often carefully considered by courts, especially regarding the potential impact of the statements on the minor's reputation and wellbeing. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 29, 2024 8:43:09 GMT
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?
Yes, a minor (someone under 18) in the UK can bring a defamation case, but there are specific conditions: 1. Through a Litigation Friend: Since minors lack legal capacity, they must act through a "litigation friend," usually a parent or guardian, who will handle the legal process on their behalf. 2. Requirements for a Defamation Claim: Like any defamation case, the claim must show that the statement was defamatory, false, published to a third party, and likely to cause serious harm to the minor's reputation. The serious harm threshold, set out in the Defamation Act 2013, applies to minors as well. 3. Time Limit Considerations: Typically, defamation claims in the UK must be brought within one year of the defamatory statement being published. However, because minors have legal protections, the one-year limitation period doesn’t start until they turn 18, giving them until age 19 to bring the case independently if no action was taken while they were underage. Defamation cases involving minors are often carefully considered by courts, especially regarding the potential impact of the statements on the minor's reputation and wellbeing. It was a virtue signalling gesture from the courts awarding a £100,000 to a 15 year old because his feelings were hurt, when in reality we know if this had been a white British school boy the court would have probably told him to man-up and awarded him a couple of quid for his hurt feelings, the fact this 15 year old was Syrian and it was Tommy Robinson made for a obscene amount being awarded, yet again a 2 tier legal system, look after the foreigners first. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 29, 2024 8:56:07 GMT
Yes, a minor (someone under 18) in the UK can bring a defamation case, but there are specific conditions: 1. Through a Litigation Friend: Since minors lack legal capacity, they must act through a "litigation friend," usually a parent or guardian, who will handle the legal process on their behalf. 2. Requirements for a Defamation Claim: Like any defamation case, the claim must show that the statement was defamatory, false, published to a third party, and likely to cause serious harm to the minor's reputation. The serious harm threshold, set out in the Defamation Act 2013, applies to minors as well. 3. Time Limit Considerations: Typically, defamation claims in the UK must be brought within one year of the defamatory statement being published. However, because minors have legal protections, the one-year limitation period doesn’t start until they turn 18, giving them until age 19 to bring the case independently if no action was taken while they were underage. Defamation cases involving minors are often carefully considered by courts, especially regarding the potential impact of the statements on the minor's reputation and wellbeing. It was a virtue signalling gesture from the courts awarding a £100,000 to a 15 year old because his feelings were hurt, when in reality we know if this had been a white British school boy the court would have probably told him to man-up and awarded him a couple of quid for his hurt feelings, the fact this 15 year old was Syrian and it was Tommy Robinson made for a obscene amount being awarded, yet again a 2 tier legal system, look after the foreigners first. No, my point was that you made up the rule about under 18s and then presented it as fact. The fact that the boy was born in Syria is irrelevant to the defamation. Unless you're a racist, and you assure me that you are against racism. Where I would agree with you is that the damages for defamation are higher than those for personal injury. That's a fault in the law, and nothing personal against Tommy Bobbins. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 29, 2024 9:03:52 GMT
It was a virtue signalling gesture from the courts awarding a £100,000 to a 15 year old because his feelings were hurt, when in reality we know if this had been a white British school boy the court would have probably told him to man-up and awarded him a couple of quid for his hurt feelings, the fact this 15 year old was Syrian and it was Tommy Robinson made for a obscene amount being awarded, yet again a 2 tier legal system, look after the foreigners first. No, my point was that you made up the rule about under 18s and then presented it as fact. The fact that the boy was born in Syria is irrelevant to the defamation. Unless you're a racist, and you assure me that you are against racism. Where I would agree with you is that the damages for defamation are higher than those for personal injury. That's a fault in the law, and nothing personal against Tommy Bobbins. I never made anything up you plant pot, what I posted is 'the law', I know you are crap at Googling but you will see what I posted is FACT, something you struggle with.
And for the record regardless of colour religion or age £100,000 is a absolute piss take to award someone because their feelings are hurt.
** The law ..
"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".
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 29, 2024 10:05:48 GMT
No, my point was that you made up the rule about under 18s and then presented it as fact. The fact that the boy was born in Syria is irrelevant to the defamation. Unless you're a racist, and you assure me that you are against racism. Where I would agree with you is that the damages for defamation are higher than those for personal injury. That's a fault in the law, and nothing personal against Tommy Bobbins. I never made anything up you plant pot, what I posted is 'the law', I know you are crap at Googling but you will see what I posted is FACT, something you struggle with.
And for the record regardless of colour religion or age £100,000 is a absolute piss take to award someone because their feelings are hurt.
** The law ..
"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".
