Lord Judge to chair landmark libel appeal hearing

  • Print

Readers' comments (6)

  • Yeah right, I mean hows he gonna pay either his costs or the damages?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just came back from a talk by Singh. He says that he has quite a bit of money from some of his successful books, and is willing to put quite a bit of it on the line.
    Suffice it to say that he believes that he can cover the costs, and as usual in libel the damages will probably be minute compared to the costs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I can't believe this case has been marketed as a question of someones right to free speech!? It boils down to the fact that the word used by Singh 'bogus' implies an attempt to deceive. You just can't use this word without proof of attempts to deceive. As a yank I find it laughable that UK law would protect the accused no matter what.....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Simon Singh has no one but himself to blame, did he not first write an article broadly criticising chiropractic as a profession rather than the BCA specifically?
    Obviously, the BCA attempt to bring an action against him for liable was unsuccessful, but he then goes on to write ANOTHER article repeating similar claims about the BCA specifically. Perhaps he should have thought about the legal costs before he engaged in point scoring with them!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The legal costs are pretty much a side issue:
    He has the means to pay them (if he loses).
    As for making Bogus Claims MR American, if you actually read the article and watch the TV program you will see exactly what claims he makes.
    Would any sensible person conclude that Spinal Manipulation can cure Diseases such as Mumps, Rubella, etc...
    When it is known what causes these illnesses and what cures them, and manipulation of someone's bones is certainly not one of them.
    To think that it is or could be is bordering on insanity.
    As for the UK protecting The Accused, that in itself is a joke.
    Libel Laws in the UK demand that the Person who perpetrated the Libel Prove there case. In other words you are Guilty until you can prove otherwise.
    Patently this is wrong, and unjust.
    The Burden of Proof should always be for the prosecution to prove, not the defendant.
    Or perhaps you would consider that Trials are a waste of time and we should just go straight to the Electric Chair or Lethal Injection?
    Do not lecture us (the UK) on bad law, when the US legal system is so politicised and corrupt that a Black man cannot BUY a fair trial, yet White Rich Folks walk away from Murder every day.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Libel Laws in the UK demand that the Person who perpetrated the Libel Prove there case. In other words you are Guilty until you can prove otherwise.
    Patently this is wrong, and unjust."
    Why? Why should a defendant be chary of backing up what he says? The alternative would lead to all sorts of stochastic mud being thrown on the basis that some of it would stick. Not sure what that would do for responsible journalism.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Print