Hi ladies!
Havnt commented on this thread before but it’s given me loads of laughs, much needed as I am a key worker atm.
Have quite a bit of legal knowledge so thought I could offer some reassurance here-
Libel isn’t criminal in the uk, it’s civil. She would have to bring about a private prosecution. The defendant (tattle) is always innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on her and her legal team. You guys don’t have to prove anything, unless you wanted to counter sue.... but let’s not go there .
She can’t sue for general gossip, it will have to be for something specific- ie damaged reputation and a subsequent loss of earnings.
So she would have to prove that tattle and only tattle brought about her problems. This is where it would get really sticky because there’s too many other things that contribute to her reputation like the JO stuff.
Also there is the issue of what loss of earning she means? As she is a self employed freelancer.
If the BBC have renewed DK and not involved her, she will again have to prove that it was due to tattle. For all we know it could have been in the plans all along that they would have a rolling co-presenter.
There will also be no way to prove that any complaints that were submitted to the BBC (if any) were connected to tattle. I don’t know where the BBC even stand in revealing if any of the public contacted them to complain. I’m sure most are anonymous.
She was also worried about her income before DK came along.
For something to be truly libelous it has to be stated as if it were fact and it has to be somewhat believable by a “reasonable person”.
The pure name of tattle shows it’s a gossip site and therefor everything is opinion, not fact. And anything said is only believable to other members of tattle, it’s not printed in the newspapers etc.
This was where katie Hopkins lost because she is a journalist with a lot of followers and made statements about JM as if they were fact.
There is also the issue of “fair comment” aka a critics defense- if something seems reasonable to say or believe based on....oh I don’t know deleted tweets that that’s not libel.
Suing maliciously just because she doesn’t like tattle or being gossiped about also won’t work.
I’m presuming she hasn’t already spoken to a legal team about this but she needs to read up on the defamation act which came about in about 2015 or so, that legislation was brought in partly to stop petty libel cases getting as far as court.
If she is getting direct threats, or her coworkers are then that’s harassment and it’s criminal. She needs to speak to the police, not a solicitor.
Sorry for the info over load! And don’t worry about anything x
Havnt commented on this thread before but it’s given me loads of laughs, much needed as I am a key worker atm.
Have quite a bit of legal knowledge so thought I could offer some reassurance here-
Libel isn’t criminal in the uk, it’s civil. She would have to bring about a private prosecution. The defendant (tattle) is always innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on her and her legal team. You guys don’t have to prove anything, unless you wanted to counter sue.... but let’s not go there .
She can’t sue for general gossip, it will have to be for something specific- ie damaged reputation and a subsequent loss of earnings.
So she would have to prove that tattle and only tattle brought about her problems. This is where it would get really sticky because there’s too many other things that contribute to her reputation like the JO stuff.
Also there is the issue of what loss of earning she means? As she is a self employed freelancer.
If the BBC have renewed DK and not involved her, she will again have to prove that it was due to tattle. For all we know it could have been in the plans all along that they would have a rolling co-presenter.
There will also be no way to prove that any complaints that were submitted to the BBC (if any) were connected to tattle. I don’t know where the BBC even stand in revealing if any of the public contacted them to complain. I’m sure most are anonymous.
She was also worried about her income before DK came along.
For something to be truly libelous it has to be stated as if it were fact and it has to be somewhat believable by a “reasonable person”.
The pure name of tattle shows it’s a gossip site and therefor everything is opinion, not fact. And anything said is only believable to other members of tattle, it’s not printed in the newspapers etc.
This was where katie Hopkins lost because she is a journalist with a lot of followers and made statements about JM as if they were fact.
There is also the issue of “fair comment” aka a critics defense- if something seems reasonable to say or believe based on....oh I don’t know deleted tweets that that’s not libel.
Suing maliciously just because she doesn’t like tattle or being gossiped about also won’t work.
I’m presuming she hasn’t already spoken to a legal team about this but she needs to read up on the defamation act which came about in about 2015 or so, that legislation was brought in partly to stop petty libel cases getting as far as court.
If she is getting direct threats, or her coworkers are then that’s harassment and it’s criminal. She needs to speak to the police, not a solicitor.
Sorry for the info over load! And don’t worry about anything x