Good old Coutts

[blup]

Good old nige

Blup

 

[blup]

If you allow me to explain the elements for a moment..

To prove Defamation:

A claimant needs to show that the statement complained of:

1. is defamatory, meaning that an ordinary person would think worse of the claimant as a result of the statement;
2. identifies or refers to them, and
3. is published to a third party.

1. The collation of existing commentary, compiled in to a report/essay with additional commentary, ticks the box of making a statement. There are decided cases for re-tweets for example and there is also the concept of defamation by innuendo or the "nod, nod, wink, wink rule" as it's sometimes referred. Anyone reading the 40 page report will conclude point 1. No matter what your opinion of him, it's nasty stuff and much of it is disputable. Just look at the division of opinion here on him.

2. Pretty easy - he is named.

3. Note - Point 3 does not say, made public, merely published to a 3rd party. If I tell you, you are a pedo for example, I do not defame you, if I tell 1 other person, its different. It only need to be created and distributed. The report was compiled and distributed to a supposedly independent risk board, who took decisions based on the content. Additionally, information was shared more broadly and once NF complained to the press, the contents used to brief execs. Lastly we have the false statement made to the BBC. NF then used the SAR to obtain the evidence, which he published to defend himself. That is point 3 ticked.

So defamation is established, you then look at the lawful authority and excuse elements. You are welcome to have a look, I've published links to the act several times. I doubt it will take you long to conclude that none have any merit.

So when Borris complains to his Mrs what a two faced d*ck rishy is, there’s defamation? Trillions of non events like this every day

Blup

 

[Brigadier]

I know Motorbiking likes a recap / timeline, so here it is:

1. Fromage tells lies
2. Fromage blows a few horns
3. Lots of people come to the conclusion that he's a lying hornsmoker
4. Coutts come to the same conclusion
5. Fromage publicises the Coutts conclusion
6. Motorbiking makes dozens of posts about how Fromage has a strong case against Coutts

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I think point 5 is fairly important

 

[motorbiking]

So when Borris complains to his Mrs what a two faced d*ck rishy is, there’s defamation? Trillions of non events like this every day

Blup

Did he commission a report on the subject, spanning 40 pages and publish it to others who would take action based on the content? Action that would cause damages (legal meaning) to Rishi?

 

[JohnD]

6. Motorbiking makes dozens of posts about how Fromage has a strong case against Coutts

But won't (can't? ) express what he thinks it is.

 

[JohnD]

the first thing about defamation law.

Is it that there actually has to be defamation?

Do you think you know what it was?

 

[motorbiking]

Incorect.
The first thing you have to show is harm (sec 1 Serious Harm)

Have you read the report yet?

 

[motorbiking]

But won't (can't? ) express what he thinks it is.

nonsense - I've provided everything short of a brief to council.

 

[JohnD]

A question is not incorrect.

Are you ever going to say what defamation (if any) you think was published?

Who published it?

 

[motorbiking]

Not in a form that you will accept, all the time you pretend to be hard of thinking.

Perhaps you would like to set out the defence? you wont.

Who published it?

The bank. remember what the act says - the definition of publish in not to place it in the public domain, merely to share it with a 3rd party.
Then we have the misleading and inaccurate BBC report, now amended and apologised for.

 

[denso13]

If only he hadn't thrown his money away...

 

[blup]

Did he commission a report on the subject, spanning 40 pages and publish it to others who would take action based on the content? Action that would cause damages (legal meaning) to Rishi?

Same point of principle, the jury would award him 1 pence damages and several million in legal costs. Far rage is playing a political game not a legal one, it’s all he knows. Sadly natteest didn’t have the balls to double down

Blup

 

[motorbiking]

even if you are right. we are left with breach of contract, breach of data protection, and possibly breach of payment account regulations. Though that last one may have been remedied.

 

[gant]

Not in a form that you will accept, all the time you pretend to be hard of thinking.

Perhaps you would like to set out the defence? you wont

Lol very much doubt he's read the report given his stance.