Declan Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Luckily we have a smug Guardian reader on hand to point it out. But now you've let us know, I am sure there must be some other issue for you to wring your hands over and get all sanctimonous about, so don't let us detain you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This a moderator's or personal opinion, Declan? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Personal. Obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Luckily we have a smug Guardian reader on hand to point it out. But now you've let us know, I am sure there must be some other issue for you to wring your hands over and get all sanctimonous about, so don't let us detain you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This a moderator's or personal opinion, Declan? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Personal. Obviously. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am not a Guardian reader neither am I smug. It was your forum that highlighted the article in the first place otherwise I wouldn't have seen it. I am just someone who has been fighting through your courts for about three years as a litigant in person trying to get some justice in an unjust system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Ok. Sorry for calling you a Guardian reader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonto Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 In the interests of fundamental freedoms and possibly Guardian readers everywhere - lets see, what exactly does Article 12 of the HR Act say? "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." Hmmm... nope, cant see where it says 'except Roly' or 'rich bastards need not apply' or even 'except manxman' or even 'except websites' or even 'pretend you're a journalist and we'll turn a blind eye'.... sorry, was going to edit and add a bit about article 30, but changed my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Thereby hangs the whole issue. Which set of human rights matter most? Roly's right to free speech. Or the people mentioned on his site that were accused of various dodgy things, only proof of which were e-mails from anonymous hotmail accounts which Roly won't show anyone. I'll be honest, maybe I haven't fully understood the situation, but isn't this what has happened? - Roly prints allegations. - Burns says they're untrue. - Roly says they are too. - Burns says prove it. - Roly says he won't. Now obviously Roly is a more sympathetic figure than old man Burns, and the way it has been handled is shocking but people can't disseminate allegations about someone if they can't prove it. Help me out here, where am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Roly may not be employed by the local media (therefore, not being gagged by management/government) but he did provide a "journalistic" coverage of events on the Island that the newspapers and radio wouldn't touch, such as the Mount Murray scandal and the present scandal involving the CM, he spilt the beans on the CM's doings long before the newspapers. So I fail to understand that he was not seen by the courts as acting as a journalist, seems to me you are only a journalist if you publish what the "old-boys" network like you to publish. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> One key difference is that a journalist stands by his intentions from square one. They are an accountable point of reference that says, "My name is Roly Drower, I am a journalist. As a journalist, I have been given a number of stories relating to public figures..." All of this is a far cry from someone who anonymously scrawls some hearsay on a brick wall and then runs away giggling like a schoolgirl. You just can't retro-fit a title "journalist" onto someone when you get caught, the courts won't (and didn't) buy it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is not a question of bs but rather would you like a high, medium or low serving? A "journalist stands by his intentions"!!! Are you for real? Try that one at The Sunday Sport - they'll just die laughing..... The notion that only a journalist can publish an opinion is also somewhere in the Dark Ages. I don't like the suggestion that Roly can be likened to "someone who anonymously scrawls some hearsay on a brick wall and then runs away giggling like a schoolgirl" just because it is an image that pleases you for some arcane reason. Anyone can quite legally post on a website FACTS and be free of litigation. I suspect Roly can't name his sources because if he does in my opinion honestly held then he will NEVER be able to prove what he is posted is true and not libellous because of the pressure his sources will then come under. Just to spell it out. Currently there is no proof or otherwise that what Roly has posted on a website is anything other than the truth. Got that? Currently no proof at all that any of it is fabricated. Sure you have got that? Jeeeze..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Just to spell it out. Currently there is no proof or otherwise that what Roly has posted on a website is anything other than the truth. What evidence is there that it's anything but lies? I guess it will all come out in the actual libel trial I guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Got that? Currently no proof at all that any of it is fabricated. Sure you have got that? Jeeeze..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Am I right in thinking that the onus is on the defendant in a liable case to prove his allegations, and regrettably Roly has refused to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Jeez, I've lost track of how many people have got this wrong the last few days LIBEL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Got that? Currently no proof at all that any of it is fabricated. Sure you have got that? Jeeeze..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Am I right in thinking that the onus is on the defendant in a liable case to prove his allegations, and regrettably Roly has refused to do it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It hasn't got there yet. Roly has refused to name his sources, that is all. Financially he could be crushed simply to keep alive a chance to prove it is not a libel. That is why, in my opinion honestly held, Roly should have only been fined 5 pence and not had to pay costs. Incidentally, work has kept me from my local this pm - b~mmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy One Mate Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I found this very interesting and explains te Law in relation to Libel quite clearly Libel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 This is not a question of bs but rather would you like a high, medium or low serving? A "journalist stands by his intentions"!!! Are you for real? Try that one at The Sunday Sport - they'll just die laughing..... Er, The Sport's "intentions" are to write about tits, fun and silly stories. The next time the Sunday Sport breaks into serious investigative journalism into public figures do point it out for me. The notion that only a journalist can publish an opinion is also somewhere in the Dark Ages. Where did I say that? I don't like the suggestion that Roly can be likened to "someone who anonymously scrawls some hearsay on a brick wall and then runs away giggling like a schoolgirl" just because it is an image that pleases you for some arcane reason. ..and God forbid somebody writes something about Roly that isn't true. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 ..and God forbid somebody writes something about Roly that isn't true. Haha. That would be awfully ironic wouldn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadbin Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I could tell you something that IS true about him. I coudl write it right down here and now. He wouldn't like that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 ....Nicely proving ans's point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.