King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: At last the question begins to emerge - can liars (and publishers of lies) be sued?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
bh	Rather "funnily" I see Freddie S & Gary G not even being brought to court, for these cases. As there is really no evidence on that one. For instance, who is this mystery girl apparently having "relations" in the Dressing Room? Karin W (or whoever she used to be) doesn't seem to know her name...even though they were both at Duncroft!
Hedda	and of course the media wins as the story gets new legs. As to being sued..I think Freddie Starr's retirement fund is secured.
JK2006	BBC News inadvertently moved in this direction when interviewing Sir Christopher Bland. If some of the accusers are lying, can they be sued? Obviously they (and lawyers advising them) think NOT because Jimmy Savile is dead. But a) allegations about living members of BBC staff may prove to be false and b) it may be that there's a case to sue commercial companies deliberately and maliciously trying to damage our national media corporation - the BBC. Since we own the BBC as shareholders in UK Inc... could we demand legal action? And though LIBEL laws may not apply to any false accusers who cannot prove their claims, how about the crime of Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of JUSTICE? Especially if other witnesses can be found ("she's lying; I was there that day and nothing happened"). And - for example - forging a Police letter in order to justify a compensation claim? Surely that is a criminal act? And how about "failing to mention or produce such a letter in order to give balance to a TV programme"? If the makers knew about such a thing (and publication in a national paper ought surely to guarantee that) the crime of OMISSION indicates malicious intent? Did the makers of the ITV Savile show know about that letter? If so, why did they fail to mention it or show it? I'm sure Surrey Police ARE investigating the forgery (which may be why it's not been covered in the media since the Mail exposed it) and they should be bringing charges when they discover who was responsible. That will be an interesting court case, worthy of a TV special.