Media thread 2022/23

[asahartford1]

From way back to my 6th form days it was explained to us that the difference between libel and slander technically is not that libel is written and slander is spoken although it most often is. The difference is that libel is a permanent record and slander is a non-permanent record. So, for example, a recorded TV interview is a permanent record so an unsubstantiated slur is libel whereas if someone wrote in the snow an unsubstantiated slur such as "X is a thief and a murderer" the snow would eventually melt, the slur would disappear and it would be slander.

I'm sure our learned friend @gordondaviesmoustache will be able to either confirm this or call me out as a know nowt buffoon.

Even if the former is correct I am certain he will confirm the latter.

 

[KS55]

From way back to my 6th form days it was explained to us that the difference between libel and slander technically is not that libel is written and slander is spoken although it most often is. The difference is that libel is a permanent record and slander is a non-permanent record. So, for example, a recorded TV interview is a permanent record so an unsubstantiated slur is libel whereas if someone wrote in the snow an unsubstantiated slur such as "X is a thief and a murderer" the snow would eventually melt, the slur would disappear and it would be slander.

I'm sure our learned friend @gordondaviesmoustache will be able to either confirm this or call me out as a know nowt buffoon.

It depends whether you write the libel in the snow with a stick or by pissing on it.
SSN may have expunged the record, but Bluemoon has not.

 

[LongsightM13]

Even if the former is correct I am certain he will confirm the latter.

The Defamation Act 2013 codified and clarified much of the former common law. There has since been some extensive case law and debate about the ramifications of the new legislation
For the purposes of this incident the main thrust is that commercial organisations (such as City) would have to show that the statement(s) create a risk of causing serious financial damage. That would certainly be arguable from City’s point of view although far from guaranteed to be successful
That said, senior figures like Khaldoon, Sorriano etc, not to mention the individual accountants, auditors, lawyers etc who work on and sign off our accounts could definitely have grounds to bring personal claims as she essentially accused them of criminal activity such as fraud and false accounting
A good analysis of the current state of play in this blog:

Defamation Act 2013: A summary and overview six years on - Brett Wilson LLP

The Defamation Act 2013 (‘the Act’) came into force on 1 January 2014. At the time, we published an article considering the individual provisions of the

www.brettwilson.co.uk

 

[bluemanchester]

Yeah… but would Sven have to make it stand up in court?

And spit it out.

 

[BlueMonkey79]

I emailed the press officer last night and looks like they have took action. They should have forced Sky Sports to announce live a full apology of the bullshit spouted by them in that Juventus interview.

The English woman's comment at the end of the interview - "its not a level playing field is it" was out of order as well!

This was my response from MCFC press office.

Dear Michael,



Thank you for your email.



We have already been in touch with Sky Sports News regarding this broadcast. Sky have now removed this clip from their whole estate, and have sent written reminders to all presenters of the need to challenge unsubstantiated claims, such as the ones made here, in the future.



Best,

MCFC Press Office

 

[LongsightM13]

I emailed the press officer last night and looks like they have took action. They should have forced Sky Sports to announce live a full apology of the bullshit spouted by them in that Juventus interview.

The English woman's comment at the end of the interview - "its not a level playing field is it" was out of order as well!

This was my response from MCFC press office.

Dear Michael,



Thank you for your email.



We have already been in touch with Sky Sports News regarding this broadcast. Sky have now removed this clip from their whole estate, and have sent written reminders to all presenters of the need to challenge unsubstantiated claims, such as the ones made here, in the future.



Best,

MCFC Press Office

So no on air apology, no retraction, not even a referral to Ofcom
Weak as cat piss. Cuckold FC

 

[moomba]

Don't think an apology would make a difference. It wouldn't change anyone's mind, and would just remind everyone of what was said in the first place.

 

[LongsightM13]

Don't think an apology would make a difference. It wouldn't change anyone's mind, and would just remind everyone of what was said in the first place.

Having to eat crow live on air would make the fuckers squirm and think twice about doing it again
A generic internal email from Sky is what won’t make any difference imo

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Don't think an apology would make a difference. It wouldn't change anyone's mind, and would just remind everyone of what was said in the first place.

But a grovelling apology would be much better than allowing Sly to simply brush it under the carpet.

Twats

 

[Chris in London]

I’ve always felt that it should be mandated that any apology/retraction in the press should have the same prominence and column inches as the article that gave rise to it.

It usually is if the Judge decides the case, but most apologies in libel cases follow an out of court settlement. Then everything depends on the terms of the settlement. The Sun published a front page banner headline apology to Elton John (‘Sorry Elton’) because that’s what the settlement of his claim stipulated.

If a newspaper offers to pay you £1m damages and an apology, but the apology will be on page 27, it’s up to you whether you accept it or not.