FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Caroles lies
Caroles lies
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof?" So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. "Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying." The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. "Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia." No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case. | |||
| |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case." From the Guardian, June '22: "The defence fell away after the Electoral Commission found no evidence of law-breaking by Banks with respect to donations" And: "Cadwalladr has argued she did not intend to imply that Banks had received Russian money, nor that he lied about receiving Russian money, only about the extent of his contacts with Russia. After the preliminary hearing ruling she dropped the defence of truth and relied on public interest." | |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case." Yes. I feel that hiding behind the "free press " which was her attempt at defending herself was improper. We need to address the law on reporting e.g injuctions for reporting and also printing without proof as well as not giving context. As per the point on increases. The trial should have never had to go to appeal for banks to win damages and have his costs covered. That's a poor judiciary. No. she said herself she had 0 evidence. There was 0 evidence. | |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case. From the Guardian, June '22: "The defence fell away after the Electoral Commission found no evidence of law-breaking by Banks with respect to donations" And: "Cadwalladr has argued she did not intend to imply that Banks had received Russian money, nor that he lied about receiving Russian money, only about the extent of his contacts with Russia. After the preliminary hearing ruling she dropped the defence of truth and relied on public interest."" Good to see some one else who actually reads in these threads.  | |||
"Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia." "No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case." "From the Guardian, June '22: "The defence fell away after the Electoral Commission found no evidence of law-breaking by Banks with respect to donations"" Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There's plenty of evidence of Banks dealing with Russians, and taking money from them. So there's plenty of evidence that he's "in bed with Russia". But he's a businessman, and there was no restriction on doing business with Russia at that time, so there's no problem there. Where Cadwalladr went wrong is in saying that he was taking money from Russians and directly passing it to the Leave campaign, breaking Electoral Commission rules. There was no evidence of that at all. He might have done it, but there's no evidence. ""Cadwalladr has argued she did not intend to imply that Banks had received Russian money, nor that he lied about receiving Russian money, only about the extent of his contacts with Russia. After the preliminary hearing ruling she dropped the defence of truth and relied on public interest."" That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence, because there was plenty of evidence that Banks was dealing with Russians, and she claimed that she was just revealing those dealings. She lost her argument that she hasn't intended to imply wrong-doing on the part of Banks, but she won the first case because the judge (erroneously) decided that no actionable harm had been done to Banks. | |||
"Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case. From the Guardian, June '22: "The defence fell away after the Electoral Commission found no evidence of law-breaking by Banks with respect to donations" Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There's plenty of evidence of Banks dealing with Russians, and taking money from them. So there's plenty of evidence that he's "in bed with Russia". But he's a businessman, and there was no restriction on doing business with Russia at that time, so there's no problem there. Where Cadwalladr went wrong is in saying that he was taking money from Russians and directly passing it to the Leave campaign, breaking Electoral Commission rules. There was no evidence of that at all. He might have done it, but there's no evidence. "Cadwalladr has argued she did not intend to imply that Banks had received Russian money, nor that he lied about receiving Russian money, only about the extent of his contacts with Russia. After the preliminary hearing ruling she dropped the defence of truth and relied on public interest." That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence, because there was plenty of evidence that Banks was dealing with Russians, and she claimed that she was just revealing those dealings. She lost her argument that she hasn't intended to imply wrong-doing on the part of Banks, but she won the first case because the judge (erroneously) decided that no actionable harm had been done to Banks." There wasn't any evidence. That's why carole said she had no evidence in court. No evidence they supplied him any money or did any deal other basis he support brexit I am sorry this just isn't true and has been proven in the court of law. Carole admitted it. If you have it the show your hand. | |||
| |||
"Broadening the scope of the topic - why do we think the govt refused to look into even the possibility of Russian interference in Brexit? " Let's keep to this topic for now. | |||
| |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case." amateur view alert: it appeared that the fpurt found she couldn't continue to support her claims once extra evidence came to light. Harshly (imo) she "continued to make claims" via a ted talk she has no control over. I found that bit odd. And also dont quite understand why he went after her not Ted. (Other than for nefarious reasons). | |||
