Could be a lot of this

Ched Evans could take libel action against Gloria Hunniford and ITV after she expressed doubt over striker’s not guilty rape verdict on Loose Women TV show

30 thoughts on “Could be a lot of this”

  1. If she thinks the new verdict might be wrong then she should be entitled to say so. Just like everyone who thought the first verdict was wrong could. I don’t like the idea of a world where the verdict of the state/law cannot be challenged.

    Those who challenge in a professional capacity just need to be sensible about how they do so.

    Unless her words were pretty extreme, I think he’d have a hard time winning a libel action. If he wants to sue those responsible for everyone thinking he’s a rapist then she’s a rubbish place to start.

    Lots of lawyers will be looking for ways to make money from Ched. He’d be well advised to tell them to fuck off and just get on with his life.

  2. ‘Despite the not guilty verdict, Hunniford expressed doubt over the jury’s decision. She later added: ‘I wouldn’t send my grandchildren to him for sex education.”

    What the fuck does that even mean?

  3. Gloria Hunniford’s star has long since sunk beneath the horizon.

    I suspect that her pronouncements have more to do with that fact than anything else.

    TTG is correct however galling verbal femmi-sludge may be.

  4. ‘Despite the not guilty verdict, Hunniford expressed doubt over the jury’s decision. She later added: ‘I wouldn’t send my grandchildren to him for sex education.”

    What the fuck does that even mean?

    It means I suppose that she would consider sending them to Wayne Rooney for the same.

  5. “The Thought Gang

    If she thinks the new verdict might be wrong then she should be entitled to say so. Just like everyone who thought the first verdict was wrong could. I don’t like the idea of a world where the verdict of the state/law cannot be challenged.”

    So you think me saying

    “Mr X has never molested young children”

    is the same as saying

    “Mr X has molested young children”

    ?

  6. Anyone passing judgement on the verdict of a trial they did not sit in court for each day and hear all the evidence and examination, is probably a massive arrogant fool.

    How the hell can you know what you are talking about if you weren’t there to hear what was presented by both sides?

  7. Alison Pearson has a good article on the Ched Evans case in The Telegraph. She’s turning into a good columnist. God knows there’s no many left at The Tele.

  8. “Anyone passing judgement on the verdict of a trial they did not sit in court for each day and hear all the evidence and examination, is probably a massive arrogant fool.”

    Agreed – in a jury system. But in a system where the verdict was given by a judge (or judges) together with a text justifying the verdict it would be feasible for anybody who studied that text to form a view on whether it made sense.

  9. So, if a person is guilty anyway, regardless of process or verdict, this means the Guantanamo detainees were guilty too, yes?

  10. So Much For Subtlety

    Rob Harries – “Anyone passing judgement on the verdict of a trial they did not sit in court for each day and hear all the evidence and examination, is probably a massive arrogant fool.”

    Probably. But anyone can see there is no evidence against the three men convicted of killing Stephen Lawrence and that they are probably innocent.

  11. I would quite like to see him go for Jean Hatchet and Vera Baird if there were a way.

    Baird is a disgrace, and she is a Police and Crime Commissioner.

  12. SMFS – I have never studied the matter in detail so I cannot see there is no evidence and that they are probably innocent – which is two statements that may both be true or both false or either one true or false.
    No evidence and probably innocent are not the same.

    Hence I simply will not say what they are. I am not qualified to hold an opinion on the matter.

  13. I wouldn’t send any children to anyone involved in this case for sex education, the “victim” or the acquitted or the police

  14. Rob Harries,

    > Anyone passing judgement on the verdict of a trial they did not sit in court for each day and hear all the evidence and examination, is probably a massive arrogant fool.
    > How the hell can you know what you are talking about if you weren’t there to hear what was presented by both sides?

    Whilst I do see your point, I complained that the conviction of Barry George was a ridiculous and appalling miscarriage of justice the day it happened. I wasn’t in the court, and had nothing to go on but media reports. No argument from me that I’m a massive arrogant fool (I’m 6’5″), but I was also right.

  15. So Much For Subtlety

    Martin – “I have never studied the matter in detail so I cannot see there is no evidence and that they are probably innocent”

    The police labs could not find any evidence. So they sent the clothing out to another commercial lab. Which, no surprise, found “microdots” of blood. So somehow they had managed to stab someone to death and got such tiny amounts of blood on themselves that the police lab could not discover it for over a decade. It is impossible to rule out cross-contamination in police custody. This is, after all, what railroaded Jill Dando’s “killer”.

    “No evidence and probably innocent are not the same.”

    That is true. But the police also got MI6 in to carry out a year’s worth of covert surveillance. They were filmed and recorded in their homes. For a year. Not a single mention of their involvement in the killing. This is pretty strong evidence they did not do it.

    Notice I am not saying they are innocent. They may have killed him. I am saying they are probably innocent.

