Actually, Badtux, I was thinking of Rupert when I wrote that, wondering about the possibilities of that source of “deep pockets” for British climate research. That would certainly hurt 😉
]]>If, on the other hand, you say “Animal Liberation Front spokeswoman Janet Dogooder stated in a news conference today that the chancellor at Cambridge University had sex with sheep”, followed by a quote from CU’s spokesperson saying exactly the opposite, then you’re in the clear. You’re just reporting the news then, and CU’s recourse is against Janet Dogooder, not against you. Thus why he-said she-said journalism is so prevalent — it basically eliminates all chance of a libel lawsuit coming down against the journalist. This is as true in the US as it is in the UK.
Regarding the international nature of modern corporations, News Corpse owns a lot of stuff in Britain that could be attached in any judgement by a UK court. Probably irresponsible for their Fox News affiliate to be spurting out so much stuff that is clearly libelous of British climate scientists ;).
.-= last blog ..Friday Morning Post-Rock =-.
Americans don’t understand about the ‘Net being global, and how that can intrude into their lives. No one would bother suing me, as there is no chance of any money, but if someone is tied to “deep pockets”, there is always a lawyer willing to try.
As long as what is said is labeled as speculation or opinion, and nothing identifies individuals, you are probably in the clear. If you start naming names and making “statements of fact”, you had better have proof, or you are at risk.
I haven’t seen anything to suggest that there are lawyers/solicitors involved, but people should be aware of possibilities.
]]>I had to study law here almost 3 years ago for my security licenses. though not to the level of a lawyer (not even close! As I never had to actually study and case law etc. But I did have to be aware of the legal system and the rules of law and everything related to the licenses I was studying for).
Law is actually extremely complex. There are complex interactions between the four types of laws (common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law), and the jurisdiction. Common law in the UK generally takes precedence, and is covers a huge body of law (common law dates back to the middle ages).
Basically, in the UK, if you can afford one of the best QC’s (Queens Council, or Kings Council during the reign of a male sovereign), you can pretty much win anything! Especially as the best QC’s can manipulate the system to get a case heard in a court that may be to their advantage (because of traditional and inherent authority of courts to say what the law is, even in absence of an underlying statute). 😆 There are exceptions, of course. 😉 BTW, some believe that a QC (or KC) can not appear in court against the Crown (or Government). It was true that until the 1920’s, a QC required a special license to do so, but this is no longer the case. If a defendant can afford one, they can have one (one reason that a QC is expensive is that they are required to have a Barrister present also) and a QC must have chambers (office) in London.
In any case, until it can be proven that the email’s are in fact genuine and unaltered, and exactly what the context of the emails were, nothing else can be said. It’s all speculation. and anyone can speculate on anything. 🙂
]]>– Badtux the Libel Penguin
(Who was once threatened with a libel lawsuit in a UK court, and looked all this sh*t up before saying “f*ck it, I’m never going to the UK and I don’t sell anything there so let’em threaten.”)