Moderators PowerButchi Posted December 7, 2019 Moderators Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/06/elon-musk-vernon-unsworth-trial-verdict?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Turns out you get the justice you can afford. So I reckon Elon Musk is a rapey paedo. What a shocking state of affairs that court case was. A win for the child fucker. So if anyone would like to say whatever they want to Elon Musk who looks like he'd hang around schools giving out sweets before twatting people of other races you can, as insults are protected speech. Edited December 7, 2019 by PowerButchi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewdogg Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 The jury all wake up millions of dollars richer this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamura Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 While it's obvious to anyone that the jury got it wrong, the caver got it completely wrong in the first place by suing in America not the UK. He saw dollar signs and sued for $190million, which is way more than he'd have got in the UK. Compared to American cases, British libel cases are much more in favour of the plaintiff as they reverse the burden of proof. If Sally Bercow can lose a defamation case for tweeting "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*", Elon Musk would have zero chance either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members quote the raven Posted December 7, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) The jury ended up deliberating for less than an hour *as they rolled around in the millions they where bribed with* Edited December 7, 2019 by quote the raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted December 7, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted December 7, 2019 Rumours the jury deliberated in Scrooge McDuck’s money pool are so far unconfirmed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted December 7, 2019 Moderators Share Posted December 7, 2019 52 minutes ago, Tamura said: While it's obvious to anyone that the jury got it wrong, the caver got it completely wrong in the first place by suing in America not the UK. He saw dollar signs and sued for $190million, which is way more than he'd have got in the UK. Compared to American cases, British libel cases are much more in favour of the plaintiff as they reverse the burden of proof. If Sally Bercow can lose a defamation case for tweeting "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*", Elon Musk would have zero chance either. It's also that the US legal definition of defamation entails proving damage. In the UK there does not need to be proven damage for defamation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 I can’t listen to Grimes because of that paedo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Kaz Hayashi Posted December 7, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted December 7, 2019 “There’s the Peado-mobile, smash it’s fuckin windows” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members PJ Power Posted December 7, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted December 7, 2019 3 hours ago, Tamura said: While it's obvious to anyone that the jury got it wrong, the caver got it completely wrong in the first place by suing in America not the UK. He saw dollar signs and sued for $190million, which is way more than he'd have got in the UK. Compared to American cases, British libel cases are much more in favour of the plaintiff as they reverse the burden of proof. If Sally Bercow can lose a defamation case for tweeting "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*", Elon Musk would have zero chance either. Unsworth would likely have had difficulty bringing a successful libel claim in England based on two fronts - one being under the Defemation Act 2013 which alongside a number of changes to the way defemation cases in England & Wales are handled and proceeded with, now has plaintiffs required to show that if the defendant is not domiciled in the UK, an EU country or any country that is a signatory of the Lugano Convention (Inc. Norway, Iceland & Switzerland), they must demonstrate to the court why such a case should be heard under English & Welsh law as opposed to anywhere else where the defamatory statement was published - if they can't convince the court that holding such a case under English & Welsh law is the most appropriate, then the court must rule that it has no jurisdiction to hear it. This was intended to fight against libel tourism that was plaguing English courts since the late 90's based on prior defamation law - before the 2013 Act, a statement published on the Internet that could be read in the UK, even if all persons involved were neither British citizens or permenant residents, and was hosted on a server outside of the UK, was still actionable. Secondly, the 'Muricans were (somewhat understandably) worried about British courts trying to enforce damages against its citizens whom are ordinary resident in the USA and might even have never visited the UK in their life. Therefore the SPEECH Act was passed in the US Congress in 2010 which meant that foreign libel claims were unenforceable in the USA unless the case was heard under local laws that were equivalent or better to laws concerning libel in the US. So even if Unsworth sued Musk for libel in England, had his case heard and judged that Musk was guilty of defamation, obtaining monetary damages via an application from the English judiciary through Americas legal system would almost certainly fail. They take their "first amendment rights" pretty seriously over there, the bill easily passed without any opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted December 7, 2019 Moderators Share Posted December 7, 2019 6 hours ago, PJ Power said: They take their "first amendment rights" pretty seriously over there, the bill easily passed without any opposition. I mean, they also don't recognise the ICC and treat the U.N. like a joke. I think they just really don't like being told what to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamaras-Tash Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 Trying to sue for 190million for being called a nonce 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Lion_of_the_Midlands Posted December 7, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted December 7, 2019 32 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said: I mean, they also don't recognise the ICC They just don't have any love for cricket. I guess it is a hangover from colonial times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.55e5547a252a5ad1a05f197973025167.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.