The Sun Vs Jimmy Savile: Common Rumour?

[Marshwarble]

Sorry, discussing him again. Couldn't the Sun claim "Common Rumour" or "Widespread Rumour" here? After all legally there is "Common Knowledge"?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/437231/Jimmy-Savile-bragged-about-suing-over-child-abuse

[fiction-factory]

I assume you mean 'couldn't The Sun HAVE claimed...'.
It's odd because there were lots of stories and I remember comedians making jokes about Savile well before he died but for whatever reason there was not enough to evidence t prove anything and probably not even enough to make strong hints in a national paper.

[sandyRoe]

Liberace successfully sued the Sunday Mirror and its columnist, Cassandra, when he wrote casting aspersions on the pianists masculinity. When the truth about him eventually got out they wrote a piece asking if they could have their money back.
Could The Sun do the same and claim from Savile's estate?

[Marshwarble]

Maybe. Where's our legal eagle?

[fiction-factory]

I doubt it- I assume the Sun paid in some form of out of court settlement.

[woofgang]

I have a feeling that "well it is true" is not an absolute defence. I think that there is also something about the intent of the publisher. The Sunday Mirror may well have written another article but did it actually get any money back?

[Buenchico]

The test in law is simply whether a person has been 'defamed', based upon 'the balance of probabilities'. For the publishers of the Sun to have won a court case, brought against them for defamation by JS, they would have to have shown that it was more likely than not that JS was guilty of the offences that they'd alleged. They obviously had insufficient evidence to do so.

[sandyRoe]

And money didn't seem to count for much with the Sun. Didn't they give Elton John a million as recompense for something they wrote about him?

[Peter Pedant]

I think Sandy has hit the nail on the head.

the law reports are full of accounts where people successfully sued over thing s they had in fact done

such as Tommy sheridan - Linford Christie - are modern example

Narty narty examples are the libel trial Geo Carman QC as wiki says:
" He became known for producing new and decisive evidence towards the end of a trial, examples including the libel cases involving Gillian Taylforth, Neil Hamilton and Jonathan Aitken."

he needed the court fees (Carman) so arranged for the decisive evidence to be produced half way thro ... ( he's dead so he cant sue me)

Tommy Sheridan was subjected later to a trial for perjury
otherwise the lately winning side starts an action on account to claw back the damages they paid and court costs ( Linford Christie I think )

[ukbod2015]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the Sun is trying to claim the moral higher ground after their reprehensible phone hacking contacts

[Peter Pedant]

sandy - Elton J - sued over being accused of bulimia

the NoW said the fella was chewing prawns for the juice and then spitting the prawn meat out into a napkin

and having a good lawyer - Elton got lots and lots of moolah - but that as he said was not the point

[jno]

Invented stories

In January 1987, MacKenzie published a front-page story alleging that pop singer Elton John had had sex with underage rentboys. These claims were without any foundation and entirely false. Shortly after, MacKenzie published further allegations that the singer had had the voiceboxes of his guard dogs removed because their barking kept him awake at night. Not only were these additional claims also completely untrue, but MacKenzie confirmed their inaccuracy shortly after publication by sending a reporter to the singer's house, who quickly discovered that all of his guard dogs were quite capable of barking (MacKenzie later admitted that in retrospect he found it difficult to understand why he had believed, never mind published, the claims about the guard dogs which he later realised were self-evidently absurd). Elton John sued The Sun for libel over both these claims and was later awarded £1,000,000 in damages

(from Wikipedia)

[Peter Pedant]

// I have a feeling that "well it is true" is not an absolute defence.//

well it was under the old law and I dont think it has changed

in that case intent would be irrelevant

by well it is true the side saying tha has to er prove it true and not just say in court " it is ! it is !"

[jno]

incidentally, I never heard of "common rumour" being a defence to a libel claim. Truth may be, but there's a vast distance between rumour and truth. In theory Savile could have sued those spreading the common rumours but it would have been difficult to find them. It's not difficult to find the Sun and it has a lot of money to be sued for.

[Marshwarble]

If there is it a vast distance between rumour and truth, shouldn't there be something in between?

[Peter Pedant]

The old defences before the NEW defamation Act were

privilege ( absolute and partial ) truth and fair comment
( these four ) and I think that was it... near truth or everyone thinks .... doesnt feature

Private Eye tried: he doesnt have a reputation to tarnish
I think that was Mohd Sayed the owner of Harrods
The judge ruled he did

Justice Cocklecarrot was wheeled out for a lot of these - real life Oliver Popplewell - because he was the only one who understood the arcane rules a lot of which were topsy turvy compared to other branches of civil law. ( once the plaintiff showed the statement was libellous the defence then had to show one of the defences or else paid. Completely the opposite to other cases where the plaintiff has to prove his case )

[northcliffe]

I so dislike all this chat about Savill. Also why keep showing him on TV.?
Lets cease all this chat about him and dismiss him from our thoughts.
Anyone agree?

[Peter Pedant]

not much really ( agree I mean )

it is so much to do with money - his will has been suspended by the high court ( high court has granted an order halting distribution of assets under the will ) until this fol-de-rol reaches its conclusion

why else discuss interminably what a dead man did or did not do ?

[Marshwarble]

I'm not discussing him because of money. And I don't think people discuss Hitler so much online because of money either. It must ultimately come to down to why they get away with so much.