Hot Air

[carmanmemoranda]

Yes, the claimant failed, the defendant won.

 

[motorbiking]

Yep. The judge said that what was written was pretty much truthful.

He said no such thing.

Honest opinion does not mean it’s fact.

Claimant failed to prove serious harm. Honest opinion has always been a defence.

There is no defamation without showing serious harm.

Judgement is here.

Looked pretty weak tbh.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Dyson-v-MGN-Judgment.pdf

 

[Notch7]

Looked pretty weak tbh.

Opinion, doesn’t mean it’s fact…..as you point out.

 

[noseall]

He said no such thing.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Dyson the brexer phony - lost boyo.

 

[IT Minion]

He said no such thing.

Honest opinion does not mean it’s fact.

Claimant failed to prove serious harm. Honest opinion has always been a defence.

There is no defamation without showing serious harm.

Judgement is here.

Looked pretty weak tbh.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Dyson-v-MGN-Judgment.pdf

I therefore conclude that the fact indicated in the article was true. Further, the para 19
facts, to the extent that these travel more widely, are also substantially true.
119. I asked Ms Page whether I could, or should, make a finding of fact as to Dyson’s real
reasons for the para 19 decisions. Ms Page strongly submitted that I should not. Mr
Justin Rushbrooke KC for the Claimantsubmitted that it was open to me to make certain
findings on this topic but he did not suggest that I was required to. Until Ms Page
advanced the submission that she did I was minded to set out my conclusions as to
Dyson’s reasons for the para 19 decisions, not least because these, albeit multifactorial,
seem clear – at least on the information contained in the voluminous trial bundles.
However, I have been persuaded by Ms Page that I should be careful not to express any
comment beyond that which is absolutely necessary to determine the issues in this
litigation. It is not my function to undermine Mr Reade. Furthermore, I have said “at
least on the information contained in the voluminous trial bundles” because I recognise
that all the financial, accounting and tax implications have not been evidenced and
explored.

When providing a source it's always a good idea to make sure it doesn't directly contradict you.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

He said no such thing.

Honest opinion does not mean it’s fact.

Claimant failed to prove serious harm. Honest opinion has always been a defence.

There is no defamation without showing serious harm.

Judgement is here.

Looked pretty weak tbh.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Dyson-v-MGN-Judgment.pdf

The article was not retracted, or a forced apology made.

The point made, stands

 

[JohnD]

"the fact indicated in the article was true"

Good enough for me.

 

[JohnD]

He said no such thing.

Are you embarrassed?

 

[BlueLoo]

Brexit was the best think the British public did for themselves since WWII.
The Brits are ace at doing what's right, not what is best in the short term.

Brexit just needs time.

Something the selfish and the short sighted are not prepared to accept.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Brexit was the best think the British public did for themselves since WWII.
The Brits are ace at doing what's right, not what is best in the short term.

Brexit just needs time.

Something the selfish and the short sighted are not prepared to accept.

Point out the benefits then

 

[JohnD]

Little crown on beer glass.

 

[BlueLoo]

Point out the benefits then

That argument has been done to death.

 

[BlueLoo]

Little crown on beer glass.

You mean "little crown on pint of beer".
No different than a CE mark on your 500ml of beer in the EU.

Either way, it's regional control.

 

[JohnD]

The crown is on the glass, not the beer.

The only "Brexit Benefit"

 

[BlueLoo]

The crown is on the glass, not the beer.

No ****, Sherlock.