weltweit
Well-Known Member
But, does Cameron have plausible deniability?
Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail "hacked by News of the World"
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
But, does Cameron have plausible deniability?
miniGMgoit
OverWeightUnderAchiever
I love this shitPlease make it go on
Best thread ever
Init. I've already earmarked it for my vote on the Christmas thread
%50 at least is arguments
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Too many for you to keep up with? Denying that the statement would be slanderous is the most obvious one.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Several of us (myself, kabbes et al.) have already pointed out that Parliamentary Immunity means that in the eyes of the law, the spoken claims & statements were not slanderous.
Next 'mistake' please.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Yes it was. How utterly dishonest of you, although by now I ought to be quite used to your dishonest tactics.
That wasn't what you thought I meant. The mistake is yours.
gavman
pj slumpy
i really enjoyed hearing politicians use the same codes we all do for talking about dodgy things in public / on the phone
'you know that thing we talked about? yes, lets do the same as last time, usual place, usual amount...'
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
really? Oh dear.
If you knew about Parliamentary Privilege, and that that was why Mensch made no slander, you wouldn't have written the following:
you are a fibber, and have been caught out. Just grow up and admit you made a mistake, it cant be that hard.
(oh, and disagreeing with you about something is different to be explicitly dishonest. We disagreed on the thread you link to above, openly and honestly. Here, you are explicitly and deliberately changing what you have argued. THAT is dishonest)
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
It's clear I first mention parliamentary immunity here: post #7153
Your response to Callie (post #7158) mentions 'libelled' for the first time on this thread.
My response to your post #7158 (post #7161) ''It's not clear that she libelled him. Not yet, at any rate''.
was because unless she's written it down and published it, it's not libel.
To clarify:
''Not yet, at any rate'' means ''wait until I've made further research to find out who wrote what first''.
''It's not clear that she libelled him'', means 'I have no idea what she's written down'.
You then keep insisting that it's ''libel'' (and I quote your direct response to the above:
I'd asked you to explain. You responded by telling me you're sorry that I don't understand how libel works. You then claim she said something unprovable and untrue. You then defended Piers Morgan, who has himself been defending Brooks, Murdoch and Coulson. All this in the name of attacking your 'conservative enemy'. It's almost pitiful.belboid said:
You then explicitly wrote, and I quote:
', whilst a) slander is oral/aural, and b) libel is written and c) she has immunity enshrined in the law, so she could have said: '' Morgan is a vainglorious self-seeking poopoohead'', and no-one can do a thing about it (if it's within one of the sessions covered by the parliamentary immunity law).belboid said:
Anyway, feel free to continue wasting my precious time with more petty nitpicking about what you think you've read. One thing is clear - you still appear to be confused about the definitions of both slander and libel.
e2a:
What is dishonest is your use of archaeology to further your own narrow political/propagandic aims. Although I was polite in our discussion, it's time you should know that your failure in that thread to provide a source at my request for your claims was not forthcoming. If you should care to provide the sources now, in that thread, we can carry on our discussion there.belboid's e2a said:
You still have not given any evidence that I've been dishonest on this thread.
But you should know, that I don't take your skewed view of things, (given your propensity to misread what's presented to you), very seriously, other than to show how people sometimes see what they want to see, and not what's actually there.
1%er
Well-Known Member
it can be watched here by people via the net: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8920&wfl=truehttp://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8920&wfl=true
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
naah, got you bang to rights. Your fail. Sorry you are too small a person to be able to admit your mistake.
That always fails when you accuse the other party of doing it.
The full parliamentary report into phone hacking is already out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/interactive/2011/jul/20/phone-hacking-news-corporation
The tone is a little weird - they seem to be, "astounded" "appalled", by certain actions and events but pretty much sticks to the script. News international, apart from their hindering police investigations don't get criticised (not part of their remit) but
hayman gets slaughtered (expect him to be nicked for something on the back of this)
yates gets a slap on the legs
clarke gets a slap on the wrists
cps gets a stern telling off
stephenson gets a wagged fingered
federico gets mauled, (despite giving little evidence compared to the others)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/interactive/2011/jul/20/phone-hacking-news-corporation
The tone is a little weird - they seem to be, "astounded" "appalled", by certain actions and events but pretty much sticks to the script. News international, apart from their hindering police investigations don't get criticised (not part of their remit) but
hayman gets slaughtered (expect him to be nicked for something on the back of this)
yates gets a slap on the legs
clarke gets a slap on the wrists
cps gets a stern telling off
stephenson gets a wagged fingered
federico gets mauled, (despite giving little evidence compared to the others)
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Is there a linky to that??
I don't think he knows what it means...
General message from primed Tories, following the Express... them'uns's bad... we've set up inquiries, now shut up until they report and let us off the hook.
Unfortunately it seems to be working in rhetorical terms on the House. More revelations in the next few days will settle Cameron's future, assuming there are more...
Similar threads
