McAlpine, Newsnight and All That ...

[MrGongGong]

So you are suggesting that, irrespective of all relevant laws, we do not all have the same rights in practice? and that, accordingly, you and I actually have fewer rights than Celeb A, Lord B, Sir C, HRH D or whoever in terms of seeking due redress for being falsely accused in public of grave crimes such as those under consideration here? If so, can you specify the particular flaws in the law themselves or in due legal process that you believe sanctions and endorses such inequality of treatment and can you cite examples of such inequality of treatment in practice?

.

actually i'm not a lawyer
and am much more interested in the music i'm trying to write than to do endless research into legal matters
BUT
if someone "libelled" me I have no chance at all of any redress (though I probably wouldn't want to waste my life trying either)

we might have the same rights in theory but in practice I think things are rather different
try being a black teenage boy in some parts of London for example and see how many times you are picked up by the police etc

[ahinton]

actually i'm not a lawyer

Nor am I.

and am much more interested in the music i'm trying to write

Moi aussi.

than to do endless research into legal matters

I'm unaware that anyone's actually expecting you to do that!

BUT
if someone "libelled" me I have no chance at all of any redress

Why not? (subject, of course, to the gravity of the case and the extent to which a Court would uphold your case)

(though I probably wouldn't want to waste my life trying either)

Well, that would, of course, be your prerogative but it would not mean that you didn't have the same rights of access to justice as everyone else; imagine that if someone had hacked your financial and other personal details but that you didn't have the same right of access to justice and redress available to Lord So-and-So!

we might have the same rights in theory but in practice I think things are rather different
try being a black teenage boy in some parts of London for example and see how many times you are picked up by the police etc

Point taken - and a valid one, too - but if a criminal act has been committed against someone, whoever it may be, the law does provide and, if it doesn't do so, then those charged with implementing it are at fault and may themselves be prosecuted, as may indeed end up being the case with those police and others who might be found to have been involved in ignoring or dismissing child abuse cases (to return to the topic!)...

Oh, speaking of the topic, what about http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20311843 or indeed http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-20303606? Lord McAlpine has merely falsely and publicly accused of, but not charged with, child abuse whereas the ex-Bishop of Gloucester who happens to be a friend of HRH the Prince of Wales has actually been arrested for it and a deceased MP has posthumously been accused of it by a successor incumbent which, if nothing else, demonstrates that having friends in high places and being a well-known public figure offers no guarantee of protection from due process of law.

[Nick Armstrong]

if someone "libelled" me I have no chance at all of any redress (though I probably wouldn't want to waste my life trying either)

That's not so. If you consulted the right lawyers (e.g. ones that were prepared to act on a contingency basis i.e. no win no fee, which many are if the libel is clear enough), there is no reason you couldn't get proper redress.

I could let you have my card by PM, for instance....

[MrGongGong]

That's not so. If you consulted the right lawyers (e.g. ones that were prepared to act on a contingency basis i.e. no win no fee, which many are if the libel is clear enough), there is no reason you couldn't get proper redress.

I could let you have my card by PM, for instance....

I'm not sure that I believe that "proper redress" involves money !

(though if you have any spare please don't be shy )

and to reply to the point above
surely the situation with the church in Ireland is evidence that status can (and not always,of course) get you protection

(why is Jeffry Archer still a "Lord" ? )

[amateur51]

That's not so. If you consulted the right lawyers (e.g. ones that were prepared to act on a contingency basis i.e. no win no fee, which many are if the libel is clear enough), there is no reason you couldn't get proper redress.

I could let you have my card by PM, for instance....

How appropriate that m'learned friend should pass his 9,000th post milestone with this selfless effort Congratulations, Caliban!

[Nick Armstrong]

How appropriate that m'learned friend should pass his 9,000th post milestone with this selfless effort Congratulations, Caliban!

Gor blimey O'Reilly!!! So I did!

[Nick Armstrong]

I'm not sure that I believe that "proper redress" involves money !