"Broadening the scope of the topic - why do we think the govt refused to look into even the possibility of Russian interference in Brexit? Let's keep to this topic for now. " Fair enough. They’re connected though. | |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case.amateur view alert: it appeared that the fpurt found she couldn't continue to support her claims once extra evidence came to light. Harshly (imo) she "continued to make claims" via a ted talk she has no control over. I found that bit odd. And also dont quite understand why he went after her not Ted. (Other than for nefarious reasons). " She gave the Ted talk that defamed him | |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case.amateur view alert: it appeared that the fpurt found she couldn't continue to support her claims once extra evidence came to light. Harshly (imo) she "continued to make claims" via a ted talk she has no control over. I found that bit odd. And also dont quite understand why he went after her not Ted. (Other than for nefarious reasons). She gave the Ted talk that defamed him" and at that time she was able to make comments using a public interest defence. It was only when subsequent info came out she couldn't use the defence. By which time the ted talk was out of her control. | |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case.amateur view alert: it appeared that the fpurt found she couldn't continue to support her claims once extra evidence came to light. Harshly (imo) she "continued to make claims" via a ted talk she has no control over. I found that bit odd. And also dont quite understand why he went after her not Ted. (Other than for nefarious reasons). She gave the Ted talk that defamed himand at that time she was able to make comments using a public interest defence. It was only when subsequent info came out she couldn't use the defence. By which time the ted talk was out of her control. " No she couldn't. You can not say some 1 was influenced by Russia and given money to fund brexit under public interest. | |||
| |||
"Until we have our answers." What answers are you hoping to find on an anonymous sex site? | |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case.amateur view alert: it appeared that the fpurt found she couldn't continue to support her claims once extra evidence came to light. Harshly (imo) she "continued to make claims" via a ted talk she has no control over. I found that bit odd. And also dont quite understand why he went after her not Ted. (Other than for nefarious reasons). She gave the Ted talk that defamed himand at that time she was able to make comments using a public interest defence. It was only when subsequent info came out she couldn't use the defence. By which time the ted talk was out of her control. No she couldn't. You can not say some 1 was influenced by Russia and given money to fund brexit under public interest." had there been no police investigation would banks had won his case ? | |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case.amateur view alert: it appeared that the fpurt found she couldn't continue to support her claims once extra evidence came to light. Harshly (imo) she "continued to make claims" via a ted talk she has no control over. I found that bit odd. And also dont quite understand why he went after her not Ted. (Other than for nefarious reasons). She gave the Ted talk that defamed himand at that time she was able to make comments using a public interest defence. It was only when subsequent info came out she couldn't use the defence. By which time the ted talk was out of her control. No she couldn't. You can not say some 1 was influenced by Russia and given money to fund brexit under public interest.had there been no police investigation would banks had won his case ?" No police investigation? He didn't need an investigation. It was up to carole to prove her claims She couldnt | |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case.amateur view alert: it appeared that the fpurt found she couldn't continue to support her claims once extra evidence came to light. Harshly (imo) she "continued to make claims" via a ted talk she has no control over. I found that bit odd. And also dont quite understand why he went after her not Ted. (Other than for nefarious reasons). She gave the Ted talk that defamed himand at that time she was able to make comments using a public interest defence. It was only when subsequent info came out she couldn't use the defence. By which time the ted talk was out of her control. No she couldn't. You can not say some 1 was influenced by Russia and given money to fund brexit under public interest.had there been no police investigation would banks had won his case ? No police investigation? He didn't need an investigation. It was up to carole to prove her claims She couldnt" why did thee first two parts of the appeal fail then ? | |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case.amateur view alert: it appeared that the fpurt found she couldn't continue to support her claims once extra evidence came to light. Harshly (imo) she "continued to make claims" via a ted talk she has no control over. I found that bit odd. And also dont quite understand why he went after her not Ted. (Other than for nefarious reasons). She gave the Ted talk that defamed himand at that time she was able to make comments using a public interest defence. It was only when subsequent info came out she couldn't use the defence. By which time the ted talk was out of her control. No she couldn't. You can not say some 1 was influenced by Russia and given money to fund brexit under public interest.had there been no police investigation would banks had won his case ? No police investigation? He didn't need an investigation. It was up to carole to prove her claims She couldntwhy did thee first two parts of the appeal fail then ?" The court said she did defame him. This was never in doubt the failure are where he gets his damages from and timing's. "The claimant has proved tbe publication of the TED talk has caused a s or is likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The TED talk is defamatory or Mr Banks." | |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case.amateur view alert: it appeared that the fpurt found she couldn't continue to support her claims once extra evidence came to light. Harshly (imo) she "continued to make claims" via a ted talk she has no control over. I found that bit odd. And also dont quite understand why he went after her not Ted. (Other than for nefarious reasons). She gave the Ted talk that defamed himand at that time she was able to make comments using a public interest defence. It was only when subsequent info came out she couldn't use the defence. By which time the ted talk was out of her control. No she couldn't. You can not say some 1 was influenced by Russia and given money to fund brexit under public interest.had there been no police investigation would banks had won his case ? No police investigation? He didn't need an investigation. It was up to carole to prove her claims She couldntwhy did thee first two parts of the appeal fail then ? The court said she did defame him. This was never in doubt the failure are where he gets his damages from and timing's. "The claimant has proved tbe publication of the TED talk has caused a s or is likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The TED talk is defamatory or Mr Banks." " however she had a public interest defence until the point of the investigation outcomes. Otherwise why did the first two fail ? | |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case.amateur view alert: it appeared that the fpurt found she couldn't continue to support her claims once extra evidence came to light. Harshly (imo) she "continued to make claims" via a ted talk she has no control over. I found that bit odd. And also dont quite understand why he went after her not Ted. (Other than for nefarious