~s~

The idea that you could sue the media for reporting, factually, what has gone one, is ludicrous, IMO. As you rightly point out.

But then it wouldn't surprise me if senior members of the government do not actually understand how law works. I recall that, just over a year ago. one Francis Maude apparently sat in a meeting with public service trade unions and suggested that the government could simply put employment legislation on hold for a month or so if convenient. He was, apparently, rather shocked when his civil servants returned to tell him that this really wasn't possible.

And this is a lawyer.

There you go then.
This being Andrew Mitchell, there was no "bringing" involved, he was already there.

Only in the minds of those who had made their judgements based on prejudice.

Given that Mitchells nickname at public school and henceforth into his adult life was "Thrasher" because of his fondness of discipline and punishment then I'd think that the sort of things he's been accused of would only serve to enhance his hard earned and self appreciated reputation, indeed he didn't deny much of it.

But the burden of proof in defamation case defences is on the defendant so no one has to prove that the report was false. The defendant must prove it was true (on the balance of probabilities).

Bollox.

All anyone accused of libelling another has to prove is that the alleged libel did not defame the "good name" of the allegedly libelled.

If I said "Peter Sutcliffe used to w[ia[/ink dogs on Hessle Foreshore", it's highly doubtfull that any jury would decide that his character had been libelled

It's like arguing with kids.

Wiki:

"However, the common law of libel reverses the traditional positions somewhat: a defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth"

Well done on finding the relevant Wikipedia entry. Unfortunately for you, the key word in your quote is 'defamatory'. First and foremost the statement has to be demonstrated to be defamatory. Since the only part of the whole sorry episode that Mitchell denies is the use of the word 'pleb' it's difficult to see how that could be defamatory when he's freely admitted to swearing at the Police.

There is also the problem that you have singularly failed to understand; the newspapers were reporting the contents of the Police report. This is a simple fact and they were reporting the [itruth[/i about the contents of the report. They were not passing on some gossip from a bloke in the pub. And last but by no means least, a pretty convincing 'public interest' defence could be mounted if necessary.

I hope he does take legal action, maybe then someone might just dig out the "proper" cctv evidence which someone is with-holding from public scrutiny for their own reasons.

What do you mean unfortunately for me? It was alleged he called police plebs. If he didn't this is defamatory.



Yes, it was a fact that the police report said he used the word pleb, but it is not a fact that he actually said the word pleb.

Newspapers cannot repeat libelous staments and I don't really understand why you are making out that someone suing newspapers is a revolutionary step.

Yes and I hope Mitchell's lawyers get a chance to Cross x those police officers.

Well I'm sure they will if they carry out their threats, on the other hand, the "proper" cctv, whoever currently holds it, would reveal the undeniable truth for they were all stood well within video and sound range.

genuine question

how much outdoor CCTV has sound recording?

IIRC there was something from the Information Commissioner a few years ago saying that CCTV shouldn't have audio recording. But I would assume that applied primarily to private/commercial CCTV systems, one would hope high security places like Downing Street would actually record audio.

Do you actually understand what defamatory means in the legal sense?


It is, however, an uncontested fact that he had an altercation with the police and that he swore at them. And this is where we come back to defamatory.


Nobody is making out that suing newspapers is a revolutionary step. Or that they are free to repeat libel. The crux of the matter is what constitutes libel. People do sue papers and lose, something you seem to be unaware of. And those people often have expensive lawyers who were happy to take their fee regardless of the chances of success.

You're talking about the high security entrance to the highest profile terrorist target in the country through which very few people have a genuine need of access (its not like its open to the public as a museum etc) and those that do have to identify themselves.

I am rather hoping that they don't just rely on those three very blurry, non-audio cameras who's footage Mitchell's supporters have been able to obtain to date in order to cover all security events on Downing Street.

Look back several pages on this thread and you'll find me singing from the same hymn sheet time and again - the footage obtained is so vague as to be almost unusable and even Ch4's Dispatches program (who seem to be Mitchells public mouthpiece) admit that its inconclusive - can you imagine a terrorist attack on those gates and the police having to rely on those images, no neither can I.

As for public rights & recording - is Downing Street a public right of way or private land ?

I will vouch for that.

"All things bright and beautiful..."

Yes, I studied it, amongst other Torts at University.



Not quite, he said he swore in their presence, not directly at them.




I never suggested otherwise.

You seem to be suggesting that it is cut and dried that Mitchell has no case. This is obviously not correct, as demonstrated by 1) the fact we are having this discussion and 2) the fact Mitchell's lawyers have begun action.

When we were there in the Summer I could have sworn they wore body cams on the Downing Street gates.

I never thought it would be possible to smell bullsh[ii[/it over an internet messageboard. Well you learn something new every day.

Nothing to contribute to the discussion then? Didn't think so.

No denials then? Didn't think so. While you're on it why don't you see if Wikipedia has an entry for "worst liar ever".

Deny what? I studied Tort law at university. This is a fact.

Don't give a monkeys if you don't believe me to be honest. You are a strange individual.

I think this had run its course. Time to lock while some posters still have some dignity left...