Slashdot Mirror

Says our equivalent of the ACLU http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/defences-to-a-claim-of-defamation.html

Wrong. The truth is an absolute defense against libel in the United States of America . But if you read a little closer you will see that this woman is British, and British libel and defamation laws [wikipedia.org] are nothing like their American counterparts.

I am not a lawyer. That said, do you have anything to back this up with?

Certainly there's one advantage to the English law in that if you're faced with a frivolous suit you can contest it and if you win the other side will typically bear your costs. In the US if you're sued you need to defend the case at your own expense.

You seem to suggest that truth is not a defense under English law. Everything I have read suggests otherwise. Can you point to an instance of someone actually being punished for making a statement the court found to be true? Certainly the US laws provide greater defenses for a statement that would be classified as an opinion, but truth does appear to be an affirmative defense in England.

A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true.

The main defence to a libel action is ‘justification' i.e. being able to prove that the defamatory allegation is true.

It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the defamatory statement is substantially true. It is not necessary for a defendant to show that there was a public interest in publication and it does not matter whether he or she acted maliciously.

Aren't there laws in the UK that allow holding 'suspected terrorists' for as long as they want? So not getting charged may not mean much.

No. For "terrorism" it's 14 days, after a reduction from 28, and an attempt by the government to increase it to 42. See https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/terrorism/extended-pre-charge-detention/index.php

See http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-suspects/police-powers-of-arrest/police-detention.html for the case for normal offences (24 hours, possibly extension to 36).

In the UK (I don't know where you are) "the law provides a specific right to use a public highway: the right to pass and re-pass along the highway (including the pavement), and the right to make ordinary and ‘reasonable use’ of the highway."

From: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-right-of-peaceful-protest/using-the-highway.html

there is a law of "obstructing the highway" which is a criminal offence. If you were staring into someone's bedroom window, I would consider that an offence if I were on the jury. If you were using a telescope from your bedroom into someone else's, though, that's another thing entirely, but I would be less than astonished to find a law against that. Society can be expected to protect itself against dangerous people, and it can be quite broad about who it classifies as "dangerous" sometimes.

You do not have to post any actual money when you provide a surety in the UK. You only have to show that you have the sum available and are liable for the sum in the event the (alleged) offender breaches bail conditions in some significant manner. See http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-defendants/bail.html for a further explanation.

True, but irrelevant (well, only partly relevant) as the court are requiring both sureties AND securities (which it seems have to be paid in cash at the court).

You do not have to post any actual money when you provide a surety in the UK. You only have to show that you have the sum available and are liable for the sum in the event the (alleged) offender breaches bail conditions in some significant manner. See http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-defendants/bail.html for a further explanation.

Something doesn't ring true about this article. The Data Protection Act contain the following exemption.

Law Enforcement
Personal data held for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, apprehending or prosecuting offenders,...

The exemption is not restricted to bodies such as the police or Inland Revenue. So, information about suspected fraud held by a bank or a social security officer could also be covered.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-right-to-know/data-protection-act/data-protection-act-exemptions.html

Criminals know how to defeat simple measures

Then clearly what we need are more complex measures:
* Higher resolution cameras for more accurate info
* Links between cameras so as someone moves out of sight of one the next one automatically picks them up and tracks them
* More cameras so that the dirty crims can't hide in an unobserved corner
* Gait recognition like this is aiming for so you can id someone without prints or a face
* Total removal of the right to privacy that the liberal terrorist sympathiser communists bleat on about all the time

While we're at it, what about
* compulsory ID cards so we can identify people when they are caught
* Tracking chips in your skull so we can do away with cameras all together
* Screens on every surface reminding us that it's for our protection.

</rant>

In that case, truth (or justification) is a valid defence in the case of defamation.

Take a look here. Wikipedia also covers it, but I may have edited that before hand, right?

How can refusal to cooperate with an investigation itself be illegal?

Because the law makers chose to make it so. The rights to silence, non-self-incrimination etc. have all been curtailed, usually under the guise of anti-terrorism but also driving laws.

It is, for example, an offence (in the UK) to refuse to tell the police who was driving your car at a particular time (for speed camera purposes).

Some links:

RIPA activation: http://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=513

Driving: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5383726.stm

General rights to silence: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/ the-rights-of-suspects/the-rights-of-suspects-in-t he-police-station/curtailment-of-the-right-to-sile nce.shtml

Offence to fail to cooperate with terrorism stop-and-search (note: no suspicion is required for this type of stop and search anymore): http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/ the-rights-of-suspects/anti-terrorism-powers/anti- terrorism-powers.shtml

How can refusal to cooperate with an investigation itself be illegal?

