Current Affairs Jeremy Corbyn, Russian/Czech agent ?......

[roydo]

I don't believe I said anything along those lines, but ok.

No, you didnt. You said a free press is vital, I agree. I asked you if Corbyn supporting media always tell the truth, cos sure to god, the Mail and its kennel mates dont.

 

[roydo]

It's generally up to the plaintiff to prove guilt rather than the defendant to prove innocence isn't it?

In a libel case? Not a clue mate.

 

[Connor]

No, you didnt. You said a free press is vital, I agree. I asked you if Corbyn supporting media always tell the truth, cos sure to god, the Mail and its kennel mates dont.

No, I don't believe the Corbyn supporting media - The Guardian and The Mirror - always tells the truth. I believe they tell the truth more often than the S_n, Mail, Telegraph and Express but they're don't have a 100% strike-rate so to speak.

 

[roydo]

No, I don't believe the Corbyn supporting media - The Guardian and The Mirror - always tells the truth. I believe they tell the truth more often than the S_n, Mail, Telegraph and Express but they're don't have a 100% strike-rate so to speak.

Quite. I agree.

So back to my suggestion that Corbyn wants a free press, as long as he agrees with it then......?

 

[Connor]

It's generally up to the plaintiff to prove guilt rather than the defendant to prove innocence isn't it?

God, I hated Journalism law at Uni but yes, defamation law puts the burden of showing the truth of defamatory statements on the defendant, not the plantiff.

 

[Connor]

Quite. I agree.

So back to my suggestion that Corbyn wants a free press, as long as he agrees with it then......?

I don't think it's as much as he agrees with it, but again, telling the truth, reporting facts and not playing the smear game every day on the front page.

He's not Kim Jong-un here.

 

[Tubey]

He definitely, definitely was.

 

[roydo]

God, I hated Journalism law at Uni but yes, defamation law puts the burden of showing the truth of defamatory statements on the defendant, not the plantiff.

So that means, if Corbyn denies the allegation, its up to him to prove it?

Or the papers to prove they are accurate?

 

[roydo]

I don't think it's as much as he agrees with it, but again, telling the truth, reporting facts and not playing the smear game every day on the front page.

He's not Kim Jong-un here.

Oh sure, I dont read nor believe hardly any political stories, it was the video on twitter or FB or whatever it was that piqued my interest when he was seemingly happy to go after press he didnt agree with, whilst arguing for a free press.

 

[Tubey]

So that means, if Corbyn denies the allegation, its up to him to prove it?

Or the papers to prove they are accurate?

Only insofar as it's up to Corbyn to prove it refers directly to him and that it causes direct reputational harm - the burden of proof in terms of whether the alleged defamation was indeed true lies with the publisher.

 

[ToffeeTim]

I suppose he met these folk in some other capacity than being a spy, just like he met Gerry Adams in some other capacity other than the IRA, as some sort of leisure activity?

I would add that im not sure I even believe the allegations as surely even Corbyn weren't stupid enough to meet spies in the 70s.

 

[roydo]

Only insofar as it's up to Corbyn to prove it refers directly to him and that it causes direct reputational harm - the burden of proof in terms of whether the alleged defamation was indeed true lies with the publisher.

So if he denies it, which he has, he can sue them to prove its correct? Why wouldnt he do that?

 

[Connor]

So that means, if Corbyn denies the allegation, its up to him to prove it?

Or the papers to prove they are accurate?

It would be up to the Papers to prove it's true but Corbyn would have to show proof that's it's caused him reputational and or monetary harm.

They'd have three main defences: Fair comment - usually an opinion which wouldn't count here, privilege - knowing of/being subject to information and justification - similar to fair comment but a good solicitor could argue it and then the truth of the matter/is the story in public interest - see the last one.

Corbyn wouldn't chase the papers for it because it makes him look like a dictator, in a way, and leaves him 'trapped' in the sense that he'd be doing himself more reputational harm than good by chasing what he sees as a senseless story.

If, say for example, it was a more defamatory story then he'd probably chase it but it makes sense to use it as fire going forward to take on the press and push IPSO into doing real action instead of just being wheeled out every so often to so 'yeah, that's bad' or 'no, that's ok' like they do now.

 

[roydo]

It would be up to the Papers to prove it's true but Corbyn would have to show proof that's it's caused him reputational and or monetary harm.

They'd have three main defences: Fair comment - usually an opinion which wouldn't count here, privilege - knowing of/being subject to information and justification - similar to fair comment but a good solicitor could argue it and then the truth of the matter/is the story in public interest - see the last one.

Corbyn wouldn't chase the papers for it because it makes him look like a dictator, in a way, and leaves him 'trapped' in the sense that he'd be doing himself more reputational harm than good by chasing what he sees as a senseless story.

If, say for example, it was a more defamatory story then he'd probably chase it but it makes sense to use it as fire going forward to take on the press and push IPSO into doing real action instead of just being wheeled out every so often to so 'yeah, that's bad' or 'no, that's ok' like they do now.

So filed under "tomorrows chip wrapper" in essence? Makes sense.

 

[Tubey]

So if he denies it, which he has, he can sue them to prove its correct? Why wouldnt he do that?

Because by doing so he looks rattled by it.

He's doing the right thing - threatening the dumb Tory politician directly rather than the free press, which would result in a backlash.