lisner Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 The Guardian Not local news as such but it should (but probably won't) have an impact here, seeing as we carry on regardless on Human Rights and all that. 2 folk against a legal team headed by a £2,000 a day QC . . . . I wonder what Athol Street and its environs make of it all. "without legal assistance, the [defence] case was underprepared, unready for trial and was advanced by two inexperienced, untrained and exhausted individuals who were pushed to their physical and mental limits. In short, it was patently unfair." McDonalds - they chucked £10million at the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Excellent, so now people can get legal aid funding in defamation or libel cases. We'll get a nice glut of frivolous cases now to suck the legal aid fund dry so deserving cases are left short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ykstarr Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 deserving cases what counts as a 'deserving case'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 ---- a legal team headed by a £2,000 a day QC . . . . I wonder what Athol Street and its environs make of it all. Well that at least is obvious. They’ll increase their hourly rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 So now I can go out and defame anyone I want knowing that when it comes to court I can claim Legal Aid. Yippee. IIRC the 'campaigners' could not justify all of their claims and were ordered to pay damages. Multi-national, sh1te food producing (IMO) monster that it may be, they are entitled to the protection of the law, just as you or I. BigMac anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy camper Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Bleurgh, no ta. BK Whopper on the other hand.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 IIRC the 'campaigners' could not justify all of their claims and were ordered to pay damages. Multi-national, sh1te food producing (IMO) monster that it may be, they are entitled to the protection of the law, just as you or I. I seem to remember there were five of them who were held responsible and McD offered to drop the charges if they apologised. Three did, two didn't. Those two were found guilty, appealed, found guilty (although the damages was reduced a bit) and now they've secured a retrial. Nobody wins but lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Despite the obstacles, the two campaigners won a ruling from the high court that some of the claims in the leaflet were true, in what was described as "the biggest corporate PR disaster in history". Oh, that's okay then. SOME of it was true - that surely justifies the rest of the lies and unfounded claims. Sueing for defamtion is weighed heavily in favour of the rich but Ans is absolutely right in the concerns he raised. If legal aid is granted it should be strictly vetted - perhaps restricted to those who can prove a loss of earnings or business as a result of being defamed. And perhaps, the authorities could reserve the right to claw back the legal aid if it turns out the case was frivolous although I'm not sure how workable this would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 OT/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Excellent, so now people can get legal aid funding in defamation or libel cases. We'll get a nice glut of frivolous cases now to suck the legal aid fund dry so deserving cases are left short. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do you work at McDonalds, ans? I can just see you in one of their fetching baseball caps, dishin' up the fries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted February 16, 2005 Author Share Posted February 16, 2005 Excellent, so now people can get legal aid funding in defamation or libel cases. We'll get a nice glut of frivolous cases now to suck the legal aid fund dry so deserving cases are left short. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So now I can go out and defame anyone I want knowing that when it comes to court I can claim Legal Aid. Yippee. IIRC the 'campaigners' could not justify all of their claims and were ordered to pay damages. Multi-national, sh1te food producing (IMO) monster that it may be, they are entitled to the protection of the law, just as you or I. BigMac anyone? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Libel works both ways don't forget. The rich libel the poor. I think the main issue of Human Rights here is the "Fair and Just Trial bit" as in Rich Bloke gets his big Cannons out and blasts the little guy to smithereens. But I'm not too cynical to believe in David and Golliath though . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 My understanding is that the ruling from the ECHR only applies to those who are sued: i.e those who commit the libel/defamation Local legal aid means-testing ensures hardly anyone qualifies for legal aid. I think earnings above £160-odd pw means you won't qualify and it's the same with savings over £5k. McDonalds had reputational issues which arguably made them feel it was worth pursuing the duo who handed out the leaflets, irrespective of the damages that might have been awarded. If it's damages you're after it's hardly worth suing a legally aided person committing the libel if it's going to take them the rest of their life to pay off your entitlement to damages. Any assessment of monetary damages payable looks at reputational damage and special losses (eg lost sales etc.) directly attributable to the libel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Fantastic!!! Landmark case??? Have been following this one for a number of years... We (the public) are allowed to critisise multinationals , when we think they overstep the line. Quote from McLibel site regarding the court case.. The verdict was devastating for McDonald's. The judge ruled that they 'exploit children' with their advertising, produce 'misleading' advertising, are 'culpably responsible' for cruelty to animals, are 'antipathetic' to unionisation and pay their workers low wages. But Helen and Dave failed to prove all the points and so the Judge ruled that they HAD libelled McDonald's and should pay 60,000 pounds damages. They refused and McDonald's knew better than to pursue it. In March 1999 the Court of Appeal made further rulings against McDonald's in relation to heart disease and employment. Story ofMmcDonalds Libel case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Do you work at McDonalds, ans? I can just see you in one of their fetching baseball caps, dishin' up the fries. No, he failed the exam. He's working for a certain local telecom monopoly instead. Read his posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.