Does The Daily Mail Need Better Lawyers?

[jake-the-peg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22988215

[jake-the-peg]

Libel has to prove not only that something is untrue but that it is damaging

I would have thought that accusing a medium of being a con trick would be unlikely to convince those already sold.

About as damaging as accusing Astrologers of making it all up

[jno]

jake, a person may believe in the possibility of psychic powers (several threads on AB have showed this) while being cautious about whether any given individual has them or is a con artist. The Mail's article would have misinformed them about this particular woman, and it's perfectly possible she would have lost a good deal of income over it.

[bazwillrun]

"and it's perfectly possible she would have lost a good deal of income over it. "

income gained through psychic powers.....a con act

[jno]

and your proof of this? (Bearing in mind that even the Mail couldn't come up with any.)

[jake-the-peg]

My proof is in the form of any number of suitably qualified expert witnesses

We could start with James Randi and his $1 Million prize


What next? Con artists suing Watchdog for saying that they're preying on children when in fact they're just ripping off Grannies?

[jake-the-peg]

To qualify this - my point is that this scam artist has sucessfully sued the Mail for saying incorrectly that her method of scamming the public is not the method that they claimed!

[jim360]

I think the point is that the DM was accusing Psychic Sally of a particular type of con that has turned out to have no basis. I'm not happy with the decision but it's understandable to some extent. Now she can go on conning people more subtly, by claiming to have powers that she does not -- and charging people for the lie, but it's their money...

[emmie]

perhaps she will pass to the other side sooner than later...

[Zeuhl]

It's a pity who the recipient is, but The Daily Mail have been found guilty (not for the first time) of sloppiness and a disregard for the facts;

and punished accordingly

[jno]

jake, my request for proof was directed at baz, who knows better than the Daily Mail, as don't we all. As for the rest - yep, the Mail made a claim it couldn't prove, and is paying the price, not for the first time.

Judging by the number of deleted comments on this blog, lots of people think the same but can't prove it either:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jun/21/sally-morgan-tv-psychic-libel-payout