Thank you (Again) Jose - Now F@ck off

Rubbish , the physio came back to work at the club, its not as if they are getting less money, if he can come back, why did she feel she could not come back? He mentioned the medical staff which c

 

John Terrys PR agent.

 

Why would JT care he never has to work ever again and his career already coming to an end, so why would he care?

 

Did you dose off before finishing that?

 

I don't know? It just seemed like a funny thing to type.

 

You have problems deciding what's a joke and what's serious!

 

Nah I like you spuds, no matter how bad we get at the bridge , you guys never manage to win , 30 years and counting xx

 

So, Mr Rumpole, it's your view, is it, that to state of a doctor that he or she has had sex with, not only one, but several of his or her clients would not tend to damage that doctor's reputation, in the eyes of right-minded persons, or open them up to odium, ridicule and contempt?

 

It worked well for John Terry, he's club captain.

Please note this post may or may not be funny, any kind of factual information has not been taken into account , no though as to whether the post is relevant, informative or funny have been taken into consideration.

 

If you knew anything of note on the subject at hand, you'd know that any potential libel suit has to take into account both the size of the audience that has potentially viewed the supposed defamation and balance that off against the exposure that a potential court case would generate.

So for the hard of thinking, that means that a low volume website ( like this one ) would not be a medium that would generate significant supposed reputation damage. As opposed to the National coverage that a court case against the author of any supposed libelous comment would produce, and thus it would be potentially far more damaging, as it'd open up the comments to an infinitely wider audience.

You initial premise that it'd be the site owners that would be liable was also wrong btw, as they would only have to prove that they had taken reasonable steps to prevent such occurrences i.e. moderation, removal of posts, bannings etc. They would merely have to pass on the details of the IP that made the supposed comment on.

 

I refer Mr Rumpole to Section 2 of the Defamation Act 1952.

The case for the Claimant rests, your Honour.

 

She chose not to come back as she felt her position was untenable, she therefore resigned and thus the constructive dismissal claim.

Do you even know what constructive dismissal is?

 

The defamation laws in this country were reformed in the Defamation Act of 2013 you ****ing plum

 

To be fair HIAG is a fake property lawyer. Not a very good fake property lawyer but a fake property lawyer nonetheless. Libel isn't his strong point.

 

I'm going with 2013 being after 1952?

 

Boom! *haig steps down from the dock in disgrace*

 

Absolute gold!

 

It would, indeed, be a defence for the site owner, in any claim against it for defamatory comments made by posters, to prove that they acted to minimise damage/harm to the victim by (a) removing harmful content, and (b) handing over the names and addresses of those making the defamatory remarks (so that the true perpetrators can be pursued). But it is only a defence if heeded fully, and timeously.

As regards the defamation of professionals, it has long been the case that it is presumed per se that harm is done to them when they are slandered. Section 2 of the Defamation Act 1952 has not been repealed or modified by anything in the 2013 Act.

 

The Law is patently not his strong suit.

As previously stated, there's no way he's in the legal profession. Sue me big lad

 

Has the quote that you are replying to been removed? I cannot find it anywhere.

It would have been wise for Mr Rumpole to remove such a comment, because it is wrong, and the kind of comment that a barrack-room lawyer would have made.