I’m really cross that the teacher shown punching her horse …..

This too, Hetty. www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/2840487-Sunday-Times-story-today-about-Mumsnet-having-to-reveal-posters-names?page=4

I have put both on previously.

DaisyAnneReturns

You can ask as often as you like GSM. You are definitely egotistical enough to believe it is your right to bully.

I am not egotistical, nor do I bully. I have simply asked you to clarify a statement which you made, but you choose not to. I suspect that is because you know full well that this thread contains no defamatory comments.

A defamatory statement is one which injures the reputation of another person: it "tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally".

The woman defamed herself right there on camera. Lowered herself in the estimation of a great many 'members of society generally' before their very eyes.

'Right-thinking', though, is a very subjective term. I can imagine that being well contested in a court of law.

But, if the general estimation of the British as being a nation of animal lovers is correct I can see that the application of the term 'right-thinking' as being probably correctly applied to those who deplored her actions.

Germanshepherdsmum

DaisyAnneReturns

You can ask as often as you like GSM. You are definitely egotistical enough to believe it is your right to bully.

I am not egotistical, nor do I bully. I have simply asked you to clarify a statement which you made, but you choose not to. I suspect that is because you know full well that this thread contains no defamatory comments.

DAR doesn't do 'clarification'.

(Though, to be fair, GSM, on some occasions, neither do you)

Yesterday you asked something along the lines of "do you have any friends" and carried it on from there. It was deleted very quickly and my thanks to whoever reported it - it wasn't me. There was a sense in that post that anyone ' not like you' could not have friends. You don't seem to understand that my friends are going to be more like me, each sharing some interests, some of the same perspective on life. You post seemed to infer that if we are not all like you we must be some sort of friendless none person. If that isn't egotistical I don't know what is.

^I have simply asked you to clarify a statement which you made, but you choose not to. I suspect that is because you know full well that this thread contains no defamatory comments.

You were not content with asking once and accepting my comment that people must decide for themselves. What do you call that continuing pressure, even going on in this post?

I don't know how the women concerned and those advising her would consider the comments made, and neither do you. It really is up to those who made them to decide.

women woman

DaisyAnneReturns

Maisie

According to the European Convention on Human Rights under Article 10(2), defamation is one of the valid reasons for limiting a person’s freedom of expression.

A defamatory statement is one which injures the reputation of another person: it "tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally". I imagine most people can decide that for themselves if their comment did that. Was that what some people were actually trying to do?

Of course, if you can prove such a statement to be true, it is not deformation. My argument their was no such legal proof where some of the statements are concerned.

If I was this woman I would just want to put this behind me but it does matter. Having an opinion is on thing; sharing a defamatory comment in print with the rest of the world's quite another.

A defamatory statement is one which injures the reputation of another person: it "tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally". I imagine most people can decide that for themselves if their comment did that. Was that what some people were actually trying to do?

I think someone slapping and kicking a horse might injure the reputation of that person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

People commenting on those actions are not lowering that person's reputation further, they are merely commenting on actions they think are wrong.

Chastising the animal in any way when it had returned from its wander would seem to be counter-productive anyway. Punishing the animal for coming back?

MaizieD

Germanshepherdsmum

DaisyAnneReturns

You can ask as often as you like GSM. You are definitely egotistical enough to believe it is your right to bully.

I am not egotistical, nor do I bully. I have simply asked you to clarify a statement which you made, but you choose not to. I suspect that is because you know full well that this thread contains no defamatory comments.

DAR doesn't do 'clarification'.

(Though, to be fair, GSM, on some occasions, neither do you)

I think some would say I 'do' clarification far too often Maisie, going by some comments.

What I said, before asking if you had friends, was that you are very difficult. I find your determination to be argumentative quite exasperating at times. It sours threads. You are still referring to ‘the comments’. I repeat, for the last time, that I have seen no actionable comments about the woman on this thread. I think I’m in a position to know one if I see it.

I haven't said any comments are actionable or not actionable. I don't think I even used the word actionable. As far as I am aware your area of legal expertise is property. Obviously, you will have wider knowledge and people can make up their own minds about what you say. Which is exactly what I said.

Of course it is easier for people to see anyone as "argumentative" and "quite exasperating" when they are not being agreed with. That makes it seems as if any opposing view is impermissible because of the character you have painted of the opposer.

Interestingly, you don't seem to make the same complaints when, on the odd occasion, we agree.

DaisyAnneReturns

Dickens

Germanshepherdsmum

Which comments do you consider defamatory DAR?

... yes, I'm puzzled as to which comments on here are defamatory - in legal terms.

Keep building the elephant traps Dickins. I did fall I to one because I didnt think you were that person. I have learned from that.

DAR

I'm not sure what person you believe I am - no matter - the point is that you now see fit to remind us about the laws relating to defamation having previously accused unspecified posters of "gossip" - giving a dictionary explanation of what it means.

Why not just highlight those comments that you believe are in breach of the Law? If someone has flouted it, they need to know. Why keep posting definitions from various sources instead of simply saying that xxx comment could be legally considered defamatory?

That is why you're being asked to point out those posts - it's not an elephant trap... just clarify the comments you are referring to!

DaisyAnneReturns

fancythat

According to the European Convention on Human Rights under Article 10(2), defamation is one of the valid reasons for limiting a person’s freedom of expression.

Like saying, never go outdoors in case you slip down.
Never go near a bus in case it runs you over etc etc etc

Dont open your mouth in case you defame.

No need for a response. Just musing. And a bit aghast at the ECHR control and overall cheek.

No at all fancythat. I think it says " engage brain before opening mouth in an attempt to destroy someone's life."

