73 replies to this topic

[ianselva]

One very simple rule applies: if someone is fuzzy with his wording, ignore what he said (or wrote). The quotes in post #1 are just the insignificant ramblings of someone who either knows ****, or doesn't have the guts to clearly speak his mind. In either case, it's not worth getting hot about it.

You can just easily apply that to all the team and FIA press releases.

[Twin Window]

Btw, there was no anti-Mansell clause in his 93 Williams contract; it was Mansell who priced himself out.

And he 'priced himself out' over the number of hotel rooms he would get in his deal to accommodate his cronies! Pathetic - especially as Sheri told him he'd got his deal as he sat in the front of the mic to announce his departure...

[ensign14]

One very simple rule applies: if someone is fuzzy with his wording, ignore what he said (or wrote). The quotes in post #1 are just the insignificant ramblings of someone who either knows ****, or doesn't have the guts to clearly speak his mind. In either case, it's not worth getting hot about it.

Thing is, Michael, the libel laws in England are much stricter than abroad; a writer will be far more comfortable with an innuendo that most people will not "get" as it cuts down the damages that would be awarded if subject decides to sue, whereas in most other countries the person suing has to show malice. Truth is a defence, of course, but that's very difficult to demonstrate to a jury that's already biased against the media. You get similar wording in reports like "sources close to the minister" (translate: the minister) and so on to try to make things non-attributable.

[D-Type]

But, curiously, judging by today's English papers the French are very reticent about the extra-marital activities of their politicians.

[dbltop]

And why aren't we crucifying the woman for having sex with one of her husband's employees? Was she raped? I doubt it.

[Michael Ferner]

Thing is, Michael, the libel laws in England are much stricter than abroad; a writer will be far more comfortable with an innuendo that most people will not "get" as it cuts down the damages that would be awarded if subject decides to sue, whereas in most other countries the person suing has to show malice. Truth is a defence, of course, but that's very difficult to demonstrate to a jury that's already biased against the media. You get similar wording in reports like "sources close to the minister" (translate: the minister) and so on to try to make things non-attributable.

That was exactly my point: he doesn't have the balls to stand by what he says, instead hiding under the mighty big cloak of being a member of the "in-crowd", having clandestine knowledge that is not meant to be understood by the great unwashed. I don't have time for that sort of glib talk, and so shouldn't anyone else with a backbone.

And your comparison is way off, by the way: "sources close to the minister" are usually very clear about what they are saying, it's just that they don't want to reveal who's talking. Very different thing!

[Vitesse2]

Michael - our libel laws are now an international joke, thanks particularly to one judge, Mr Justice Eady, who has become a byword for idiotic rulings. The Polanski and Ehrenfeld cases are particularly ridiculous. An overview from the Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph...reputation.html

If you google "libel tourism" you'll find plenty more, from all parts of the political spectrum.

Unfortunately, this has nothng to do with the writer having balls or not and everything to do with what the publisher's legal department may think is actionable.

[PCC]

That was exactly my point: he doesn't have the balls to stand by what he says, instead hiding under the mighty big cloak of being a member of the "in-crowd", having clandestine knowledge that is not meant to be understood by the great unwashed. I don't have time for that sort of glib talk, and so shouldn't anyone else with a backbone.

Actually, I have found that Roebuck does not shy away from taking strong (and potentially unpopular) positions on important issues. But when it comes to anything that could fall within the jurisdiction of libel laws, he is a bit coy, and for good reason. The publication world is not an internet forum - if you step out of line, you can't just change your moniker and re-join.

[ensign14]

And your comparison is way off, by the way: "sources close to the minister" are usually very clear about what they are saying, it's just that they don't want to reveal who's talking. Very different thing!

Yes, I really meant about the fuzziness in journalism. Both still miss the overall truth - one is an impeccable source being coy, another a coy source being impeccable.

Michael - our libel laws are now an international joke, thanks particularly to one judge, Mr Justice Eady, who has become a byword for idiotic rulings. The Polanski and Ehrenfeld cases are particularly ridiculous.

Don't blame Eady for Polanski. That was the fault of the jury. Exactly the point about the Great Unwashed; they are the kind of idiot who vote for Stavros Flatley or X FactorBig Brother or the Labour Party. Which is why Roebuck et al will not name names outright for fear of having 12 of these idiots ruling on what they say.

And the Ehrenfeld case is intriguing more for Ehrenfeld being completely unable to back up her story, hence not participating.

