h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I just found out what the allegations are. Hee hee, I thought it'd be something like that. *Very amused*

This is good too.


http://deadbrain.co.uk/news/article_2003_11_09_4435.php

that is good


but i stil don't know what he didn't do

what he *allegedly* didn't do!

az

ah, so if he allegedly didn't do it, it is likely that he did, in fact, do it

This post has been removed.

I may be wrong but as I was passing a newsagents I saw something on the front page of one of the newspapers, saying what the allegations were. Did I just misread or are the allegations finally out in the open?

and so it begins to unravel...

who cares
"unsubscribes"

no-one particular cares my hairy underling, it is more a matter of interest now as to what the papers were making such a fuss about


*remains subscribed*

AND JOURNALISTS WONDER WHY PEOPLE TREAT THEM LIKE SHIT!

On a COMPLETELY different subject...

It is defamatory to suggest someone is a criminal, if their reputation rests on being law abiding. It would be defamatory to suggest, for instance, that a police chief regularly used illegal drugs IF he didn't.

It would not be defamatory to suggest that Mike Tyson had beaten someone up. It would not damage his reputation - people would practically expect it. He may be able to force a paper to print a retraction if the allegation was false - but he'd have a hard time showing that he'd been inconvenienced by it.

It is defamatory to suggest that someone is a liar, if their reputation rests on their honesty. It would be defamatory to suggest that a respected accountant was guilty of fraud, IF he's innocent.

Homosexuality is legal. There are many persons respected by society who are or were homosexual. Historical examples would include Oscar Wilde. Living examples would include Sir Ian McKellen. (Note: SIR Ian McKellan - knighted by the Queen. She obviously has no problem with gentlemen who prefer gentlemen, blonde or otherwise.) Ecclesiastical examples would include the newly ordained Bishop of New Hampshire.

Therefore, given the obvious social acceptability of gay men, under what circumstances is it potentially defamatory to suggest that someone is homosexual, or has had homosexual experiences? If so, how is the allegation of homosexual activity defamatory? Is it more or less defamatory than an allegation of heterosexual activity? Why?

Jason Donovan once successfully sued The Face magazine for an article in which he it was suggested he was gay. He was VERY sure to point out, repeatedly, that it was not the allegation he was gay that prompted him to sue - it was the accusation of hypocrisy. He sued, and won. The reason he won was that he showed that his reputation had suffered damage because of an untrue allegation.

If one has a reputation which is already in tatters because of one's previous actions, is defamation even possible?

If one has confessed on national television to adultery, and national newspapers have published transcripts of telephone conversations in which one is heard to tell one's mistress that one wishes to be her tampon, what possible reputation for sexual probity remains to be damaged by any allegation of lawful sexual behaviour?

Of course, implying one had done anything illegal would still be defamation. But surely suggesting that one had engaged in an act which is legal and accepted by society is simple inaccurate reporting. Isn't it?

Does anyone have any idea how long it normally takes for "temporarily" hidden postings to get hidden permanently or made visible?

It's now over 12 hours since I posted the thing above, and it's 11:30 UK time, so I'm just wondering how long it takes to process these things

Your post will be hidden for as long as it takes the moderators to reach a decision. Your post will either be reinstated in its entirety, censored in some way or removed permanently. In some cases it may have to go through the legal department which have pencilled in your case for Q1 2006.

Liam.

Well, the allegations were quite plainly stated on the front page of some Spanish newspapers this morning. It's a bit silly not to print them as they will come out eventually anyhow. Holding them back just creates more speculation and rumour-mongering.

I really don't give a toss if the allegations are true or not.

It's mostly interesting to watch how much these things are attempted to be covered up. If the allegations have no basis then what is the problem?

az

It's not that I don't think Charlie boy would do such a thing, more I don't think he's stupid enough to get caught

Let me get this straight (pun intended)

You are placing your faith, not in his sexuality, but his INTELLIGENCE?

More low cunning and instinct for survival than actual intelligence, really.

Edward II didn't bring down the monarchy... but he "lacked the royal dignity of his father and failed miserably as king"... he also meet a very sticky end!

B.