Depends who they mean by who is doing the limiting.

The law fancythat.

DaisyAnneReturns

I'm sure that, this having got to trial, experts, possibly those more expert than people on here, were duly called.

Expert witness opinion:
a vet at the trial said she had used inappropriate force.

She was not charged with kicking and slapping the horse, she was charged with animal cruelty so got off on a technicality.

Moulds has certainly defended her actions and at the same time has questioned the motives of the RSPCA in the media. So criticism of remarks in the media should apply to her too, as she attempts to smear the name of the charity.

There were two expert witnesses. Why not be even-handed and quote both.

'Getting off on a technicality' usually means the case cannot go forward or is dismissed, once in court.

This was what happened. She was found not guilty. You really don't help you arguement if you don't get your facts right.

Many people have questioned the motives of the RSPCA. Some years ago a cross-party committee of MPs discussed calling for the RSPCA to stop implementing private prosecutions for animal cruelty and instead hand evidence over to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). This seems to have been suggested, according to the RSPCAs CEO because of a perception that were becoming an animal rights organisation. Another source said “The committee is simply saying that in order for there to be no question of prosecutions being driven by any other motive than public interest, it needs to separate those activities,”

In the end the RSPCA would not agree although the SSPCA does exactly that.

For every opinion you offer there will be an opposite and equally entrenched one from some person or group. British justice generally requires both sides are factually and accurately heard.

She has been found not guilty. You may not like it but it was at an end, legally, when that verdict was given.

Callistemon21

DaisyAnneReturns

I'm sure that, this having got to trial, experts, possibly those more expert than people on here, were duly called.

Expert witness opinion:
a vet at the trial said she had used inappropriate force.

She was not charged with kicking and slapping the horse, she was charged with animal cruelty so got off on a technicality.

Moulds has certainly defended her actions and at the same time has questioned the motives of the RSPCA in the media. So criticism of remarks in the media should apply to her too, as she attempts to smear the name of the charity.

Moulds has certainly defended her actions and at the same time has questioned the motives of the RSPCA in the media. So criticism of remarks in the media should apply to her too, as she attempts to smear the name of the charity.

I'm sure anyone is allowed to question a person's / organisation's / company's / whatever's motives. Politicians question each others' frequently!

We are also allowed to be cynical / critical / 'questioning' / of the fact that Moulds was acquitted of the two charges against her.

I think we are even allowed to suggest that the verdict was wrong - in our opinion - what we can't do is imply the the jury were corrupt, or that there was some sort of unlawful 'dealing' going on. That's what I surmise anyway - and I don't think anyone on here has suggested anything like that.

Many of us think Moulds was cruel to the animal. In spite of the fact that we didn't hear, or see, all the evidence. The CPS thought there was enough of it for the case to go to court. And I believe we are allowed to say someone has done something, or said something, that we believe is "cruel".

All criticism maligns to some extent the individual being criticised and criticism is subjective - I'd like to understand at what point subjective criticism becomes illegal because huge swathes of society are being critical of various individuals verbally and in print every day.

Getting off on a technicality’ frequently means that the defendant is found not guilty due to a legal lacuna brought up by the defence. It is of course a layman’s term. I don’t agree that it ‘usually’ means that the case doesn’t reach court or is dismissed. I would substitute ‘sometimes’ for ‘usually’.

She has been found not guilty. You may not like it but it was at an end, legally, when that verdict was given.

How you like to tell others what they think!

I accept the verdict, I do know just a little about the CJS.

But it doesn't mean that I do not think she was wrong to do what she did.
Which is what I have said.

Quite right .

One can disapprove of the actions whilst accepting that they did not reach the threshold for a guilty verdict.

Germanshepherdsmum

Quite right .

One can disapprove of the actions whilst accepting that they did not reach the threshold for a guilty verdict.

In a nutshell - that's it!

Callistemon21
I accept the verdict, I do know just a little about the CJS.

But it doesn't mean that I do not think she was wrong to do what she did.
Which is what I have said.

As many of us have said.

... and it doesn't mean we're going to join a mob bent on lynching, or issue death threats.

Indeed it doesn’t.

The CPS had no say, Dickens. I wrote about it in my reply to Callistemon which refers to their position on the CPS. It was definitely a private prosecution by the RSPCA.

The RSPCA is an organisation. We know, from recent events, that large organisations can put reputation ahead of what is right. We don't know if that was what happened in this case, but they were getting a great deal of pressure from the media, both online and in print. It should, therefore, be considered. The RSPCA did not visit this horse at all. What, therefore, made them decide to pursue this woman? We can only guess what the CPS would do if given the information. They may have decided not to bring charges, or they may have decided to prosecute. We simply don't know. The RSPCA has had to apologize in the past for prosecuting to protect their reputation.

Add to this the presence of a group whose very name tells they are prepared to damage or destroy to prevent other success. We don’t know what their part was.

I am on no one's side in this, but I think we always have to be careful before jumping to conclusions that can/may ruin someone else's life.

Germanshepherdsmum

Getting off on a technicality’ frequently means that the defendant is found not guilty due to a legal lacuna brought up by the defence. It is of course a layman’s term. I don’t agree that it ‘usually’ means that the case doesn’t reach court or is dismissed. I would substitute ‘sometimes’ for ‘usually’.

This was not such a case. There was no "technicality"

Callistemon21

^She has been found not guilty. You may not like it but it was at an end, legally, when that verdict was given.^

How you like to tell others what they think!

I accept the verdict, I do know just a little about the CJS.

But it doesn't mean that I do not think she was wrong to do what she did.
Which is what I have said.

What exactly, Callistemon, was I "telling" anyone to think?

Did I say there was?