  16. Interested,

    >> She later added: ‘I wouldn’t send my grandchildren to him for sex education.’

    > What the fuck does that even mean?

    Oh, it’s just a way of reminding everyone she has grandchildren and, by implication, who their mother was. Hunniford became a professional Grieving Mother years ago. Because people liked Keating.

  17. “I complained that the conviction of Barry George was a ridiculous and appalling miscarriage of justice the day it happened. I wasn’t in the court, and had nothing to go on but media reports. No argument from me that I’m a massive arrogant fool (I’m 6’5″), but I was also right.”

    Yes but you were saying a person WASN’T a criminal. AFAIK its not libel to call someone something positive. If it were the other way around, you were now accusing Barry George of being a murderer (because you didn’t agree with his acquittal/unsafe verdict whatever) then it would be a different situation, no?

  18. @ Andrew C

    I think that you saying “I am not sure the decision of the jury to convict Mr X was correct” or “I am not sure that the law should be such that Mr X was convicted” is the same as you saying the same but with “acquit” where applicable.

  19. Jim,

    Yes, obviously, and nothing to do with the point I was making or responding to.

    Where this gets really interesting is if there’s a counter-case, as in the de Freitas case. If A accuses B of rape and B is found not guilty, then A is accused of perverting the cause of justice or perjury and found not guilty, then we have a situation where it is libellous to claim that B raped A and libellous to claim that A lied when she said that B raped her.

  20. I think he should. A no win no fee lawyer could make him enough cash to make his wages look paltry and as its the media and a celeb we get a triple win.

  21. ‘Where this gets really interesting is if there’s a counter-case, as in the de Freitas case. If A accuses B of rape and B is found not guilty, then A is accused of perverting the cause of justice or perjury and found not guilty, then we have a situation where it is libellous to claim that B raped A and libellous to claim that A lied when she said that B raped her.’

    A counter case isn’t necessary – it’s not contingent on A being charged with and acquitted of pcj/perjury. B could be acquitted of rape, A could not be charged with anything, and it would quite possibly still be actionable if you said A was lying. Equally, B could be acquitted criminally but fail in a libel action against X for maintaining that he was a rapist and the rape trial jury had erred. In either case (or variants thereof) it would all depend on the evidence (as presented in the civil trial), how it was presented, and what side of bed the jury got out of. I believe there have been such cases, though I can’t immediately recall them.

  22. Tel

    Alison Pearson has a good article on the Ched Evans case in The Telegraph.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/why-the-fallout-from-the-ched-evans-verdict-puts-all-of-our-sons/

    Agreed.

    While the lynch mob was baying for Ched Evans’s blood, eight members of a Pakistani sex-abuse gang were convicted on Monday of horrific, violent acts against teenage girls in Rotherham. Sageer Hussein told his 13-year-old victim: “All white girls are good for is sex and they are just slags.” Well, at least that’s clear. South Yorkshire Police failed over many years to bring the offenders to justice, losing forensic samples and, at one point, giving the shellshocked teenager £140 compensation. That sweet girl who had her childhood ripped from her is now 27 years old.

    Since the convictions, have we heard anything from Women Against Rape and other pressure groups about the “rape culture” endemic among Rotherham’s feudal misogynists? Any online petitions? Any word from prominent virtue-signallers indicting the disgusting mores of the minicab community? Good heavens, no. So much easier and more therapeutic to rant about one white footballer who behaved sleazily in a Premier Inn in Rhyl than to contemplate the vast, unspeakable threat from a priapic, patriarchal culture that treats white girls as easy meat.

    Call me old-fashioned, but I will never believe that a woman who has to be told by police that she may have been raped is the victim of a rapist. That is to shamefully diminish the most hideous of crimes.

  23. “The Thought Gang

    @ Andrew C”

    We were talking about libel and you were using the expression “think a verdict is wrong” not “not sure a verdict is right”

    I am not sure that you have never buggered a young boy but that is not the same as saying that you have.

    And libel damages arise from damage so if you think the same amount of damage would be done to Ched Evans by saying – “I think he didn’t do it” as would be by saying “I think he did do it”, and there fore the two comments are the same then that is, I suppose, a point of view.

  24. In the USA only a false statement of fact can be defamatory. And even that statement has to be judged in context. (See Falwell vs. Hustler). Expressing an opinion about a trial verdict is never defamatory. No wonder UK libel judgements can’t be enforced in US courts.

  25. @ Andrew C

    I understand the distinction and that libel, in this context, has asymetrical relevance. I just don’t think, either way, there is any actionable damage. That horse has bolted. Mind you, my days of being quite hot on the law are long passed so I might be way off.

    I’m ok with ‘Ched is a rapist’ being theoretically actionable. But expression of doubt over the verdict, expressed in a balanced and contextual way, *should* be fine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *