Main Menu

Support CaB

Subscribers don't see this.

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

August 16, 2022, 02:56:14 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Lozza's Libel Trial

Started by Sebastian Cobb, May 19, 2022, 10:56:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sebastian Cobb

Lawrence Fox is currently undergoing a libel trial about accusing 3 people of being paedophiles. It looks like he's trying to bust the case in a typical edgy fashion - by demanding a jury (which will relax the Judge's ability to throw out irrelevancies) because Judges are too woke and rely on a different semantic understanding of racism compared to the general public.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/laurence-fox-high-court-libel-trial-simon-blake-nicola-thorp-crystal-b1000860.html

QuoteThe actor argued any judge picked to oversee the case would be open to accusations of "involuntary bias" because of guidance issued to the judicial on racism, whereas he said a jury would have "enhanced impartiality".

QuoteFox, through his barrister Alexandra Marzec, argued a jury would be better at reaching fair verdicts "in light of the cultural and social context of this case", and suggested the arbiters of what is racist should be members of the public "assisted by his or her own life experience and knowledge of the English language".

I suppose this is a form of recourse technically viable for anyone charged of libel, but not really because it costs a fortune in legal costs (as Ash Sarkar points out), again pointing to other people bankrolling this prick.

bgmnts

I'm surprised you can even prosecute a person with a chimp's IQ for libel.

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: bgmnts on May 19, 2022, 11:06:12 AMI'm surprised you can even prosecute a person with a chimp's IQ for libel.

In the US there is a fitting notion of a 'libel-proof' plantiff doctrine that he could use but it would involve admitting no reasonable person should take him seriously.

QuoteThe libel-proof plaintiff doctrine is a concept that insulates a speaker or publisher from liability for statements made about someone who has no good reputation to protect.

I'll leave it up to someone else to answer whether there's an equivalent in UK law as I don't actually know.


Gurke and Hare

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on May 19, 2022, 11:12:17 AMI'll leave it up to someone else to answer whether there's an equivalent in UK law as I don't actually know.

I think the test for defamation in the UK is that the statement would damage the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person, so you might think that he could reasonably suggest that no reasonable person could possibly have a lower opinion of him, but if he's being sued for calling people paedophiles then he's not the plaintiff, he's the defendant so it wouldn't apply.

If the case is about him calling people paedophiles, what's racism got to do with it anyway?

Zetetic

There's two lots of suing going on:

QuoteThe former Lewis actor is being sued by ex-Stonewall trustee Simon Blake, Coronation Street actress Nicola Thorp and drag artist Crystal after a Twitter row in October 2020.

In turn, Mr Fox – who founded the Reclaim Party and unsuccessfully stood as a candidate for London Mayor – is counter-suing the trio over tweets accusing him of racism in an exchange following Sainsbury's decision to celebrate Black History Month.


MojoJojo

I think accusing the judge of bias at the start of the trial is an excellent legal strategy.

shoulders

The benefits regarding self-promotion and perpetuating his anti-woke warrior public personal  probably outranks whether he wins or not.

PlanktonSideburns

Not his fault judge is biased against fucking wankers

Rich Uncle Skeleton


Martin Van Buren Stan

He'll need lozza money to pay off these accusers

Martin Van Buren Stan

Quote from: Gurke and Hare on May 19, 2022, 12:17:35 PMI think the test for defamation in the UK is that the statement would damage the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person, so you might think that he could reasonably suggest that no reasonable person could possibly have a lower opinion of him, but if he's being sued for calling people paedophiles then he's not the plaintiff, he's the defendant so it wouldn't apply.

If the case is about him calling people paedophiles, what's racism got to do with it anyway?

Who mentioned racism?

Endicott


jobotic

Didn't they accuse him of being racist (which he is, genuinely or for grift)? He then accused them of being paedophiles.

BUT his argument is that their accusation was ridiculous, so he made an obviously equally ridiculous one back to illustrate that. He wasn't reeeaaallly calling them pedos on the loose.

Gurke and Hare

Quote from: Martin Van Buren Stan on May 19, 2022, 01:08:38 PMWho mentioned racism?


The quotes in the first post in this thread.

frajer

A judge would be far too "legal" about this whole thing. I'll accept my judgement from the man in the street. They'll know exactly what to do with old Lozza Fox!

SFX: prison door slamming.

Bigfella

He should say 'Elon Musk got away with it, why not me?' Solid defence.

QDRPHNC


Key

Instead of getting a judge to judge me, could I not just ask some of my mates?

jobotic

Judge: who are these mates?

Lozza: Darren Grimes

Judge: and?

Lozza: just Darren Grimes

Judge: that's it?

Lozza: you could also require Billie Piper to give evidence

Judge: does she have information that is relevant to this case?

Lozza: no, but I'd like to see her again

Judge: can anyone else smell shit? Just a faint whiff?

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: jobotic on May 19, 2022, 03:14:19 PMJudge: that's it?

Well there's also that guy whose name I forget but I always think he looks like the 'lionel richtea' photoshop bought to life.


Martin Van Buren Stan


Paul Calf

He's just the kind of twat to decide that his lawyer is incompetent and expensive, throw a fit and go pro se

If he does that, I'll be glued to it.

bgmnts

Quote from: Paul Calf on May 19, 2022, 03:54:23 PMHe's just the kind of twat to decide that his lawyer is incompetent and expensive, throw a fit and go pro se

If he does that, I'll be glued to it.

Well as the old saying goes, he who represents himself has an absolute stupid fucking pointless reactionary grifting wank cunt for a client.

Sebastian Cobb

Purple Aki represents himself in court and sometimes gets off. Although that's probably not the most bizzare thing about Aki lore.

Johnny Yesno

You forget, he's a great actor and can therefore act like a great lawyer I file a motion to dismiss with prejudice, ac-tually.

Sebastian Cobb


bgmnts

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on May 19, 2022, 04:51:32 PMPurple Aki represents himself in court and sometimes gets off. Although that's probably not the most bizzare thing about Aki lore.

Is he the only person in history to have a muscle touching ban?


somersetchris

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on May 19, 2022, 11:12:17 AMIn the US there is a fitting notion of a 'libel-proof' plantiff doctrine that he could use but it would involve admitting no reasonable person should take him seriously.


Yes doesn't Tucker Carlson (and Alex Jones) hide behind this? Apparently no reasonable person would believe what Tucker Carlson says therefore he is immune to libel claims, despite broadcasting on a channel which literally has 'News' as part of the name.