Are all awards and most of game critics corrupt?

[Unaco]

And if that 'someone' can be defined as a 'reasonable person' then it is libel under current UK law, so it wouldn't be a baseless claim. Whether UK libel law is correct to work in that way is another, far bigger question, but since they are both UK-based writers it's hardly libel tourism to try it under UK law.

No, Deano... If a reasonable person could draw the same conclusions, or whatever, as the author, then that is a DEFENCE against Libel.

I'd at least tick the last two.

You'd have two correct, but still one wrong.

I don't mean to be difficult, but could you elaborate on that?

He's watched a couple episodes of Perry Mason. And his favourite thing on Youtube is the dancing baby from Ally McBeal.

[Kadayi]

No, he states that with the shit she pulls people may think she might be dodgy. And that's the whole point of the article, and that obviously is too much for someone to grasp. You either misinterpret on purpose, have major problems with your logical thinking, or are just full of shit.

Given that after posting the article she apparently received a torrent of abuse through twitter from people convinced she was in fact in some way dodgy even before it was edited (as pointed out by Deano earlier on in the thread), it doesn't really matter how it was worded exactly, people still jumped to that wrongful association. In truth the piece should never of been written with names in the first place because regardless of whom was named and in what capacity, they were always going to be brought into question by people who firmly believe there is a conspiracy. The fact that the story wasn't covered in the Sunday Papers led some people to question the very integrity of John highlights the fanaticism of such people.

I don't mean to be difficult, but could you elaborate on that?

Sure I worked in legal appeals and case law adjudication for around about 4 years before I changed career following a car crash on the way to a wedding and 'a sudden moment of clarity'.

[Finicky]

But if you want to dispute those facts, one correct way to do that is in a court of law.




And it was mentioned earlier on in the thread too but I don't want to trawl through it.


Not at all. In this case I think it was too much. But then I don't know the details. For example, if it turned out that Wainwright has asked EG nicely to edit the article to make it clear that she was only being used as an example and no claims were being made about her, because she was getting flack for it (there were nasty tweets directed at her before the edit) and they told her to fuck off, then I can see that being the only option left to her. On the other hand if she went right to legal threats, then that's uncalled for.




Yep, and I've campaigned personally for UK libel reform. But I genuinely don't think it was abused in this case. I think it was a valid claim. One that was unlikely to succeed, but I think she had the right to be heard by a judge on that. And if she had been getting tons of abuse from people via e-mail, forums and twitter, pre-edit, that case would be stronger, as it would be clear that the article had defamed her. And it'd be hard to defend it on the basis of it all being true, because the libel comes from the juxtaposition and implication.

For example:
Michael Jackson was a paedophile and had very weird hair
Gary Glitter is a paedophile and had very weird hair
Boris Johnson has very weird hair

Nothing there is untrue, but it's still potentially libellous. The judge has to decide if a reasonable person could conclude from that that I was accusing Boris Johnson of being a paedophile. And if Boris Johnson has 200 e-mails from people who read it then going "oh my god you're a sick paedo" he'd have a strong case.

I agree with being able to dispute it, I personally think the intent here was just to bully EG into editing their article simply because she didn't want to be held accountable for her words.
When people hide behind the letter of the law and intent is no longer taken into account by those onlooking then it's a sad day for everyone.

Rab was not wrong in questioning Lauren's inability to reflect on how she was damaging people's perception of her own integrity.
Sueing would not have been her last recourse, as the other guy mentioned in the article has proven, a more reasonable recourse would have been to owe up to the mistake. That is what proper adults do in general.

The last part of what you said goes into dignifying that some people are stupid and don't understand what they read and need to be catered to , that is the point where I am out though. I agree that people should be able to protect themselves from defamation but again , in this case that was not what happened.

She defamed herself (well defame is not the right word but you know what I'm getting at) through her actions and due to the nature of UK court costs EG was unable to stand by their statements.
This is a case of the law being used for 'evil', that doesn't mean the law doesn't have merit in general, the two are not mutually exclusive.