Our libel laws IMO are actually fine; because they protect reputations and enforce quality journalism (well, stretching a point), which means we will never get something like the swiftboating of Kerry and an election manipulated - and maybe thousands of lives lost - as a result. The big problem is costs; put me in charge of libel cases and I would have it sorted within a week. You want to sue for £25,000 damages for libel? Fine, your costs are capped at £15k. Like with any normal commercial case.

[RA Historian]

the swiftboating of Kerry

which he had coming.

[ensign14]

which he had coming.

Not the point though. His reputation was destroyed through false and malicious rumours, and reprehensible reportage, for which there was no remedy. What the media do not tell people when they campaign against defamation over here is that they CAN get things wrong, but only if they have reported honestly and fairly. The biggest gripe with our libel laws really is the position on costs, and that could easily be sorted.

[angst]

Our libel laws IMO are actually fine; because they protect reputations and enforce quality journalism (well, stretching a point), which means we will never get something like the swiftboating of Kerry and an election manipulated - and maybe thousands of lives lost - as a result. The big problem is costs; put me in charge of libel cases and I would have it sorted within a week. You want to sue for £25,000 damages for libel? Fine, your costs are capped at £15k. Like with any normal commercial case.

Tell that to Arthur Scargill...

[seccotine]

But, curiously, judging by today's English papers the French are very reticent about the extra-marital activities of their politicians.

Stop reading the tabloids.

[Bloggsworth]

Onather thread title like that, and Doug Nye will pop his clogs in a fit of apoplexy!

To whom was Nigel Roebuck referring....................

[Vitesse2]

Onather ...

Houses ... glass ... stones ...

[ensign14]

But, curiously, judging by today's English papers the French are very reticent about the extra-marital activities of their politicians.

Covered by privacy laws. Which are so stringent in some countries Italian newspapers were not allowed to report that Berlusconi dyes his hair.

[Doug Nye]

Do let me in on the secretspeak - what is "swiftboating"...?

DCN

[ghinzani]

Do let me in on the secretspeak - what is "swiftboating"...?

DCN

A punt with an outboard attached is my guess. I said a 'Punt'.

[Tim Murray]

It was a new one on me as well:

Swiftboating is American political jargon that is used as a strong pejorative description of some kind of attack that the speaker considers unfair or untrue—for example, an ad hominem attack or a smear campaign.

The term comes from the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth (formerly "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," or SBVT) and that group's widely publicized campaign against 2004 US Presidential candidate John Kerry.

Terms like "swiftboating", "Swift Boating", "Swift Boat tactics", etc. were mostly used by people who disapproved of the political tactics of the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. It is now in mainstream use. Some American conservatives have strongly objected (see below) to the criticism of SBVT implied by such negative usage.

This is from Wiki -the full article is here:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Swiftboating

[ensign14]

Basically it was a bunch of bulldink made up by the Republicans because, unlike their esteemed candidate, Kerry had actually seen fighting action in Nam. Hugely defamatory and over here would have been squished by a decent libel suit. Freedom of speech in the US however extends to destroying someone's reputation unfairly.

[RA Historian]

With all due respect, Ensign, you are wrong. I could go into a lengthy explanation of why you are wrong and why the Swift boat vets are right, but I do not wish to have this forum degenerate into the political arena. 'Nuff said.
Tom

[ensign14]

I'm not bothered about the political arena, I don't care what Kerry's politics were/are compared to GWB's for these purposes, for the record I got the impression Kerry could even bore accountants.

I do however care about the defamatory aspects of things. Kerry was decorated for bravery. Fellow veteran John McCain called the swiftboaters "dishonest and dishonorable". If someone is going to make allegations like this, under English law they have to be able to back them up. Either prove the truth or demonstrate fair comment, or prove a defence that vaguely comes under the heading of "responsible journalism". These sort of allegations could not be bandied about without redress. Yet they can be in most of the rest of the world. In Europe they use privacy to avoid these, which in many ways is far, far worse; you are restricted from telling the truth. In the States though these sorts of things can be said fearlessly. Freedom of speech? Yes. Freedom to destroy an innocent person's life? Perhaps.

The highest defamation award in English legal history that withstood all challenge was awarded to a couple wrongly named as child abusers. You could not get any worse defamation than that. Yet under many US states' laws that couple - hounded out of their homes and jobs - would have no right of action.

[Twin Window]

I could go into a lengthy explanation of why you are wrong and why the Swift boat vets are right, but I do not wish to have this forum degenerate into the political arena. 'Nuff said.
Tom

Thanks, Tom.

These rather more contentious matters can, of course, be continued via PMs or directly twixt members. Regardless, I am with you on this matter...

EDIT: I replied before I'd seen E14's last post.

[David M. Kane]

Save the Kerry hero stuff PLEASE! It's mostly PR bunk...