I am supposed to be writing an application for a decent consultancy - the person advertising is one of my closest friends, might just be in with a chance!
That is the same just about everywhere. As authors (inc yours truly) who take a chance will say, a disclaimer is to put off those who believe it, not those who know. So, Terry, you about hit the nail fair and square on the head.
Think we got there, the easy way for once.
Excellent, Cate.
Jo, I'm no lawyer but as a journalist I had to know what I could and could not publish. I think the point is that if you want to take the risk of being sued for defamation by telling people Mr X a crook, or even publishing that opinion in a flyer that you distribute round town or on your own blog/website, then you're perfectly entitled to do so. You are the person responsible and no-one else can be held liable.
But I believe that as soon as you post it on SFN, they also become liable as the "publisher" and can be sued; which is why they have the right to delete or not publish anything they consider might be actionable. I'm not even sure that if James went to extreme lengths and put a disclaimer at the start of every discussion or blog to the effect that the opinions expressed are those of the writer and not of SFN, that it would get them off the hook.
Close Nick, in France either written or spoken is defamation (Scots law being rather more based on French than Anglo-Saxon law). Cate more or less says it all. However, written evidence from witnesses may be considered biassed or untruthful and the word of the defendant the truth. It is all a matter of presentation. Therefore, in the case of an employer whose staff work 80 hours a week paid as though it was the 35 hour week and at the lowest rate at that, if they are under threat of losing their jobs they may well say they are doing it voluntarily, even though that is untrue. The judges only have their word to go on but when the defendant then says that their jobs are not at risk unless he is found guilty and his business folds, then the complainant need not wait to hear the verdict because that is a forgone conclusion.
Brilliant Cate. Well explained. The burden of proof really sounds to me like: "Well you've said it, then prove it so you can stand by it."
To say someone is guilty of something, they have to have been found guilty, until then, they are like you and I. Innocent until proven otherwise.
What someone else decides to say about them before they are proven guilty, is at their own risk and would be better said under more formal circumstances to establish the truth.
Not at all inferring you are lying or otherwise, just if you do have the grounds for a case, then why not, it may save others from a similar plight?
It's defamation of character in Scots law and either libel (written) or slander (spoken) in English law - haven't got a clue in French law.