This is probably the worst example(I wouldn't really know, I'm no lawyer) recently that one could use to convince anyone that libel laws are a good idea.
You yourself hint that you think libel laws in the UK are flawed and need amending.
I don't believe you should defend people who exploit these flaws at the detriment of others, let alone to censor people.

edit: 7000 grammar and spelling errors

[Rossignol]

Calm please, all. Let's be civil, even with Kad ;)

[trjp]

So what Kadayi is saying is that because some people overreacted to an article Rab wrote, Ms Wainwright was right to use a legal threat to silence him...

In effect, that is saying "don't say anything which may be mis-interpretted by stupid people"

which is also saying "don't say anything at all"

Kadayi was one of the few people on earth who applauded the day they changed the wording on Heinz Steamed Puddings in a tin from

"Stand in boiling water"

to

"Standing tin in boiling water"

wasn't he?

[Kadayi]

So what Kadayi is saying is that because some people overreacted to an article Rab wrote, Ms Wainwright was right to use a legal threat to silence him...

No I didn't (I recognised that she had potential for a case..I don't think pursuing it was sensible at all as I've said innumerable times already), but don't worry about it, it seems putting words in my mouth in lieu of a counter argument is SOP in these parts.

Must enforce the groupthink hey.

[Squirly]

Raise your hands if you've an actual legal experience here?

*kad raises his hand*

See, this and the paragraph after it tells me that this is how a lawyer would spin this whole thing into looking like there was an actual case of libel here.

[Kadayi]

See, this and the paragraph after it tells me that this is how a lawyer would spin this whole thing into looking like there was an actual case of libel here.

They'd go through it on the basis of the sequence of events and any correspondence received before the edit. If (as it appears) she has examples of receiving abuse as a result of peoples response to the original article (twitter, emails, phonecalls, texts) then they'd adjudge on that more than the wording.

[Unaco]

No I didn't (I recognised that she had potential for a case..I don't think pursuing it was sensible at all), but don't worry about it, it seems putting words in my mouth in lieu of a counter argument is SOP.

Yet, you seem more than happy to attribute thoughts and positions to other posters. Also, make spurious accusations and, when repeatedly asked for proof, fail to deliver.

Either action would of done nothing to assuage the Unacos and Dexters of the world who will continue to harass her until she throws herself off the top of London Bridge (No doubt her final act being viewed as the clear sign of a guilty conscience).

And you quote the rules, because you're so familiar with them, from breaking them all the time...

1)Feel free to disagree with our opinions, but please spare us your constant litany of accusations of being shills/apologists and abuse and instead let your counterpoints do the talking. You come cross like some kind of jihadist.

You say "there's not enough known to come to conclusions", but happily (and quite rudely) come to your own conclusions...

If you're too enamoured with him to see that as anything but the actions of a sniveling cunt of a man, that is unfortunately your weakness.

If it's (as I'm beginning to suspect) that no solicitor was remotely involved at either end then Bramwell is a fucking idiot tbh.

You should probably rename yourself Pot, and just start screaming at kettles Kiddo.

[Kadayi]

Stay ontopic Unaco (contrary as to what you seem to believe I'm not on trial here). Jims already told you to cool your heels I recommend you listen to him in that regard.

[trjp]

No I didn't (I recognised that she had potential for a case..I don't think pursuing it was sensible at all as

NoNoNo - you're the one dancing here - you said

Given that after posting the article she apparently received a torrent of abuse through twitter from people convinced she was in fact in some way dodgy even before it was edited (as pointed out by Deano earlier on in the thread), it doesn't really matter how it was worded exactly, people still jumped to that wrongful association. In truth the piece should never of been written with names in the first place because regardless of whom was named and in what capacity, they were always going to be brought into question by people who firmly believe there is a conspiracy.

You're saying that someone should not have written something because some people misread it/overreacted to it - guilty as charged, no ducking that one.

