Let me be clear I think hes a bit of a buffoon and doesn't help himself BUT a court has found him guilty of libel (a civil offence as far as I know) because he cheekily referred to people accusing him [falsely in his and my view] of being a 'racist' [them] of being PDF files - to quote the link it was a 'rhetorical flourish' - nobody with one ounce of sense could truly believe he was trying to libel 3 people or that those people were PDF files - he was making a point - why should it be OK for him to be accused of being a 'racist', an overused but still weighty word, so 'how do you like it'.

Shockingly it seem it IS OK hope he appeals but chilling really.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/3 ... of-speech/

Can't stand the man myself. Arogant, misogynist bigot in my view. However I agree entirely with your post, UK libel laws are used to stamp out free speech.

I've been reading about this today. It seems that the people he libelled had a cut and shut case in terms of being able to prove to be damaged by his claims whereas his counter case was found not to contain any proof of discernible damage to his name by being called a racist. It also appears that Fox's legal team were repeatedly trying to get the Judge to define what constitutes a racist and weren't able to receive a definition despite multiple attempts.

Stanley - are you in the Legal business or used to be, is that about the gist of it?

Chepstow'sFine wrote: January 31st, 2024, 10:46 am I've been reading about this today. It seems that the people he libelled had a cut and shut case in terms of being able to prove to be damaged by his claims whereas his counter case was found not to contain any proof of discernible damage to his name by being called a racist. It also appears that Fox's legal team were repeatedly trying to get the Judge to define what constitutes a racist and weren't able to receive a definition despite multiple attempts.

Stanley - are you in the Legal business or used to be, is that about the gist of it?

In my view as oxymorons go British Justice is right up with the best of them. The judge in this case has done what happens so often. The decision was made and any evidence to the contrary was disregarded. The term we used, lefty barristers like me that is, was intellectual dishonesty.

For me Fox usually has a fair point he just expresses it in a very clumsy way* (with a bit of a cheeky public schoolboy shtick which works for some but not for him) he's also a lightning rod for the culture warriors of the far left because he is male, white, straight, public school educated, and unapologetic - he was also in the worst profession for being on the right of politics (the 'arts' is so tyrannically far left its almost North Korean) - he is also often (in part at least) correct in much of what he says which is what irks his haters most - nowhere else to go in a debate you have lost? - make a personal attack and cry 'racist' or 'misogynist'...equally take someone down and ruin them to warn others - 'follow the [ever changing] party line or you too will be ruined' - that said many of these people are just bullies who simply enjoy hurting people - same as it ever was the mob loves a scapegoat.

Do I feel sorry for him? - no , has been unfairly/appallingly treated in this case and by the media in general - yes

*the infamous 'racist' segment of the question time appearance - he was right that citing 'white privileged male' is both sexist and racist - yes being white and being male may for some people and in some areas of life and some circumstances carry privileges but generalizing about gender or race as a whole is by definition racist and sexist.

Fox is complete and utter ****. Deserves all the shit that comes his way.

Exile 1976 wrote: January 31st, 2024, 12:34 pm Fox is complete and utter ****. Deserves all the shit that comes his way.

My late partner worked for the London Borough of Haringey. He ultimate boss was a woman called Sharon Shoesmith. My late partner told me that in her opinion Ms Shoesmith was a lying, disingenuous, total sh!t. However it didn't alter her view that Ms Shoesmith was treated appallingly over the Baby P. affair.

That to me is the point. Not whether Mr Fox is a **** but whether he is being treated fairly.

Exile 1976 wrote: January 31st, 2024, 12:34 pm Fox is complete and utter ****. Deserves all the shit that comes his way.

I'm not a massive fan of the man* but would say that is an unfair conclusion and wonder how you could draw it [that conclusion], regardless your(s) and others opinion on the the character of the man, or of any individual, should not preclude Justice being done - I'd argue in this case it hasn't been.

*he's a middling actor and a 'political commentator' who has some perfectly reasonable and factual views and opinions but clumsily expresses them to the extent that he invites criticism and ridicule he does also push the 'cheeky public schoolboy' shtick too far at times too.

Where his case falls is he says calling them paedophile s was a joke

I'm sorry calling someone a paedophile isn't a joke

UPTHEPORT wrote: January 31st, 2024, 1:52 pm Where his case falls is he says calling them paedophile s was a joke

I'm sorry calling someone a paedophile isn't a joke

I'm not sure that was his defense per se but that it was a cheeky response to being [wrongly - in his and most sane peoples eyes] labelled a 'racist' - as in 'if you can label me a racist based on no evidence then I can label you xyz on that same basis' - I suppose he should have sued them for libel first.

On it not being a joke (or not a funny one) ditto calling someone a 'racist' is not a trivial accusation either...in law as in life two wrongs a right do not make though so to that extent can see both sides but still feel Fox has been made an example of here.

