Did JM ever really love Jeremy Bamber?

[Gerald]

I'm glad you're back NGB, perhaps you could explain the Hon. Mr Justice Bell's decision in the McDonalds libel case, and especially his comments at paragraphs 59, 60 and 61, where he says:

59. Where a Plaintiff establishes the publication of words which are defamatory, he has established his claim subject to the Defendant proving that he has a defence to the claim. The Plaintiff does not have to prove that the defamatory words are false. The law presumes that the defamatory words are false until the contrary is shown.


60. However, it is a complete defence to an action for libel to show that defamatory statements of alleged fact are true in substance and in fact. This is the defence of "justification" and it was the primary defence of Ms Steel and Mr Morris in this case. They contended that the substance of what is said in the factsheet is true.


61. The burden of proving that the substance of the words is true lies on the Defendant even though the Plaintiff may have set out to prove that the words are in fact false, as McDonald's have done in many instances in this case. Again the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

Here is a link:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1997/366.html

No, I don't believe you are a lawyer - because:

a) A lawyer would not make assertions as if they were fact regarding areas of law they clearly know little about.

b) A lawyer would understand that once beaten on a point it is better to concede defeat gracefully.

c) A lawyer would be more than able to fight his own battles, and would not expect others to fight them for him.

A repeat of your claim that I am a liar.  You are really taunting the moderators now as they will have to decide what to do about this. I wil await a response to your latest post from one of them.  I have no intention of debating points with you because i) I cannot be bothered to argue with offensive characters like you and ii) you would not accept any point I make because you are either too stupid/arrogant  or you are following your own agenda.

If you were to actually make a point I would give it my full consideration.

[andrea]

right ok, ive seen enough, can everyone drop the squabbling and behave? concentrate on the CASE not each other, i dont want to start editing or removing posts.thanks

[ngb1066]

right ok, ive seen enough, can everyone drop the squabbling and behave? concentrate on the CASE not each other, i dont want to start editing or removing posts.thanks

Andrea  - are you placing my posts in the same category as Gerald's?  Are you suggesting that you are going to remove any of my posts?  I believe we need some firm action by moderators here and I have urged for that to happen but we have not seen any yet.  This forum is rapidly going downhill.

[jon]

right ok, ive seen enough, can everyone drop the squabbling and behave? concentrate on the CASE not each other, i dont want to start editing or removing posts.thanks

A MOD should get involved only if somebody complain's and then discreetly !! IMO

[andrea]

hello ngb  :D i dont want to start removing any posts to be completely honest.

your opinion is valued here as you know, but as a moderator i see it as my job to ask people to stop the bickering because the forum will go down hill as you said.

my post above was aimed at all not just a particular poster, i havent been online much in the past couple of weeks, so i havent really got a "feel" for things that have been posted.

I intend to contact other moderators and try and find ways to stop offensive or malicious posters because it ruins debate. But without banning them, because we are all enititled to our opinions.


Anyway ngb keep posting the forum bennefits from them, and they are an interesting read. This is my first time as a mod so im new to this. thanks

[grahameb]

Jackie, is it true that Jeremy is godfather to your children?

I know this one. No he is not and what has this to to with the current thread? Me thinks that your words are calculated to provoke Jackie. Warning. Your supposed facts are indeed ERROR.

You can take it any way you like but at the end of the day it was a valid question which she chose to answer in silence.  I can only infer that such silence is tantamount to acknowledging that it is indeed correct.  Is she embarrassed by the revelation I wonder?

Well Jerry all I can say is that I have knowledge of this one and you are just demonstrating your ignorance by suggesting something so ridiculous. This also indicates to me that you are ignorant on many things and that you are just second guessing. Anyway Jerry this still stands as a warning to you that if you persist in such blank questions which have nothing whatsoever to do with the thread but are just calculated to cause confusion and aggression then I will take you offline.

[grahameb]

right ok, ive seen enough, can everyone drop the squabbling and behave? concentrate on the CASE not each other, i dont want to start editing or removing posts.thanks

A MOD should get involved only if somebody complain's and then discreetly !! IMO

I'm afraid that you are wrong jon. If someone is openly abused or called names then the person who does the abusing should expect to receive an open rebuke for their actions. Arguments are ok but when they get personal then the moderators should take action. I take my position as moderator very seriously and I expect the other mods to do likewise. Please do not suggest any favouritism on my part because my first and foremost task is to see to the smooth running of the forum. I will do that job with equity and uprightness. If I do this, then I must also expect flak from both sides of the argument as each will see my decision as one sided. Please do not provoke me.

[grahameb]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Gerald  - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can.  To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true.  If the statements are true they are not defamatory.  The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.