What you said was this: You were wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 29, 2024 10:06:57 GMT
Having looked on line
A Juvenile cannot bring a Libel Case to the High Court, but their Parents can on their behalf, which is what happened in Robinsons case
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 29, 2024 10:08:32 GMT
I never made anything up you plant pot, what I posted is 'the law', I know you are crap at Googling but you will see what I posted is FACT, something you struggle with.
And for the record regardless of colour religion or age £100,000 is a absolute piss take to award someone because their feelings are hurt.
** The law ..
"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".
What you said was this: You were wrong. Name me one teenager in the history of the legal system that's been awarded £100,000 for hurt feelings? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 29, 2024 10:57:23 GMT
Do you honestly think that defamation is about hurt feelings? 😳
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 29, 2024 11:17:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 29, 2024 11:26:21 GMT
The Pakistani Grooming Gangs were brought to attention in the House of Commons by a local MP, how the local Police, Child Welfare Officers and similar Officials in local Government did and said nothing total lack of Care, because they feared being branded Racists
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 29, 2024 11:36:47 GMT
Do you honestly think that defamation is about hurt feelings? 😳 So what did he get the money for?
He never got a sucker -punch, he wasn't physically injured in any way shape or form, the only thing that was injured was his feelings, not only was he awarded £100,000, the tax payer had to foot the bill for his legal costs, while most White British Born people do not qualify for legal aid, is it any wonder the world and his wife are heading for the easy touch UK, they don't have to lift a finger or do a days work, all they do is look for ways to be offended and see if it comes with a wad of free cash FFS.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Oct 29, 2024 12:38:26 GMT
Do you honestly think that defamation is about hurt feelings? 😳 So what did he get the money for?
He never got a sucker -punch, he wasn't physically injured in any way shape or form, the only thing that was injured was his feelings, not only was he awarded £100,000, the tax payer had to foot the bill for his legal costs, while most White British Born people do not qualify for legal aid, is it any wonder the world and his wife are heading for the easy touch UK, they don't have to lift a finger or do a days work, all they do is look for ways to be offended and see if it comes with a wad of free cash FFS. I agree with you that defamation damages are higher than physical damage, that is a quirk in the law, not something personal to Tommy Bobbins. In the UK, obtaining legal aid for a defamation case is challenging, as defamation is generally excluded from legal aid coverage. Legal aid funding in the UK is typically reserved for cases involving fundamental rights and welfare, such as housing, family law, or criminal defense, whereas defamation is considered a private matter. However, there are limited circumstances under which legal aid might be considered: 1. Public Interest and Human Rights If the defamation case involves significant public interest or relates to human rights issues, it may increase the likelihood of securing legal aid. For instance, if the defamation claim impacts freedom of expression or another fundamental right, there might be grounds to argue that the case should qualify for legal aid. 2. Financial Eligibility Like other types of legal aid, eligibility is means-tested. This means that an applicant must demonstrate financial need, usually by providing information about income, savings, and overall financial circumstances. 3. Merit-Based Assessment Even if an applicant meets the financial criteria, the Legal Aid Agency must also be convinced that the case has reasonable grounds and a chance of success. They consider the potential outcome, evidence, and legal merit of the case. 4. Alternative Options Pro Bono Representation: Some solicitors or barristers may take on defamation cases pro bono, particularly if the case raises important legal or social issues. Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA): Also known as a "no win, no fee" arrangement, this can sometimes be an option for defamation cases if the lawyer believes in the strength of the case. Organizations for Legal Assistance: Certain nonprofit or advocacy groups, such as Liberty or Article 19, may offer assistance or guidance, especially in cases involving freedom of speech or public interest matters. If you believe your case has exceptional circumstances that may warrant legal aid, contacting the Legal Aid Agency or seeking advice from a solicitor experienced in defamation law would be beneficial. They can assess your case specifics and advise on potential eligibility or alternative routes for assistance. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 29, 2024 13:00:18 GMT
Tommy Robinson is one end of a spectrum of hate - at the opposite end are Islamic extremists But MOST white, British people do not support Tommy Robinson, and MOST British Muslims do not support Islamic extremists. This is not a binary issue, there is no "one side or the other", in my book if you do not accept British values, those of Tolerance, Freedom of Religion, Democracy, Equality and Free Speech within the parameters of incitement of hatred or civil unrest .... then piss off and live in Russia or Iran. UNFORTUNATELY **MOST** members of parliament DO support Islamics who have a rather culturally defined view of the role of females. And everything else follows from there |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 29, 2024 13:03:45 GMT
What a surprise, a pleasant surprise. I switched the TV on and saw scenes like this. English people in England actually waving English/British flags, in public! I sincerely hope we see more of this.  Shock, horror! White people that are proud to be British ! racist scum need to be locked up |
|