reasons). She gave the Ted talk that defamed himand at that time she was able to make comments using a public interest defence. It was only when subsequent info came out she couldn't use the defence. By which time the ted talk was out of her control. No she couldn't. You can not say some 1 was influenced by Russia and given money to fund brexit under public interest.had there been no police investigation would banks had won his case ? No police investigation? He didn't need an investigation. It was up to carole to prove her claims She couldntwhy did thee first two parts of the appeal fail then ? The court said she did defame him. This was never in doubt the failure are where he gets his damages from and timing's. "The claimant has proved tbe publication of the TED talk has caused a s or is likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The TED talk is defamatory or Mr Banks." however she had a public interest defence until the point of the investigation outcomes. Otherwise why did the first two fail ?" They failed on the link to the website. I wouldnt consider posting tbe link defamatory. The other ones was the timing. | |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case.amateur view alert: it appeared that the fpurt found she couldn't continue to support her claims once extra evidence came to light. Harshly (imo) she "continued to make claims" via a ted talk she has no control over. I found that bit odd. And also dont quite understand why he went after her not Ted. (Other than for nefarious reasons). She gave the Ted talk that defamed himand at that time she was able to make comments using a public interest defence. It was only when subsequent info came out she couldn't use the defence. By which time the ted talk was out of her control. No she couldn't. You can not say some 1 was influenced by Russia and given money to fund brexit under public interest.had there been no police investigation would banks had won his case ? No police investigation? He didn't need an investigation. It was up to carole to prove her claims She couldntwhy did thee first two parts of the appeal fail then ? The court said she did defame him. This was never in doubt the failure are where he gets his damages from and timing's. "The claimant has proved tbe publication of the TED talk has caused a s or is likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The TED talk is defamatory or Mr Banks." however she had a public interest defence until the point of the investigation outcomes. Otherwise why did the first two fail ? They failed on the link to the website. I wouldnt consider posting tbe link defamatory. The other ones was the timing." what do you mean by timing ? | |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case.amateur view alert: it appeared that the fpurt found she couldn't continue to support her claims once extra evidence came to light. Harshly (imo) she "continued to make claims" via a ted talk she has no control over. I found that bit odd. And also dont quite understand why he went after her not Ted. (Other than for nefarious reasons). She gave the Ted talk that defamed himand at that time she was able to make comments using a public interest defence. It was only when subsequent info came out she couldn't use the defence. By which time the ted talk was out of her control. No she couldn't. You can not say some 1 was influenced by Russia and given money to fund brexit under public interest.had there been no police investigation would banks had won his case ? No police investigation? He didn't need an investigation. It was up to carole to prove her claims She couldntwhy did thee first two parts of the appeal fail then ? The court said she did defame him. This was never in doubt the failure are where he gets his damages from and timing's. "The claimant has proved tbe publication of the TED talk has caused a s or is likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The TED talk is defamatory or Mr Banks." however she had a public interest defence until the point of the investigation outcomes. Otherwise why did the first two fail ? They failed on the link to the website. I wouldnt consider posting tbe link defamatory. The other ones was the timing.what do you mean by timing ?" Have you read the judgement of the original decision and the appeal. | |||
"Is it time we refreshed the laws on mainstream media to fine such writers and media outlets? Who can't provide proof? So you see a journalist being fined for telling untruths, and you feel this means that we need more laws to fine journalists for telling untruths. That's an unusual position. Several court cases later aarpnbanks has proven he supplied the money to the leave campaign, not Russia ( regardless of pestons and marriage crying. The point was proven at the first trial, nearly a year ago. The appeal was just on process, not on the facts of the case. Hes proved carole had zero evidence that he was in bed with Russia. No, he's proved that she didn't have enough solid evidence to claim that he definitely supplied Russian money to the Leave campaign. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but not enough to make the claims that she did. That's why she got to use the Public Interest defence to win the first case.amateur view alert: it appeared that the fpurt found she couldn't continue to support her claims once extra evidence came to light. Harshly (imo) she "continued to make claims" via a ted talk she has no control over. I found that bit odd. And also dont quite understand why he went after her not Ted. (Other than for nefarious reasons). She gave the Ted talk that defamed himand at that time she was able to make comments using a public interest defence. It was only when subsequent info came out she couldn't use the defence. By which time the ted talk was out of her control. No she couldn't. You can not say some 1 was influenced by Russia and given money to fund brexit under public interest.had there been no police investigation would banks had won his case ? No police investigation? He didn't need an investigation. It was up to carole to prove her claims She couldntwhy did thee first two parts of the appeal fail then ? The court said she did defame him. This was never in doubt the failure are where he gets his damages from and timing's. "The claimant has proved tbe publication of the TED talk has caused a s or is likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. The TED talk is defamatory or Mr Banks." however she had a public interest defence until the point of the investigation outcomes. Otherwise why did the first two fail ? They failed on the link to the website. I wouldnt consider posting tbe link defamatory. The other ones was the timing.what do you mean by timing ? Have you read the judgement of the original decision and the appeal." I've skimmed thru the appeal and law blogs. We may be on the same page, but I can't tell from a single sentence, hence asking you to expand. | |||