Nor did I say that it did: it's one of the reasons that in most cases it's silly to slog on to trial - you can only get damages at the end of a trial - but the vast majority of properly handled libel cases settle, with suitable redress being principally the non-monetary element, obtained promptly.

[ahinton]

I'm not sure that I believe that "proper redress" involves money !

It might and it might not, depending upon circumstance, but it certainly doesn't usually involve only money; if, for example, you could prove in a Court that you'd lost business or been sacked or whatever, money might well be involved in terms of consequential loss, although money would also be involved in terms of compensation in the light of the distress caused by the accusations.

and to reply to the point above
surely the situation with the church in Ireland is evidence that status can (and not always,of course) get you protection

I was referring specifically to Britain and British law but, even in the case you now mention (as could as easily happen elsewhere), having the law to protect you doesn't necessarily mean that it always will do so when you most need it, because the law gets broken and the victim has to try to prove that it did get broken and that he/she has suffered as a direct consequence; I never said that it was always straightforward and easy - merely that the law is there to be used properly.

(why is Jeffry Archer still a "Lord" ? )

Presumably because his title has not been removed from him as, for example, their knighthoods were officially removed respectively from Sir Jack Lyons and Sir Fred Goodwin (which is amusing in the former case, given the continued existence of the Sir Jack Lyons Concert Hall until long after the event); perhaps the goodly people of Weston-super-Mare don't mind about this...

[MrGongGong]

I was referring specifically to Britain and British law but, even in the case you now mention (as could as easily happen elsewhere), having the law to protect you doesn't necessarily mean that it always will do so when you most need it, because the law gets broken and the victim has to try to prove that it did get broken and that he/she has suffered as a direct consequence; I never said that it was always straightforward and easy - merely that the law is there to be used properly.

I think that's what i said as well
but you seem to have more faith than I do

I went to a performance of part of The Great Learning in the Jack Lyons Concert Hall once

[Flosshilde]

I frequently have the sensation that the world has moved on so swiftly that last week I wouldn't have understood what I'm saying now.

Thanks frenchie (do you mind me calling you that? it sounds almost too familiar).

[french frank]

Thanks frenchie (do you mind me calling you that? it sounds almost too familiar).

I think it was Bryn's invention, years ago, when I was less familiar than I am now ...

[Budapest]

Go on then. Put the name on your own blog and leave this forum in peace. Unless you've not got the balls, that is.

Resurrection Man, I am going to post about this in my own little corner of cyberspace, but I won't do it until I have enough facts about various suspects that have not been talked about on this thread, or anywhere else on the Internet, because everyone is getting their arse sued-off.

I think the point I was trying to get across is, how do we handle a situation like this, where you're up against rich and powerful people who can suppress any scandal?

Normally the Daily Mail, et al, would be on a story like this terrier-like, but they are all afraid since the Leveson enquiry.

Remember, we are talking about children being abused here, not some grubby local government corruption.

The truth will out, eventually.

[Pabmusic]

...i'm afraid unfortunately that false accusations are par for the course, on the way to accusing real offenders....it's all part of the process, ideally no matter what your status/wealth. this, balanced against the fact that many children have had no access to any form of justice, purely as they don't have the status or money ....

Is this so? Is it really true that we have to accept false allegations as 'par for the course' for a crime whose usual nature is that the wrongdoer is known to the victim?

I'm not sure that any false accusation should ever be accepted as being 'par for the course'. It reminds me of the argument that is sometimes made in favour of capital punishment - "it doesn't matter is an innocent person is hanged occasionally as long as the guilty ones are caught". And I've heard that from a government minister.

[Bryn]

I think it was Bryn's invention, years ago, when I was less familiar than I am now ...

Or better still:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpSZIXuiEls

[Flosshilde]

. It reminds me of the argument that is sometimes made in favour of capital punishment - "it doesn't matter is an innocent person is hanged occasionally as long as the guilty ones are caught". And I've heard that from a government minister.

Rather a strange argument - if an innocent person has been hanged, then the guilty one hasn't been caught, have they?