If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   You've got to question the journalistic standards of the Daily Mail when it can't even do an exposé on psychics without libelling one to the tune of £125,000   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 12
    More: Fail, Daily Mail, journalistic standards, Associated Newspapers  
•       •       •

2942 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jun 2013 at 6:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-20 06:04:00 PM  
3 votes:
I'd actually blame libel laws in Britain.  Truth isn't quite as ultimate a defense as in the United States.  Even if allegations are true, it generally makes much more sense to simply pay off complaints.
2013-06-20 05:57:31 PM  
3 votes:
"You've got to question the journalistic standards of the Daily Mail when it can't even do an exposé on psychics without libelling one to the tune of £125,000 "

Edited for brevity.
2013-06-20 06:44:53 PM  
1 votes:

OgreMagi: In the UK, telling the truth is not a defense for libel.  If you say it in a manner that causes distress or financial harm, it's libel even if it is the absolute truth.


Most people here (assuming we're mostly Americans) don't understand *our* libel laws, much less Britain's.
2013-06-20 06:43:07 PM  
1 votes:

OgreMagi: orbister: OgreMagi: In the UK, telling the truth is not a defense for libel.  If you say it in a manner that causes distress or financial harm, it's libel even if it is the absolute truth.

[citation needed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj_4ksUWyNI


The claimant does not have to prove that the statement is false. However in almost all cases the claim will fall if the defendant can show that they were true. The burden of proof may be wrong, but justification is a complete defence. The only exceptions that I am aware off are minor ones: justification is not a valid defence if the statement was about a spent conviction under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

English libel law is dreadful, but truth is a defence.
2013-06-20 06:40:30 PM  
1 votes:

OgreMagi: orbister: OgreMagi: In the UK, telling the truth is not a defense for libel.  If you say it in a manner that causes distress or financial harm, it's libel even if it is the absolute truth.

[citation needed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj_4ksUWyNI


That is not what that means. In the UK a person libelled does not have to prove the statement was false, which is the situation in the US. Truth is a defence, but the person who said it has to prove it.

So in both the US and the UK truth is a valid defence. The difference is in the US the person libelled has to prove it was not true. In the UK the person who said it has to prove it was.
In this case this woman could not prove she was a psychic, but the Mail had to prove she did fake it and defraud people. They couldn't. In the US she would have had to prove she did not fake it.
2013-06-20 06:32:09 PM  
1 votes:

Mock26: OgreMagi: tlchwi02: OgreMagi: In the UK, telling the truth is not a defense for libel.  If you say it in a manner that causes distress or financial harm, it's libel even if it is the absolute truth.

since you seem to know... in this case, it seems the woman was charging people money to come view her "psychic performance." Why wouldn't the mail's outing of her fraud be more like a whistleblower situation? It would be no different (to my mind) if she was selling snake oil and they did an article about it just being water.

Because under the UK libel laws (actually, I think just England and Wales), harming someone's business reputation is pretty much all it takes.  Pointing out a psychic is a fraud will certainly harm her ability to attract marks customers.  See the video I linked earlier for a better explanation.

How can scamming people not be illegal?  Given how much of a nanny state is I would think that outright lying to "customers" to get their money would be a crime.


Common sense does not seem to apply to the British libel laws.  You and I both look at it and think, "this can't be true!"  And we are both wrong.
2013-06-20 06:29:04 PM  
1 votes:

tlchwi02: OgreMagi: In the UK, telling the truth is not a defense for libel.  If you say it in a manner that causes distress or financial harm, it's libel even if it is the absolute truth.

since you seem to know... in this case, it seems the woman was charging people money to come view her "psychic performance." Why wouldn't the mail's outing of her fraud be more like a whistleblower situation? It would be no different (to my mind) if she was selling snake oil and they did an article about it just being water.


Because under the UK libel laws (actually, I think just England and Wales), harming someone's business reputation is pretty much all it takes.  Pointing out a psychic is a fraud will certainly harm her ability to attract marks customers.  See the video I linked earlier for a better explanation.
2013-06-20 06:18:39 PM  
1 votes:

OgreMagi: In the UK, telling the truth is not a defense for libel.  If you say it in a manner that causes distress or financial harm, it's libel even if it is the absolute truth.


[citation needed]
2013-06-20 06:15:06 PM  
1 votes:

Flint Ironstag: RexTalionis: "You've got to question the journalistic standards of the Daily Mail when it can't even do an exposé on psychics without libelling one to the tune of £125,000 "

Edited for brevity.

This. The 'paper' that attacks the BBC daily while never informing its readers it is a major shareholder in ITN News, a direct competitor to the BBC.

BTW, I'm sure the video of this woman taking out her earpiece was linked to on Fark.Video. Of course having an earpiece does not prove she was faking it. I'm sure there is a perfectly plausible explanation why a stage psychic would wear an earpiece.


If a psychic can win, maybe the BBC should sue for libel as well.
2013-06-20 06:10:28 PM  
1 votes:
In the UK, telling the truth is not a defense for libel.  If you say it in a manner that causes distress or financial harm, it's libel even if it is the absolute truth.
2013-06-20 06:06:05 PM  
1 votes:

RexTalionis: "You've got to question the journalistic standards of the Daily Mail when it can't even do an exposé on psychics without libelling one to the tune of £125,000 "

Edited for brevity.


"Journalistic standards" and "Daily Mail" don't even belong in the same sentence.
2013-06-20 06:05:00 PM  
1 votes:
If anyone has ever wondered why they're referred to as the Daily Fail, this is why.
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report