 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010Totally scrotally OT (allegedly)
Belibeleaguered author Simon Singh is trying to get Britain's political parties to include the reform of English libel laws in their manifestos. He reckons this would be more likely if the Libel Reform Campaign's petition <http://www.libelreform.org/sign> attracted at least 100,000 signatories. There are currently about 17,000. Time is short. Here's why Singh thinks reform is necessary (more at the website): === (a) English libel laws have been condemned by the UN Human Rights Committee. (b) These laws gag scientists, bloggers and journalists who want to discuss matters of genuine public interest (and public health!). (c) Our laws give rise to libel tourism, whereby the rich and the powerful (Saudi billionaires, Russian oligarchs and overseas corporations) come to London to sue writers because English libel laws are so hostile to responsible journalism. (In fact, it is exactly because English libel laws have this global impact that we welcome signatories to the petition from around the world.) (d) Vested interests can use their resources to bully and intimidate those who seek to question them. The cost of a libel trial in England is 100 times more expensive than the European average and typically runs to over £1 million. (e) Three separate ongoing libel cases involve myself and two medical researchers raising concerns about three medical treatments. We face losing £1 million each. In future, why would anyone else raise similar concerns? If these health matters are not reported, then the public is put at risk. === Please think about thinking about signing. -- VB Fascinating Fact at the Foot of the Page: Six or seven thousand British nationals lose their passports in Spain every year. > Belibeleaguered I like it. > author Simon Singh is trying to get Britain's > political parties to include the reform of English libel laws in their [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (a) English libel laws have been condemned by the UN Human Rights > Committee. That's pretty impressive. > (b) These laws gag scientists, bloggers and journalists who want to > discuss matters of genuine public interest (and public health!). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > because English libel laws have this global impact that we welcome > signatories to the petition from around the world.) ... Good for the balance of payments, though. *ponders making suggestion to state government* > === > > Please think about thinking about signing. Are you making fun of "The cost... is 100 times more expensive"? > -- > VB > Fascinating Fact at the Foot of the Page: Six or seven thousand > British nationals lose their passports in Spain every year. Well? Which is it? -- Jerry Friedman [...] > > Here's why Singh thinks reform is necessary (more at the website): > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's pretty impressive. Human Rights aren't my cup of tea but any support will do. This is a just cause, ferkrissakes! > > (b) These laws gag scientists, bloggers and journalists who want to > > discuss matters of genuine public interest (and public health!). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > because English libel laws have this global impact that we welcome > > signatories to the petition from around the world.) > Good for the balance of payments, though. *ponders making suggestion > to state government* 'Tis the opposite, no? ... > > Please think about thinking about signing. > > Are you making fun of "The cost... is 100 times more expensive"? No. I'm sincere for once. Our libel laws are potty. '100 times more expensive' does seem a bit unlikely (especially when coming from a seeker after truth) but ... So does his '£1 million', now I come to think of it ... These details don't matter! Just sign the bloody thing! Our libel laws are a national disgrace. Help us! > > Fascinating Fact at the Foot of the Page: Six or seven thousand > > British nationals lose their passports in Spain every year. > > Well? Which is it? 6,078 in 2005/2006; 6,710 in 2006/2007. -- VB Fascinating Fact at the Foot of the Page: Proportionate to the number of visits, British nationals are more likely to be arrested in Cyprus, closely followed by the USA and the United Arab Emirates. > [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > seeker after truth) but ... So does his '£1 million', now I come to > think of it ... Actually, a million isn't incredible. > These details don't matter! Just sign the bloody thing! Our libel laws > are a national disgrace. Help us! I signed the bloody thing. Rewrote the covering letter to my MP, too, chopping out the boilerplate, and taking the opp. to decry the equally appalling misuse of super-injunctions. Strong strains of sycophancy still streak this society.  SignatureMike. > -- > VB [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Cyprus, > closely followed by the USA and the United Arab Emirates. I like the sound of this, but the exact sense escapes me. Is it that British Nationals are likely to be arrested in Cyprus more than are USAns and UAEns? Or, are BNs who are arrested most likely to be arrested in Cyprus, second-most-likely to be arrested in the USA, and third-most-likely, in UAE? Or, is it that among those arrested in all those places, BNs top the list in Cyprus, are second in USA, and third in AUE? Or, what? SignatureFrank ess Thiking of suing on behalf of never-arrested BNs who may have been slighted by publication of the allegedly Fascinating alleged Fact Frank ess <frank@fshe2fs.com>: >> -- >> VB [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Or, what? I'd say none of those, though the second is closest. If a British National visits another country, the probability of him/her being arrested in that country is greatest in Cyprus, etc. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England Frank ess filted: >> -- >> VB [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Or, what? That British nationals in Cyprus need to *very* careful that they're not being followed by the USA and the UAE.... (So help me, I too automatically tried to type that last abbreviation as AUE)....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > [...] > > > Here's why Singh thinks reform is necessary (more at the website): [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Human Rights aren't my cup of tea but any support will do. This is a > just cause, ferkrissakes! Okay, okay! > > > (b) These laws gag scientists, bloggers and journalists who want to > > > discuss matters of genuine public interest (and public health!). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > because English libel laws have this global impact that we welcome > > > signatories to the petition from around the world.) > > Good for the balance of payments, though. *ponders making suggestion > > to state government* > > 'Tis the opposite, no? Hm. Are libel judgements more than what libel tourists and their entourages spend while visiting London? > ... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No. Well, you should have been. "Expensive" needs to be deleted. > I'm sincere for once. Our libel laws are potty. Careful--they might sue you. > '100 times more > expensive' does seem a bit unlikely (especially when coming from a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > These details don't matter! Just sign the bloody thing! Our libel laws > are a national disgrace. Help us! Okay, I did, even before I read this response. It didn't forward anything to my MP. It probably doesn't even know Ben Ray Lujan's name. I wonder whether I can start any international petitions over American national disgraces. > > > Fascinating Fact at the Foot of the Page: Six or seven thousand > > > British nationals lose their passports in Spain every year. > > > Well? Which is it? > > 6,078 in 2005/2006; 6,710 in 2006/2007. Sorry, just kidding. But fascinating (the fact, not me). -- Jerry Friedman [...] > > > Good for the balance of payments, though. *ponders making suggestion > > > to state government* [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hm. Are libel judgements more than what libel tourists and their > entourages spend while visiting London? Probably not, no. I assumed that any damages trousered by libel tourists would be paid in the UK. By whom? I have no idea. (I'm going to sue my brain for making me stupid.) > > > Are you making fun of "The cost... is 100 times more expensive"? > > > No. > > Well, you should have been. "Expensive" needs to be deleted. D'oh! There it goes again. -- VB > Fascinating Fact at the Foot of the Page: Proportionate to the number > of visits, British nationals are more likely to be arrested in Cyprus, > closely followed by the USA and the United Arab Emirates. Much too soft. They get murdered in Australia. SignatureRob Bannister >> Fascinating Fact at the Foot of the Page: Proportionate to the number >> of visits, British nationals are more likely to be arrested in Cyprus, >> closely followed by the USA and the United Arab Emirates. > >Much too soft. They get murdered in Australia. Here we just put 'em in tour buses and drive them off the road on mountains. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk Belibeleaguered author Simon Singh is trying to get Britain's political parties to include the reform of English libel laws in their manifestos. He reckons this would be more likely if the Libel Reform Campaign's petition <http://www.libelreform.org/sign> attracted at least 100,000 signatories. There are currently about 17,000. Time is short. Here's why Singh thinks reform is necessary (more at the website): === (a) English libel laws have been condemned by the UN Human Rights Committee. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Max Mosely affair is a case in point. That case would have never been allowed in the U.S. because what the journalist wrote was true. In the U.K. Mosely won because exposing he was a Nazi pervert hurt his reputation, even though he is a Nazi and a pervert. > The Max Mosely affair is a case in point. Apart from two trivial matters: his name is Max Mosley and it wasn't a libel case. > That case would have never been allowed in the U.S. because what the > journalist wrote was true. Except that it wasn't - not entirely. > In the U.K. Mosely won because exposing he was a Nazi pervert hurt his > reputation, even though he is a Nazi and a pervert. He may be either or both of those, for all I know, but that is not what the case was about. Regards Jonathan >> The Max Mosely affair is a case in point. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > He may be either or both of those, for all I know, but that is not what > the case was about. He was caught in a Nazi themed S&M party. As for being a Nazi pervert. the films establish the pervert part beyonda doubt. As for being a Nazi, he was a leader of the Union Movement, the decendent of the British Union of Fascists, a party started by his daddy Sir Oswald Mosley, >>> The Max Mosely affair is a case in point. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >As for being a Nazi pervert. the films establish the pervert part beyonda >doubt. Ray, your prejudices are showing. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.