4 ms·

Has Britain learned anything from Jimmy Savile (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile) or have they just acc

Has Britain learned anything from Jimmy Savile (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile) or have they just accepted this is how it will be? Because their libel laws feel like an important part of how something like that stays covered up. Or are they even allowed to have a serious conversation about it given those very libel laws?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
defrost 3y ago
In theory (and this is a complex layered subject with many pros and cons that would easily occupy a book) British libel law forces a serious conversation as to firmly allege that Jimmy Saville fiddles children would require hard proof that Jimmy Saville fiddles children. ie. It's not "a serious conversation" until you can bring receipts. On the flip side many British publications are skilled at skirting libel and can easily imply, impute, report that an allegation was raised, etc without directly coming out and making a statement that they (so far) cannot prove in Court. Which circles back to many layered beast with many pros and cons and a history of the application of libel swinging too far one way or another at various times.
- InCityDreams 3y ago
  ...allegedly.
kevinventullo 3y ago
Libel laws are an important defensive weapon against those would threaten the sanctity of the monarchy with claims that the royal family is anything but flawless and worthy of worship.
gerdesj 3y ago
[flagged]
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > What on earth are you on about? The UK's libel laws scared off journalists who wanted to blow the whistle on Jimmy Savile. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/28/jimmy-savile-escaped-justice-because-of-libel-laws-claims-reporter https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/28/jimmy-savile... https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/savile-story-dropped-sunday-mirror-because-paper-could-not-afford-lose-libel-battle/ https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/savile-story... Your comment is completely out of line and violates the commenting guidelines. Are you trying to be ironic or something?
  - eschaton 3y ago
    The poster you’re replying to appears to mount a some degree of defense of UK law in response to several comments here, though they also use a disparaging name for one of the prominent law firms. It’s hard to tell just what their point is, except to say “You need to understand more to properly criticize UK law, so keep your mouth shut.” Which, no, we don’t, and we won’t. The effects of UK libel and slander law have been long discussed and demonstrated, so much so that there is a US federal law whose explicit purpose is to enjoin enforcement of UK libel and slander law in US jurisdictions.
mcpackieh 3y ago
If they've learned anything, they haven't put those lessons into practice. Wealthy abusers continue to use the UK's accuser-biased libel laws to silence those who speak out (falsely accusing them of libel in a system that is rigged against the little guys.)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

defrost 3y ago

In theory (and this is a complex layered subject with many pros and cons that would easily occupy a book) British libel law forces a serious conversation as to firmly allege that Jimmy Saville fiddles children would require hard proof that Jimmy Saville fiddles children. ie. It's not "a serious conversation" until you can bring receipts. On the flip side many British publications are skilled at skirting libel and can easily imply, impute, report that an allegation was raised, etc without directly coming out and making a statement that they (so far) cannot prove in Court. Which circles back to many layered beast with many pros and cons and a history of the application of libel swinging too far one way or another at various times.

InCityDreams 3y ago
...allegedly.

kevinventullo 3y ago

Libel laws are an important defensive weapon against those would threaten the sanctity of the monarchy with claims that the royal family is anything but flawless and worthy of worship.

gerdesj 3y ago

[flagged]

mcpackieh 3y ago
> What on earth are you on about? The UK's libel laws scared off journalists who wanted to blow the whistle on Jimmy Savile. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/28/jimmy-savile-escaped-justice-because-of-libel-laws-claims-reporter https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/28/jimmy-savile... https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/savile-story-dropped-sunday-mirror-because-paper-could-not-afford-lose-libel-battle/ https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/savile-story... Your comment is completely out of line and violates the commenting guidelines. Are you trying to be ironic or something?
- eschaton 3y ago
  The poster you’re replying to appears to mount a some degree of defense of UK law in response to several comments here, though they also use a disparaging name for one of the prominent law firms. It’s hard to tell just what their point is, except to say “You need to understand more to properly criticize UK law, so keep your mouth shut.” Which, no, we don’t, and we won’t. The effects of UK libel and slander law have been long discussed and demonstrated, so much so that there is a US federal law whose explicit purpose is to enjoin enforcement of UK libel and slander law in US jurisdictions.

mcpackieh 3y ago

If they've learned anything, they haven't put those lessons into practice. Wealthy abusers continue to use the UK's accuser-biased libel laws to silence those who speak out (falsely accusing them of libel in a system that is rigged against the little guys.)