UPTHEPORT wrote: January 31st, 2024, 1:52 pm Where his case falls is he says calling them paedophile s was a joke

I'm sorry calling someone a paedophile isn't a joke

Agreed. But neither is calling someone a racist. And here's a point to consider. On this board because I voiced that the killing of innocent civilians was wrong and it didn't matter whether those being killed were Israeli or Palestinian one person said and I quote. 'Ireland is a cesspit of anti-Semitism.

My view. The person who said that isn't worthy of my time. Am I going to sue? Of course not. He or she stand condemned by their words. That's how it should be.

CathedralCounty wrote: January 31st, 2024, 2:04 pm

UPTHEPORT wrote: January 31st, 2024, 1:52 pm Where his case falls is he says calling them paedophile s was a joke

I'm sorry calling someone a paedophile isn't a joke

I'm not sure that was his defense per se but that it was a cheeky response to being [wrongly - in his and most sane peoples eyes] labelled a 'racist' - as in 'if you can label me a racist based on no evidence then I can label you xyz on that same basis' - I suppose he should have sued them for libel first.

On it not being a joke (or not a funny one) ditto calling someone a 'racist' is not a trivial accusation either...in law as in life two wrongs a right do not make though so to that extent can see both sides but still feel Fox has been made an example of here.

If you read that Spiked article they said it was ment to be a joke

UPTHEPORT wrote: February 1st, 2024, 8:14 am

CathedralCounty wrote: January 31st, 2024, 2:04 pm

UPTHEPORT wrote: January 31st, 2024, 1:52 pm Where his case falls is he says calling them paedophile s was a joke

I'm sorry calling someone a paedophile isn't a joke

I'm not sure that was his defense per se but that it was a cheeky response to being [wrongly - in his and most sane peoples eyes] labelled a 'racist' - as in 'if you can label me a racist based on no evidence then I can label you xyz on that same basis' - I suppose he should have sued them for libel first.

On it not being a joke (or not a funny one) ditto calling someone a 'racist' is not a trivial accusation either...in law as in life two wrongs a right do not make though so to that extent can see both sides but still feel Fox has been made an example of here.

If you read that Spiked article they said it was ment to be a joke

If that is the case is that not even more chilling? a bad/poor taste joke that doesn't land gets you sued for libel even if that joke is in the context of someone making a 'joke' or an exaggerated/false allegations of something against you?

All Fox did was engage in some online sparring - which is what many of us do here and millions do on various platforms daily - think on that.

CathedralCounty wrote: February 1st, 2024, 8:46 am

UPTHEPORT wrote: February 1st, 2024, 8:14 am

CathedralCounty wrote: January 31st, 2024, 2:04 pm

UPTHEPORT wrote: January 31st, 2024, 1:52 pm Where his case falls is he says calling them paedophile s was a joke

I'm sorry calling someone a paedophile isn't a joke

I'm not sure that was his defense per se but that it was a cheeky response to being [wrongly - in his and most sane peoples eyes] labelled a 'racist' - as in 'if you can label me a racist based on no evidence then I can label you xyz on that same basis' - I suppose he should have sued them for libel first.

On it not being a joke (or not a funny one) ditto calling someone a 'racist' is not a trivial accusation either...in law as in life two wrongs a right do not make though so to that extent can see both sides but still feel Fox has been made an example of here.

If you read that Spiked article they said it was ment to be a joke

If that is that case is that not even more chilling? a bad/poor taste joke that doesn't land gets you sued for libel even if that joke is in the context of someone making a 'joke' or an exaggerated/false allegations of something against you?

All Fox did was engage in some online sparring - which is what many of us do here and millions do on various platforms daily - think on that.

Calling or insinuating that which Fox has done is clearly a potential libel. And you can't get away by saying it's a joke. Many a true word and all that.

But the point is with respect to how serious has been the damage to reputation? Does anybody really care what some second rate thespian blurts out on Twitter. And for what it's worth I have been frequently libeled on this board. But I don't give a f@ck.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: January 31st, 2024, 9:25 pm

UPTHEPORT wrote: January 31st, 2024, 1:52 pm Where his case falls is he says calling them paedophile s was a joke

I'm sorry calling someone a paedophile isn't a joke

Agreed. But neither is calling someone a racist. And here's a point to consider. On this board because I voiced that the killing of innocent civilians was wrong and it didn't matter whether those being killed were Israeli or Palestinian one person said and I quote. 'Ireland is a cesspit of anti-Semitism.

My view. The person who said that isn't worthy of my time. Am I going to sue? Of course not. He or she stand condemned by their words. That's how it should be.

My words were: " Ireland has become a cesspit of antisemitism, it seems." Surely not libellous, but an opinion shared by many others.
Sorry about the basketball defeat in Latvia (which had a tougher WW2 than Ireland, and may have learned some lessons).
I'm forever grateful for Wales being willing to play Israel in 1958 (when much of the world wouldn't) and reaching the quarter finals of the World Cup.