This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Bertybob's Profile

Bertybob's Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Bertybob

More Discussions by Bertybob

Latest Comments by Bertybob

Go to: Unveil Women in Iran! It is high time to throw the veils out!

Bertybob's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by Bertybob

Rahmen to that!

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:58:00 UTC | #371458

Go to: Singh the Blues

Bertybob's Avatar Jump to comment 64 by Bertybob

Comment by Rugby...

wow that's a stupid fucking law. Thankfully here in oz i'm pretty sure we've followed the american system.

Sorry to burst your bubble! Oz generally follows the UK on libel law....We have the same Head of State!!! Commonwealth matters can also be appealed over to the Privy Council in the UK for appeal from the old "colonies".

In the UK the general principle in Civil Law is that the plaintiff must prove, the defendant does not have to do anything to win their case.

The issue with libel as identified above is "how do you prove someone is lying" or how to prove a negative.

So the plaintiff basically does prove certain things:-

The defendant made and published the statement.
The statement made (if untrue) will reduce their standing and cause them harm.
They will probably introduce evidence as to their character or other facts to pursuade the judge that the defendant might be lying. E.g. I was not there at the time. The facts to do not support the statement made. Look at my track record / credentials etc....

The court then turns round to the defendant and says "you made that statement and if you are lying then it has caused harm", "why did you make the statement and why did you think you were telling the truth when you made it?".

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:14:00 UTC | #369261

Go to: Singh the Blues

Bertybob's Avatar Jump to comment 49 by Bertybob

Appologies if posted elsewhere, but this is the BCA statement from their website:-

4th June 2009

“The BCA sued Simon Singh only as an act of last resort. He published what the Association believed were libellous remarks in the Guardian. He could have retracted the remarks and apologised and the debate would have continued away from the legal world. He chose not to do so. The case against Simon Singh has been re-characterised by his supporters as a freedom of speech issue. It is not. The law of libel is about the proper censuring of individuals’ ability to publish false and defamatory material that causes damage to reputation. To stifle scientific debate would clearly be wrong. The BCA is fully supportive of scientific debate and this should be a fundamental right. However, with rights come responsibility and scientists must realise that they cannot simply publish with impunity what they know to be untrue and libellous”.

Their other statements can be found here:-


Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:55:00 UTC | #367947

Go to: Singh the Blues

Bertybob's Avatar Jump to comment 48 by Bertybob

A number of people are slamming the libel and slander laws in the UK.

The laws are quite fine - you cannot tell lies about me which are likely to reduce my standing amongst my peers.

Telling the truth and having the evidence to show you are telling the truth wins hands down every time.

The problem here is people having more money than sense and no thick skins.

It is the prohibitive cost of access to justice for the "little man" who is libelled or slandered (no legal aid) and the application of the law by the judiciary which is the problem.

There is scope creep all along the road with the judiciary bringing in privacy laws by the back door using libel / human rights as a smoke screen.

If the judiciary keep pushing the boundaries then eventually Parliament will have to step in and codify the law with statute.

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:42:00 UTC | #367944

Go to: Singh the Blues

Bertybob's Avatar Jump to comment 46 by Bertybob

Maybe he should have just said "bollocks" instead

That would be fine....


"Complete bunch of pricks....."

When I did my law degree (and I am remembering off the top of my head), general abuse and ridicule is not covered under libel.

You cannot run to the judge and say "he called me a tosser" give me some money.

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:28:00 UTC | #367942

More Comments by Bertybob