Re: Is it libellous to say that Madeleine's disappearance is a 'mystery'?

by Anthony Miller 11.10.13 15:51

This is an interesting one. I have long struggled with similar but unrelated issues. The answer is (as far as I and an army of pro bono legal advisors could figure out) that it depends on contextualisation. The quote may not be defamatory on its own but it may be defamatory in relation to the surrounding material. However, getting libel claimants who often claim that they are just "offering advice" to pin themselves down on what Lord Irving or Lairg describes in the pre-action protocol for defamation as "the actual words complained of" is often as difficult as pulling teeth out of a horse's posterior. See here:

http://www.pearshapedcomedy.com/CCE.html

The story of how a boring article on internal party procedures was turned by one man's vanity into a two and a half month legal battle to print the most boring information already in the public domain. Even when we offer to redact any material pertaining to the complainant in its entirity they still bang on about non existent Judicial rulings and tried to force us to attend private audiences by insinuating we were in criminal contempt of court while all the time insisting that they are not actually complaining when they are.

spin

They're all mad

by Smokeandmirrors 11.10.13 18:27

Anthony Miller wrote:This is an interesting one. I have long struggled with similar but unrelated issues. The answer is (as far as I and an army of pro bono legal advisors could figure out) that it depends on contextualisation. The quote may not be defamatory on its own but it may be defamatory in relation to the surrounding material. However, getting libel claimants who often claim that they are just "offering advice" to pin themselves down on what Lord Irving or Lairg describes in the pre-action protocol for defamation as "the actual words complained of" is often as difficult as pulling teeth out of a horse's posterior. See here:

http://www.pearshapedcomedy.com/CCE.html

The story of how a boring article on internal party procedures was turned by one man's vanity into a two and a half month legal battle to print the most boring information already in the public domain. Even when we offer to redact any material pertaining to the complainant in its entirity they still bang on about non existent Judicial rulings and tried to force us to attend private audiences by insinuating we were in criminal contempt of court while all the time insisting that they are not actually complaining when they are.

They're all mad

I would just like to congratulate for the Understatement of the Year. :lol:

Mad doesn't even begin to cover it IMO.