Hot Air

[IT Minion]

Don't we still have CE marks as we finally realised putting our own version together was a massive amount of red tape and wasted money?

 

[JonathanM]

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

I've found reading the judgment hard going but interesting. As far as I can tell, the judge has decided in that paragraph that it was a fact that Dyson had moved its Global Head Office to Singapore?

 

[JohnD]

You mean "little crown on pint of beer".

No, I meant what I said.

Glad I was able to correct your mistake.

No need to thank me.

 

[IT Minion]

I've found reading the judgment hard going but interesting. As far as I can tell, the judge has decided in that paragraph that it was a fact that Dyson had moved its Global Head Office to Singapore?

Same, and that he was going to reject the case as not merely a fair opinion but as truth. But I am not a lawyer so I might be mistaken.

 

[JonathanM]

Same, and that he was going to reject the case as not merely a fair opinion but as truth. But I am not a lawyer so I might be mistaken.

But the judge did not decide that James Dyson had "screwed the country". Just that it was the journo's honest opinion that he had. That is the limit of my understanding!

 

[blup]

Brexit just needs time.

It was sold as an instant cure

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

It was the selfish and short sighted that got us into this mess

Brexit was the best think the British public did for themselves since WWII.

The best thing since the second world war was churchill's support for a united states of europe, brexhit has only alienated the very countries we need to work with against the threats from the worlds other superpowers.

The EU grew from the ashes of ww2, and a mutual desire that europe would never come to war again in the same way

Blup

 

[motorbiking]

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

It’s hard to follow, I appreciate that. But no it doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said.

@JonathanM you have correctly interpreted the judgement.

and my comment that it looked pretty weak was a comment on the strength of the claimant’s claim. Not a comment on the judgement.

If you cannot prove serious harm. You have no case.

 

[JohnD]

He said no such thing.

Yes, he did.

 

[blup]

The judge separated the fact from the opinion, and found that the facts were true, but even if they weren't the defence of honsest opinion was made out to his satisfaction. There was no malice and no serious harm. So the Mirror won hands down. My take on it, but it was a double whammy.

Blup

 

[blup]

If you cannot prove serious harm. You have no case.

True so far as it goes but more factually complex than that.

Blup

 

[motorbiking]

The judge separated the fact from the opinion, and found that the facts were true, but even if they weren't the defence of honsest opinion was made out to his satisfaction. There was no malice and no serious harm. So the Mirror won hands down. My take on it, but it was a double whammy.

Blup

Pretty much, though..

The judge has to look at 3 things. The harm, the facts and the opinions.

The facts were not disputed. He did move HQ…
The opinion that he was a hypocrite etc. are just opinion. Had the facts been incorrect it would have changed the dynamics but probably not the outcome.

The judge did not rule that the opinion was fact. The opinions have not been validated by the judge. They have been categorised as opinions.

He has not been proven to be a hypocrite according to the judgement.

The only bit anyone really needs to read is the second to last paragraph.

 

[JohnD]

The fact was proven to be true.

 

[motorbiking]

Yes, he did.

Same, and that he was going to reject the case as not merely a fair opinion but as truth. But I am not a lawyer so I might be mistaken.

see other reply. That’s not what the judge has done.

Opinions just needs to be honest. X did A and B therefore X is Y.

If A and B are facts. It can establish that Y is honest opinion. If it turns out they weren’t then the honest opinion can be damaged.

The fact was proven to be true.

Which fact?

Opinions are just opinions - they do not stand.

 

[JohnD]

Which fact?

the fact indicated in the article

 

[JonathanM]

the fact indicated in the article

Presumably this one?

“the Claimant has publicly supported the benefits of Brexit to British industry, yet following Brexit he had moved the global head office of his business to Singapore."