I love it here in Oz when they say "allegedly". The use it all the time even though you know things have happened or are fact but haven't got to court. Wasn't the use of the term "allegedly" not protect you anymore from libel in the UK, or did I imagine that years ago??? Anyway see this video and let me know if the policeman allegedly beats a cricket fan. media.smh.com.au/sport/sports-hq ... 05823.html

I love it here in Oz when they say "allegedly". The use it all the time even though you know things have happened or are fact but haven't got to court. Wasn't the use of the term "allegedly" not protect you anymore from libel in the UK, or did I imagine that years ago??? Anyway see this video and let me know if the policeman allegedly beats a cricket fan. media.smh.com.au/sport/sports-hq ... 05823.html

It is entirely posible that the in and out motion observed of the Police officer could have been using a pump to inflate an air bed so that the cricket fan would feel more comfortable

I don't think so because the rlfans mods crap themselves if somebody writes a story about Martin Gleeson and prefixes it with "allegedly"

Repeating a libel and putting 'allegedly' in front of it is not a defence in English law, no. It never has been.

In all seriousness you can't see properly from that clip and it doesn't help that whoever edited it has pieced together three seconds of video to try and make it look as though it happened over three minutes.

Don't know what the law is in Australia but there is a procedure here for police officers to hit with an open palm to "assist" a desisting arrestee into offering up an arm for handcuffs to be applied after they have been arrested, its the defence that was offered when a police officer in Pontefract (???) was filmed using exactly the same striking motion to a lad a few years ago, in that case he hadn't been arrested at the time and was stood on his feet so it didn't quite work as a defence.

That video in the link is poor, you can't see the impact and you can't see if the fist is closed at impact or not, its not conclusive.

Very true. You don't actually see any contact. You only presume they connect.

As always, reading the written report also fills in the gaps somewhat[urlhttp://www.smh.com.au/nsw/footage-of-bashing-by-police-leads-to-review-20120120-1qa6y.html[/url resisting arrest is only going to result in one thing, you will be arrested and some force can be used to ensure that you are handcuffed to protect yourself and the public from you.

Its quite possible that everything you see in that video is within the law.

Why would beating a cricket fan be a criminal offence in the first place?

In an article/court case i was involved in lately the local rag didn't even bother using the word "allegedly" in the article. and didn't even bother talking about facts either. which was very upsetting for me. It's taken me a long time to learn... But I won't take anything i read in the paper or see on the news seriously again.

it all boils down to whether you saying something as a fact or as an opinion and whether you can back up your fact if thats what you are saying.

Allegedly doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

In saying that though they use the word all he time on the TV in news bulletins, so it must work for them.

You missed the important part of that post. There is a well known suffix to it.


"Ask Ian Hislop"

Say (X) person is or isn't doing something dodgy and someone else (y) says something libelous. Is it ok to then write, say on a forum that

"Y alledges that X is doing something"

or can i/the forum be sued for that or do they go to the person who made the initial statement or can they sue the original person and the person that quotes the original person?

It's not a black and white area, but you'd be on dodgy ground as you'd be (potentially) repeating the libel.
Fortunately, libel cases are notoriously expensive to bring, and have a habit of unearthing other dirty linen.

The forum I ran for some years got threatened with a libel case some years ago - we knew what we were saying was true, but it was difficult to prove. The person who threatened to sue us spoke to his solicitor who essentially went "the forum has no money, I'm going to charge you a fortune but it's your call" and that was the last we heard of it.

It doesn't matter, you can still libel someone by telling the truth.

Technically not quite, the defence (at present) is "justification" but the unfortunate part is, you need to establish the justification. In order words, it is up to you to [iprove[/i that the statement was true.

If it was true, then it wasn't a libel. It wouldn't be much consolation, but the fact that you lost your case cos you couldn't [iprove[/i it was true means that you didn't prove it [iwasn't[/i a libel.

It's a bit on the lines of 'innocent until proved guilty' - that is, 'libellous until proved true'

It is a bad aspect of current libel laws though moves are afoot for long overdue reform. Still, though, there is a point to the law as it is. Otherwise, anybody could say any lie (eg X beats his wife) and have a perfect defence simply by saying 'it's the truth'.

But if you can prove it's true, then you do have a perfect libel defence.

Quote ="Big Graeme"It doesn't matter, you can still libel someone by telling the truth.'" So if I say that someone is a thieving twot, and can prove it, that's still libel? I didn't say it wasn't possible to prove it, just difficult. If push had come to shove then we'd have proven it. So sorry, but you're wrong. They may try to sue me for libel, but thats a different argument. The statement, if anything, is defamatory, but defamatory statements are not the same as libelous ones. To use the example given, it was most certainly a defamatory statement to say he was a thief, but it was't libelous as it could be shown to be true. Point 5 here: www.website-law.co.uk/resources/ ... libel.html is worth bearing in mind.

Quote ="Big Graeme"It doesn't matter, you can still libel someone by telling the truth.'" So if I say that someone is a thieving twot, and can prove it, that's still libel? I didn't say it wasn't possible to prove it, just difficult. If push had come to shove then we'd have proven it. So sorry, but you're wrong. They may try to sue me for libel, but thats a different argument. The statement, if anything, is defamatory, but defamatory statements are not the same as libelous ones. To use the example given, it was most certainly a defamatory statement to say he was a thief, but it was't libelous as it could be shown to be true. Point 5 here: www.website-law.co.uk/resources/ ... libel.html is worth bearing in mind.

Nope, see I used the word can, as you say the burden of proof is on you not the plaintiff.