Slashdot Mirror

What is the "normal Parliamentary process"? No act of Parliament is required for the government to sign or denunciate a treaty. I refer you to a court judgement in 1990 (Rayner v Dept of Trade and Industry). This judgement states that a treaty is not law until it's ratified by Parliament. Likewise, denunciating a treaty (invoking article 50) has no legal effect unless and until the appropriate legislation is repealed. The courts have no jurisdiction until the law is changed. Article 50 does not repeal or change British law in any way. It is merely notice to do so.

Every treaty we've entered into has been entered into under Royal Prerogative. It's true that legislation will have to be repealed in order to enact Brexit but it is not required for invoking article 50 (though this court judgement asserts that it is). If the Supreme Court upholds the judgement, I suspect all hell to break loose.

IANAL!

That might well be, but it's pretty clear that the "victim" in all of this has himself broken the law and is liable at bare minimum for libel, if not various other laws.

It ain't libel if it is true.

It's unfortunate the the mugger would get away, but ultimately, the UK has a system of laws and you don't get to break them just because somebody else has broken them first.

A system of arbitrarily enforced laws is anarchy. The blogger can't get the law enforced in the first place.

Besides, this isn't about what's legal, its about what's moral. The mugger is sending the blogger those pictures. He made that decision when he stole the laptop. He's probably not cognizant of that decision, but it is a reasonable assumption that using a stolen computer will result in the webcam sending photos to the rightful owner. After all, the guy did put a piece of tape over the camera for the first 4 weeks.

That is the same country where you can get ordered to pay damages for libel for making TRUE statements.

Well you're pretty safe with that one, then.

http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/defTrueLibel.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Justification

I don't know where this retarded rumour started (probably Faux News), but stop spreading it.

The same country where if you trespass in a subway, you can be ordered (via an Anti Social Behavior Order) to not even talk to the people you were with or GET 5 YEARS IN PRISON! Yes, 5 YEARS OF YOUR LIFE LOCKED AWAY!

Bullshit. That's been requested, but has no force until a court passes it, which is pretty unlikely.

Of course in the good old USA they'd have been tasered and shot for being tehrrusts.

Not so! As I've pointed out several times, if your claim defames me, it doesn't matter (in an English court) that it's true because the truth isn't, and never has been an absolute defense there. It is not true.

One counter-reference

Truth (justification) is a complete defence in defamation

Or from Wikipedia:

English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

Now as I'm English I could sue you for saying that ;-)

Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. The right not to incriminate oneself is primarily concerned, however, with respecting the will of an accused person to remain silent. As commonly understood in the legal systems of the contracting parties to the Convention and elsewhere, it does not extend to the use in criminal proceedings of material which may be obtained from the accused through the use of compulsory powers but which has an existence independent of the will of the suspect such as, inter alia, documents acquired pursuant to a warrant, breath, blood and urine samples and bodily tissue for the purpose of DNA testing.

Then perhaps you could help out on this law forum http://www.swarb.co.uk/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3381 ip addresses 1.1.1.1 - 999.999.999.999 ???

"(truth is not a strict defense against defamation charges in Britain)"

Yes, it is.

http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/defTrueLibel.shtml

It's called fair dealing

We also come under European laws too, which means that the ruling in France can impact UK law.

The copying of somebody else's work will normally infringe that person's copyright, and be actionable. There is a defence of "fair dealing", and this defence must be relied upon for many quotations of other peoples works. The defence also lies at the very heart of the systems of quoting correspondence on Usenet and in mailing lists.

You don't know shit about legal procedures regarding libel in the UK, see: True Libel

Notably:

"Strictly, a libel is a defamatory statement to which there is no defence. A libel is, therefore, a narrower notion than a defamatory statement

Truth (justification) is a complete defence in defamation"

Best,

T&K.