You've already made it clear you have a problem with Rab and what he wrote - I cannot see any other conclusion than the fact you believe people should basically no say anything (and definately not name names) because of the fear of potential legal action (irrespective of the right or wrong of it).

Your world would be a fucking miserable place to live then...

[deano2099]

So what Kadayi is saying is that because some people overreacted to an article Rab wrote, Ms Wainwright was right to use a legal threat to silence him...

In effect, that is saying "don't say anything which may be mis-interpretted by stupid people"

Kinda. If loads of people are misinterpreting what you've said, you've failed as a writer. If you do that at the expense of someone else, then common decency is you edit to a) make it clear what you actually meant for your own sake and b) help out the person getting abuse because of your article.

[Kadayi]

You've already made it clear you have a problem with Rab and what he wrote - I cannot see any other conclusion than the fact you believe people should basically no say anything (and definately not name names) because of the fear of potential legal action (irrespective of the right or wrong of it).

Your world would be a fucking miserable place to live then...

No, I'm looking at this particular case and saying that it probably wasn't a good idea. It's an examination of the events and how they played out.

[Drake Sigar]

Given that after posting the article she apparently received a torrent of abuse through twitter from people convinced she was in fact in some way dodgy even before it was edited (as pointed out by Deano earlier on in the thread), it doesn't really matter how it was worded exactly, people still jumped to that wrongful association

I agree that he could have made his point just as easily without naming names, though I'm not comfortable with the idea of content being edited because a minority might take it out of context.

I keep only replying to you. I'm not picking on you, I swear!

[Kadayi]

I agree that he could have made his point just as easily without naming names, though I'm not comfortable with the idea of content being edited because a minority might take it out of context.

Well I'm sure most people don't think Frankie Boyle is a racist, but it didn't stop him from using the libel laws to sue the Daily Mirror over it. It is what it is at the end of the day. There's no limitation on how far reaching defamation of character extends

[Unaco]

Well I'm sure most people don't think Frankie Boyle is a racist, but it didn't stop him from using the libel laws to sue the Daily Mirror over it. It is what it is at the end of the day. There's no limitation on how far reaching defamation of character extends

Because, the Daily Mirror made UNTRUE allegations. Proper use of Libel law.

Rab did NOT make UNTRUE allegations. Use of Libel law by Wainwright to bully and censor. Improper use of Libel law.

The two situations are not equivalent.

Stay ontopic Unaco (contrary as to what you seem to believe I'm not on trial here). Jims already told you to cool your heels I recommend you listen to him in that regard.

Actually, he said to be civil. But I think we've all seen your wilful misinterpretation and misrepresentation of other people's positions in this thread, and indeed in most of your posting history.

[Kadayi]

The technical term is false. Also it's upto a judge and jury to determine these things with all the evidence before them and the representations made by each party. Deano and myself have only stated that there might be a case based on what's occurred. However as the matter has been dealt with without recourse to a legal trial it's moot to speculate as to whether it would or wouldn't hold up (least of all make bold determinations as to outcome without regard to all the evidence). Feel free to continue to protest though.

[Unaco]

The technical term is false.

Because, the Daily Mirror made FALSE allegations. Proper use of Libel law.

Rab did NOT make FALSE allegations. Use of Libel law by Wainwright to bully and censor. Improper use of Libel law.

The two situations are not equivalent.

Does it change what I was actually saying, or are you just being a pedant because... what? You think it scores points?

If you want to do that...

If you're too enamoured with him to see that as anything but the actions of a sniveling cunt of a man, that is unfortunately your weakness.

It is 'snivelling'. 2 L's. Not 1.

[trjp]

No, I'm looking at this particular case and saying that it probably wasn't a good idea. It's an examination of the events and how they played out.

With the benefit of hindsight, of course - but you are still saying that someone shouldn't say something because some people might misinterpret it - yes or no?

[sonson]

The technical term is false.

What is this in relation to? Aside from being an attempt to act superior I can't see how it relates to anything or adds to the debate which you are so keen to ensure stays on track and isn't about you