Re: Mickey the idiot

On 01/02/2025 00:52, % wrote:

The True Doctor wrote:

On 31/01/2025 14:42, Blueshirt wrote:

The True Doctor wrote:
>

On 30/01/2025 08:02, solar penguin wrote:

>
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
>
>

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke- suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian

>

>
Noel Clarke hasn't committed any crime.

>
You've seen the evidence so, you have?
>

>
THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE! The police weren't given anything that would even warrant and investigation.
>

Let's hope he takes down the Guardian and the rest
of the FAKE NEWS legacy media for publishing lies
they made up about him.

>
I don't know if Noel Clarke is guilty or innocent. We'll find

>
He's never been investigated because or lack of evidence let alone charged.
>

out at the trial once all of the evidence is presented. But this
line from that article stood out...

>
THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE! Clarke is suing the Guardian for publishing a pack of complete and utter lies.
>

>
“At trial, 32 witnesses are set to testify against Mr Clarke
under oath. We look forward to a judge hearing the evidence.”
>

>
Testify that he tried to chat them up? Chatting a woman up isn't a crime. Why do you think the police won't even investigate? Because there is no evidence Clarke has broken any law.
>

On the balance of probabilities it's highly unlikely that all
thirty two women are telling lies. So while I can accept there

>
This isn't about Clarke's guilt or innocence. It's about the Guardian publishing a pack of downright lies against him which it has already admitted and claiming that publishing these lies which it invented, which the police said did not constitute evidence to even warrant launching and investigation were in the public interest.
>

will be a few bandwagon jumpers looking for an easy pay-out,
they can't all be wrong

>
Yes they can because the Guardian made it all up. Let's hope the FAKE NEWS Guardian is found guilty and goes bust as a result.
>

this is not the stats

Clarke has only has to prove that the Guardian lied in the balance of probabilities. That's already given since the Guardian has already admitted to it. The Guardian on the other has to prove that in the balance of probabilities publishing a pack of lies about Noel Clark was justified by being in the public interest. Do you seriously think that they can do that? Note that this means that EVERY false accusation against Clarke must be justified to have been in the public interest, not just a few or even one of them. It's still defamation if only one of the accusations is false or misleading or the Guardian made only one of them up which it knew to be a lie or would mislead.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." -William Shatner