ForumGarden

This is a refreshing view on forum comments.Jane Clift sued Slough Council after it put her on its list of potentially violent people following her complaint to the Council about the antisocial behaviour of a man in a park. The Council said that Clift's conduct in complaining had been threatening and it put her name on the list, where it could be seen by Council departments and Government agencies, for 18 months.

Clift won her case and was paid libel damages. The Daily Mail's website carried a report on the story and a year after its publication Clift saw it. She objected to remarks made by two readers in the comments section of the web page. She asked the High Court to order the Daily Mail to give her information which could help identify the people so that she could sue them for defamation. Her case was against Martin Clarke, publisher of the Daily Mail's websites.

Mr Justice Sharp said that Clift's case was not strong enough to merit the identification, and that she should not have taken the comments as seriously as she did. "It was fanciful to suggest that a sensible and reasonable reader would understand those comments as being anything more than 'pub talk'," he said in his ruling.

Anon Mail commenters to stay anon: The Register

I shall not, given what happened last time I commented on a news report, express an opinion about Jane Clift, but the judge strikes me as eminently sensible.

spot;1354793 wrote: I shall not, given what happened last time I commented on a news report, express an opinion about Jane Clift, but the judge strikes me as eminently sensible.


Learning at last? It might take a long time but it looks as though it filters through in the end :-p

Bryn Mawr;1354816 wrote: Learning at last? It might take a long time but it looks as though it filters through in the end :-p


I thought my sentence structure gave a very precise indication of what I thought of Jane Clift, to be honest.

Do you know anything about accounts? I'm considering a thread on how to do accounts, that's all.

spot;1354820 wrote: I thought my sentence structure gave a very precise indication of what I thought of Jane Clift, to be honest.

Do you know anything about accounts? I'm considering a thread on how to do accounts, that's all.


Well I did mine for twenty years without more than one telling off from the taxman (make that two come to think of it - one when I moved tax office and the other when I bounced the company) but I'm no accountant and would hesitate to advise anyone beyond pointing out the obvious.

Is Jane Clift a member of the blue haired brigade?

SnoozeAgain;1354864 wrote: Is Jane Clift a member of the blue haired brigade?


I would hesitate to offer an opinion but it's quite true, I'm reliably informed, that some people rely on unnatural aids when it comes to their appearance. Even soap, I wouldn't wonder.

I just love it when you let your freak flag fly spock!

Nomad;1354875 wrote: I just love it when you let your freak flag fly spock!


Oh lord... is she off again?

Stop flag flying, Snooze.

Is there not some sort of legal free pass when someone is in the news? I was under the impression that anyone of "fame" opens themselves up to public comment aside from anyone claiming to know personal details about them that are false. Getting your name in the paper allows for the 15 minutes of fame so desperately desired by many but also means other people might have an opinion about you that isn't flattering and you might have to hear it.

It's kind of like suing a coworker for saying you have a fat ass or act all OCD. It may be true, it may not, it might just be that a person who isn't predisposed to like you felt the need to say why because they were exposed to the essence of "you".

Lots of people don't like me. Lots of people have written bad things about me online. For that reason I just think it's bizarre to care. Those are precious minutes from my life. I'm a bitch and I have a lot of people to **** off and not enough time.