They were and this is a matter of public record
https://labourlist.org/2020/07/labo...s-substantial-damages-in-panorama-libel-case/
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
They were and this is a matter of public record
https://labourlist.org/2020/07/labo...s-substantial-damages-in-panorama-libel-case/
The last X number of pages in this thread basically boil down to the fact that you don't understand the legal system.
To be exonerated means to be cleared of a legal charge.
e.g -
"Labour would likely have been exonerated had they followed legal advice rather than choosing to settle."
The claimant in a case, by definition, can't be exonerated. Spouting irrelevant legal terms (or quasi-legal language you got from an American courtroom drama like 'in open court', 'a matter of public record') won't magic up a legal basis to your opinions surrounding this libel case.
You don't work in the legal sector do you?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
*pretends to be shocked again*
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Suing Jewish organisations to fight anti-semitism.
Wrong type of Jews in your eyes then?
Not at all...but if an organisation regardless of its religious affiliation or indeed any other affiliation has broken the law they should imo opinion be sued ... you know like when labour made false and defamatory statements about the whistleblowers... or like when "sources close to formby" released lots of private information without consent or you know like labour is setting aside millions waiting to be sued for all the antisemitic shit corbyns leadership oversaw
Clearly from the quote above though a large number of jewish organisations have a disagreement with that particular corbyn mouthpiece set up in 2017
Has sun-tzu admitted yet that under Formby the process was actually sped up and more cases processed than any prior period? Something Ware himself has accepted.
He's so obsessed i wouldn't be at all surprised if he was the individual that raised 50% of all cases in 2019. The one where loads of people weren't even Labour members but proved useful to bump the numbers and then anger Watson.
He's so obsessed i wouldn't be at all surprised if he was the individual that raised 50% of all cases in 2019. The one where loads of people weren't even Labour members but proved useful to bump the numbers and then anger Watson.
Sounds to me like you have just repeated the libel. Not sure that's a wise place to be.
People really need to stop with the bollocks interpretation of libel laws 
Yep. It stinks of just trying to stifle the conversation.People really need to stop with the bollocks interpretation of libel laws
Tell that to the site owner.People really need to stop with the bollocks interpretation of libel laws
You'll have to expand your thought process there I'm afraid because it sounds like you're suggesting they agree with you but i don't know on what grounds you think that.
I'm not saying no one should consider libel if that was your take. I'm saying people are mistakenly calling things libel that aren't especially not in the context applied.
Get a grip
That's exactly what it is.
Given that a legal judgement was never reached in the libel case, is it not libellous to label the alleged libel libel? By insinuating that Raven is a libeller, you yourself could be liable for libel!
I was going to reply but it seems what I was going to say has already been said. Its called having a discussion, stop trying to muzzle people.
Libelception.
Top marks on this one.
Wonder what wiley and corbyn have in common?
They are both into grime?
That's a heck of a reach.
Wonder what wiley and corbyn have in common?
You can tell sun_tzu knows a thing or two about Wiley's career. Clown.
Wonder what wiley and corbyn have in common?
Did you find that on Guido?
Wonder what wiley and corbyn have in common?
No that bastion of labour the daily mirror
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mi...my-corbyn-deletes-tweet-thanking-22435092.amp
Guido are linking to the story about ware suing the corbyn mouthpiece Jewish voice for Labour though
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/pro-corbyn-group-jewish-voice-for-labour-being-sued-for-libel-1.502023
Last edited:
It ain't libel if its true though...
Also nice to see the cotbyistas staying true to form
Also nice to see the cotbyistas staying true to form
I'm sure you agree such people are not welcome in uk politics
I think you'd have a hard time proving that assertion to be demonstrably true and the burden would fall on you to do so. Luckily it's a public entity so it's fair game for opinions as long as they're not malicious.
More importantly I'd think long and hard about discounting the voices of a Jewish group just because you don't like their political affiliations given that's the very subject often of your own complaints.
I like this better than your usual line.
Comments about zionism and Israel are not by definition anti-semitic, despite that being the desired outcome of many weaponising anti-semitism.
The allegedly anti-semitic comments:
"Commenting on the campaign, one supporter said: 'We love Jeremy Corbyn and he is all we got! Him being seen and propagated by reich wing media and portrayed like he can be the next Shitler is absurd beyond belief! I met Jeremy Corbyn is a very lovely and full of compassion for others! I am proud to make donations to this honourable person.'
Another person commented: 'Corbyn supports PALESTINE. Like all in the civilized world.' "
The one "signed off by the name Adolf Hitler" was just someone leaving a £5 donation with the name Hitler. I have no idea why someone would do that. Maybe it was Guido blogger looking for something to write about.
Nevertheless you did actually repeat the words - and even named one individual -that the whistleblowers ere suing over. Corbyn himself is being sued for similar by Ware. Just adding some facts to your discussion.
Last edited:
Point is you can think what you like about whether my interpretation of libel is bollocks (it’s not) but it’s site owners who also are liable for what gets said on their platforms. So don’t ask me, ask them. Ware seems very litigious, that’s all
No, he’s right. The site owner could potentially be held responsible for anything that is deemed libellous on here. So can the posters who may post that type of post.Get a grip
Yes, I’m aware of that. I’m also aware that there’s more chance of Corbyn becoming the next PM than there is of John Ware taking action against the comments made so far on this forum.
Whilst you are probably correct, I’m sure that the site owner doesn’t want to receive anymore letters thanks very much. He’s received enough over the years.
They're not the ones raising the accusation. Feel free to educate us if you so wish. You're clearly just using it to censor though. Statements on public matters against public persons are very rarely libellous, Labour settling doesn't automatically make them libellous either.
I look forward to the never ending accusations of libel on here going forward
When it comes to libel there simply won’t be any chances taken on here and I’d ask posters to respect thatThey're not the ones raising the accusation. Feel free to educate us if you so wish. You're clearly just using it to censor though. Statements on public matters against public persons are very rarely libellous, Labour settling doesn't automatically make them libellous either.
I look forward to the never ending accusations of libel on here going forward
To avoid any confusion you mean only contents that have gone through the courts right as they're greater risk? This thread is littered with statements that one could claim defamation on even if it would be easily rebutted.