Because the law makers chose to make it so. The rights to silence, non-self-incrimination etc. have all been curtailed, usually under the guise of anti-terrorism but also driving laws.

It is, for example, an offence (in the UK) to refuse to tell the police who was driving your car at a particular time (for speed camera purposes).

Some links:

RIPA activation: http://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=513

Driving: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5383726.stm

General rights to silence: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/ the-rights-of-suspects/the-rights-of-suspects-in-t he-police-station/curtailment-of-the-right-to-sile nce.shtml

Offence to fail to cooperate with terrorism stop-and-search (note: no suspicion is required for this type of stop and search anymore): http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/ the-rights-of-suspects/anti-terrorism-powers/anti- terrorism-powers.shtml

This wouldn't affect existing recordings anyway even if it was enacted into law!

If you introduce a new law, it can't be applied to anything that was done before the law was introduced; and if you introduce a new punishment for an offence, anyone who was sentenced to the old punishment can't be given the new one. That's article 11 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights makes similar provisions and is enshrined in UK law as the Human Rights Act 1998.

A copyright term extension could only be applied to brand-new copyrights. Existing copyrights would not be affected. The holders knew -- and presumably agreed to -- the terms when they created their creative works.

Believe it or not, there is no law against Govt spying on UK citizens. Well, there is the retrospective Human Rights Act's Right to Privacy but even Cameron wants to get rid of that.

No, instead we have laws like the ID Cards Act where everyone with a passport/driving license will be forced to turn up for interrogation, fingerprinted like a criminal and forced on to give up keys to their records on the passport, tax, benefits and new ANPR databases. All to be connected to form the world's most intrusive mass surveillance database - even worse than anything China or North Korea have.

Oh, and the Dictatorship Bill which passed on Tuesday.

An identity card is exempt under the DPA for a number of reasons that will be open to interpretation and probably tested in the early stages of the implementation. The first time everyone who has registered gets an AOL CD, for example.

Before 1998 there had been a number of cases of Britain being taken to the European Court of Human Rights. The Human Rights Act* was meant to bring British law into line with European law and avoid this embarrasment. If Blair strays too far he will risk more cases in Europe. But I agree that we have to keep an eye on him - he is due to step down before the next election to make way for Gordon Brown. Without the need to seek reelection he is free to push unpleasant legislation without consequence, and once in power Brown can blame everything on him.

I hope that in the US you do avoid the proliferation of CCTV, but as I said - if it's going to happen you will need legislation to protect privacy.

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/cctv13.htm
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/

They already know if you don't have a TV license, they don't need to check that. They need to check if you have a TV or not and that it is not "receiving TV signals". Keeping it detuned is not an offence, its if you use one to watch TV.

An "Enquiry officer" WILL however need a search warrant to come into your home. If he doesnt have one, he cannot come in.

Check here for more info.

Wales is part of the United Kingom. If you were born in the UK before 1983, you are British. (There are some extra requirements if you were born after 1983.)

Nonsense, the petty ramblings of some American lawyer aside (and they do that in court too), the Law of Confidence in the UK applies if information is communicated in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence... which is exactly what this tries to do.

Not that I'm a fan of this rubbish being attached to the bottom of every mail, but I'm far from convinced by that article that it's not effective here.

Actually [IANAL but am studying to become one :], I think article 10 of The European Convention on Human Rights applies better here, the European Court of Human Rights has more power than the UN in these matters.

# Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information an ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
# The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

More info here and some judgements and decisions here. Also, I'm not sure, but I think that the European Court of Justice (part of the EU) can use the ECHR treaty in it's rulings.

In the UK silence is basically an admission of guilt. You are not told "You have the right to remain silent", you are told "Anything you do not say now may later harm your defence" or something like that. IANAL - could someone better grounded in this give us a more accurate quote please?

"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention now, anything you later rely on in court. Anything you do say will be given in evidence."

We lost the "Right to Silence" in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Under the new laws, although we are under no obligation to self-incriminate, the court can now make inferences as regards to silence under the following circumstances :

1) Failure to mention a fact when questioned under caution before charge which is relied on in defence.

2) Failure on being charged with an offence or informed of likely prosecution, to mention a fact which it would have been reasonable to mention at the time.

3) Failure or refusal to account for objects, substances or marks found on your person, in or on your clothing or otherwise in your possession, in the place where you were arrested (if asked).

4) Failure or refusal after your arrest to account for your presence at a place at or about the time the offence is alleged to have been committed (if asked)

info from : Liberty UK