As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action.  The first is as I have explained above for the second time.  The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements.  In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation.  Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives.  The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.

Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases.  I have also advised publishers on libel issues.

I wasn't going to ask because clearly you haven't.

There is a laymans guide to defamation on the Liberty website, I suggest you read it.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/index.html

You are a layman then Gerald? I can confirm that ngb IS a barrister and has much more than a "schoolboy" knowledge of the law. It is up to you of course as to whether you believe that or not. If you refuse to believe it of course then it is your choice to remain in ignorance. But please refrain from implying that ngb is a lyer by your continued berating of him and his knowledge of the law? Thank you.

[Roch]

Can we agree to start from this minimum baseline:

No poster is to allege of another poster that they are personally a liar.  This does still allow for questioning of a posters particular standpoint / experience / knowledge in any given area

No poster is to personally insult another poster.  This still allows for posters to be critical of each others views and stand points

Where searching questions are asked by a poster from one side of the spectrum, to a poster from another side, those questions should be worded in as polite a manner as is possible, so as to particularly avoid 'goading'.

Sarcasm should be overlooked, as long as it doesn't fall in to any of the above categories.  We cant police everything.

Multiple user-names are not permitted.  Please note we have one poster who has had a string of Christian names as user-names.  Bit of a coincidence?

This still leaves the problem of when two posters are having a spat.  Now this can become highly entertaining for other posters to view.  We don't want a sterile forum where there is no entertainment do we?  This kind of disagreement does sometimes further the debate because it often happens around a specific contentious issue.  I think when this happens we should look out for any of the above happening and also look out for repetitive, disruptive behavior.

[Jerry]

I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly.  It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.

Usual hogwash from ngb1066, when the going gets tuff, the week get moaning.

[Roch]

I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly.  It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.

Usual hogwash from ngb1066, when the going gets tuff, the week get moaning.

Jerry you cannot seem to help your own habitual need to cause strife.  No matter which Christian name you use, I fear your days on the forum could be numbered, unless you revert back to contributing to the forum in a constructive manner. 

[Jerry]

I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly.  It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.

Usual hogwash from ngb1066, when the going gets tuff, the week get moaning.

Jerry you cannot seem to help your own habitual need to cause strife.  No matter which Christian name you use, I fear your days on the forum could be numbered, unless you revert back to contributing to the forum in a constructive manner.

Is that a personal threat Rochford...maybe you should take note of your own rules before you act all high and mighty?

I am perfectly entitled to make an observation and that observation was that ngb1066 threw the dummy out of the pram as someone else suggested earlier.

[Roch]

I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly.  It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.

Usual hogwash from ngb1066, when the going gets tuff, the week get moaning.

Jerry you cannot seem to help your own habitual need to cause strife.  No matter which Christian name you use, I fear your days on the forum could be numbered, unless you revert back to contributing to the forum in a constructive manner.

Is that a personal threat Rochford...maybe you should take note of your own rules before you act all high and mighty?

No it is not a threat.  I am simply reminding you that you've been given a long leash, of late.  However I'm not sure it is possible for a leopard to change it's spots in this case.

[Gerald]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Gerald  - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can.  To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true.  If the statements are true they are not defamatory.  The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.

As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action.  The first is as I have explained above for the second time.  The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements.  In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation.  Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives.  The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.

Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases.  I have also advised publishers on libel issues.

I wasn't going to ask because clearly you haven't.

There is a laymans guide to defamation on the Liberty website, I suggest you read it.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/index.html

You are a layman then Gerald? I can confirm that ngb IS a barrister and has much more than a "schoolboy" knowledge of the law. It is up to you of course as to whether you believe that or not. If you refuse to believe it of course then it is your choice to remain in ignorance. But please refrain from implying that ngb is a lyer by your continued berating of him and his knowledge of the law? Thank you.

I was simply trying to find something which illustrated my point and which was written in language which anyone following the link would understand.

It is of course up to me to believe what I will, and the same applies to anyone else who takes the trouble to follow the argument.

For the record, I have no other user names.

[grahameb]

I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly.  It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.

Usual hogwash from ngb1066, when the going gets tuff, the week get moaning.

Jerry you cannot seem to help your own habitual need to cause strife.  No matter which Christian name you use, I fear your days on the forum could be numbered, unless you revert back to contributing to the forum in a constructive manner.

Is that a personal threat Rochford...maybe you should take note of your own rules before you act all high and mighty?

I am perfectly entitled to make an observation and that observation was that ngb1066 threw the dummy out of the pram as someone else suggested earlier.

No it is a moderating decision Jerry. I'm sure it isn't beyond you to hold a civilised conversation without all this backbiting just out of spite towards another member?