and that this is compromising everything about what he is doing, has to be acknowledged as a factor in international diplomacy now, and not least in explaining the apparent power that Putin obviously has over him, which might have significant implications for future European security.
Is that chain of ‘reasoning’ strong enough for such heavy lifting?
Brave words
Potentially actionable
That’s what I think, starfish. Trump has sued for less. And won.
Whereas accusations of Biden showering with his daughter are not actionable, the said daughter having reported the event(s).
As for Trump/Epstein: are they really suggesting that Dems, say, had such info for years and didn’t exploit it? Fat chance.
Has Trump been caught on camera touching young girls and sniffing their hair?
We need to know.
Would love to see a writ land on this fat bastards doorstep! He’d shit himself!
Here’s what ChatGPT thinks
Q Might the following statement – written about Donald Trump – be considered libelous? “The possibility that Trump is a paedophile, and that this is compromising everything about what he is doing, has to be acknowledged as a factor in international diplomacy now, and not least in explaining the apparent power that Putin obviously has over him, which might have significant implications for future European security.
Quite literally, how on earth did such a vile person, who has already been found guilty of what is in straightforward parlance, rape”
A ChatGPT said:
Yes — that passage could very likely be considered libellous in many jurisdictions, including the US and UK, because it makes extremely serious allegations about Donald Trump that:
Are stated as fact or strong inference –
Even though the word “possibility” appears in the first clause, the overall tone does not read like pure speculation; it implies that there is real, credible evidence that Trump is a paedophile and that Putin is using this to control him. Courts often look at the impression on an ordinary reader, not just the literal wording.
Accuse him of criminal acts –
Calling someone a “paedophile” or saying they committed “rape” (even if you phrase it as “in straightforward parlance”) is inherently defamatory because these are serious criminal offences carrying moral stigma.
Reference to being ‘found guilty’ –
If you say someone has “already been found guilty” of rape, that is a statement of fact. If no criminal conviction for rape exists, it would be factually false — and that would be a core element of libel. Even if you meant a civil judgment (e.g. the E. Jean Carroll case), calling it “rape” without qualification could misrepresent the actual court finding.
High likelihood of serious harm –
For a public figure like Trump, US law requires “actual malice” — meaning knowledge that the statement is false or reckless disregard for whether it’s true. In the UK, the standard is lower: you must show the statement caused or was likely to cause serious harm to reputation, and the defendant must prove a valid defence such as truth, honest opinion, or public interest. This passage would have trouble meeting those defences unless backed by strong, verifiable evidence.
In short:
UK – Highly likely libellous without solid proof, because it asserts damaging allegations as fact or near-fact.
US – Potentially libellous if it could be shown the author acted with actual malice, which would be plausible if they knew the “paedophile” claim was unsupported.
Ukraine has a very effective PR and propaganda machine largely supplied and paid for by the west. Unfortunately this leads many people to believe that Ukraine can win. In reality they are short of troops and their front line is crumbling under the Russian assault now their tactics have been revised to account for modern technology.
Peace can be brokered now or when the Russians territorial ambitions are realised. The principal difference for Ukraine will be how many soldiers they have left. This isn’t the message the PR machine is geared up for, so it respond with the assertion that Putin controls Trump. Neither of them want this costly war to continue for longer than necessary.
Murphy is a libeller. That is a fact, evidenced by his public apology I’m open court.
Since then though, this libeller has been very careful on picking his targets, usually choosing groups but sometimes picking victims he believes went sue him. That is his calculation here.
Andyf
Be careful – various pro CIA/MI6 denizens of the blog will be along shortly. Spot on , of course. Had Radio 4 on in the car and General Richard Sheriff on – shocking stuff – basically advocating mandatory conscription. Whatever it takes to give ‘Russia a bloody nose’. Not realizing where the threat is – in the near six figures of ISIS operatives embedded across the UK whom the government is in the process of making it illegal to criticise. It was a shameful spectacle which ought to lead to loss of pension.
A ceasefire is needed tomorrow which crystalises the Russian gains and allows us to divert huge support to Israel for the ongoing annexation of Gaza and indeed logistical support for transporting our own Palestinian stooges into the war zone where they can try and take on the IDF.
“Unfortunately this leads many people to believe that Ukraine can win.”
Ukraine is in a war of attrition with a vastly larger country. As long as Russia decides to fight, they can’t lose.
∴ Ukraine can’t win, unless Russia let’s them.
My first thought is that if this ‘evidence’ was even a remote possibility it would have been front and center on every newscast in the past 8 years. The idea that the Deep state had this level of information and would sit on it is risible, especially given the cases in Georgia and New York that were put together to discredit Trump.
Of course the statement on Murphy’s blog is libellous. As the Great Ironman says he has prior form in this area. Interesting given his ability to start a fight in a phone booth and the troubles he has had in licensed premises in the past. Perhaps the old adage around ‘men in glass houses’ holds good!
The Secret Service currently have a detachment here with JD Vance. Maybe they should pay Spud a call?
For it to be defamation, the person making the statement has to be credible.
Murphy has moderated his blog wording so it is not as libellous now
Sam:
So if you tell lies all the time, suddenly you’re immune to libel actions?
No, that’s not how it works.
M: It kind of is. I mean, not “immunity” to libel actions, but you can’t be defamed by a statement that nobody is likely to believe. The entire point of defamation is people believing untrue things about you; if people don’t believe it, it can’t be defamatory. Therefore, if someone is known to be an inveterate liar (or is otherwise not credible), he can’t defame you.
Yes, I was being flippant in this instance – even Murphy is credible enough (amongst the credulous) to get himself in hot water if he isn’t careful – and it’s certainly rare, but cases have been lost on those grounds.
He’s updated the blog? Maybe NKVD Solicitors have been in touch again?
Murphy has moderated his blog wording so it is not as libellous now
Does that matter? You can get 31 months in chokey for a tweet that was up for an hour or so.
@jimmers
Depends who you are critical of
Orange Man Bad
I’m off topic. I’ve just come to rant about today’s load of b0110x re VAT on financial services. It wouldn’t affect ordinary people apparently. Does this clown live under a rock?
Russia is not winning in the Ukraine. It is moving forward, very slowly, at enormous cost. Control of a few more square kilometres isn’t hugely important when no major Ukranian cities are falling.
That was precisely what caused Russia to lose WW1. They went forward in the Brusiliv Offensive, but couldn’t afford it at home.
The war is one of endurance. The winner will be the one who doesn’t collapse on the internal front.
So we will know who wins when one sues for peace. Neither are remotely interested in that at the present. That alone suggests Ukraine does not think it is losing.
Even if Russia “wins”, they can’t hold Ukraine down forever. It would be a bleeding sore, like Ireland became to the British, despite total dominance militarily.