Quote from: Sheilbh on May 11, 2024, 02:52:59 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2024, 08:47:43 AMA few corrections. All civil trials are decided on the same evidentiary basis whether heard by jury or judge alone.Yeah my point was more judge and a jury might come to a different conclusion, perhaps especially in this type of case. Also in part because of how ongoing trials are reported which is different.QuoteIn the US and Canada Newspapers (and news outlets) don't have to establish the truth of what they are reporting. But malice will defeat their defence.You don't need to establish truth. There are several defences in English law like honest opinion, public interest, various types of privilege.
Truth is one of those defences. And it's a complete defence. But it is the most difficult to prove because you have to show that what was said was "substantially true". I think media companies would always argue it but winning on the defence of truth is tough.
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2024, 10:57:48 AMThere's always something special about non-Jews calling Jews antisemitic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 11, 2024, 02:45:07 PMOur biggest export sector is unidentified professional services which the FT did some digging in and worked out was largely consultancy. Those business degrees aren't loads of "humanities" students - they're our equivalent of highly skilled workers in the Mittelstand.One of these services is apparently recruiters headhunting for specialists / managers. I get calls or LinkedIn contacts fairly often from England, but these people always seems to be fairly clueless about everything. They do not seem qualified to actually find fitting people for the roles. I guess it is always contingent on actual success, so it does not matter much for the potential employer that this service sucks.
Page created in 0.125 seconds with 16 queries.