Allegedly, my arse...

DublinWriter

Listened to a very interesting programme on R4 this morning about the use of the word 'allegedly' to cover one's arse, legally.

The solicitor on the programme said that the whole 'allegedly' thing was dreamt up by Paul Merton's solicitor back in the late 1980's when he (Paul) was working as a scriptwriter on Julian Clary's show.

He said that the whole use of 'allegedly' was never a device that existed in law before that, and that for example, in legal terms the statement 'Kate Moss is a cokehead, allegedly' is just as libellous as saying 'Kate Moss is a cokehead'.

Any solicitors or barristers care to clarify? Make yerselves known, and don't worry about that little red-laser dot thingy that will appear on your chest, it's probably just from my remote control.

Mossy Monk

what has this got to do with Television?

Our man in Havana

Mossy Monk wrote:

what has this got to do with Television?

indeed

sceptre

DublinWriter wrote:

Any solicitors or barristers care to clarify? Make yerselves known, and don't worry about that little red-laser dot thingy that will appear on your chest, it's probably just from my remote control.

I'm neither so keep your weapon in your pocket.

He said that the whole use of 'allegedly' was never a device that existed in law before that, and that for example, in legal terms the statement 'Kate Moss is a cokehead, allegedly' is just as libellous as saying 'Kate Moss is a cokehead'.

General answer in general: of course it is. Repeating a libellous allegation is generally regarded as libellous for one thing. Secondly, libel law is based on the tort of injuring someone's reputation by making a false statement of fact. The main case being taught to libel law students in the UK these days is Albert Reynolds v Times Newspapers from 1999 and it's worth a read. The courts find it easiest to interpret libel in the UK as a statement that causes a typical Joe to think less of the person or even more easily, causes the person to lose out in their trade or profession as a result of the statement. Kate lose her contracts last week so connect the dots.

In the US, following NY Times v Sullivan from the mid-60s, the person would have to prove actual malice on the part of the person making the statement and after Gertz v Robert Welch you can't win a case when a statement is made as opinion rather than as fact ("I think Kate Moss is a cokehead" is pretty much allowed over there).

In any case the word "false" is pretty relevant - you can't get done in most jurisdictions for making a statement that happens to be true. Kate Moss is a cokehead - she said she was during the week.

Oh and I'm moving this to News/Media as it's a little more at home there.

mycroft

sceptre wrote:

I'm neither so keep your weapon in your pocket.


General answer in general: of course it is. Repeating a libellous allegation is generally regarded as libellous for one thing. Secondly, libel law is based on the tort of injuring someone's reputation by making a false statement of fact. The main case being taught to libel law students in the UK these days is Albert Reynolds v Times Newspapers from 1999 and it's worth a read. The courts find it easiest to interpret libel in the UK as a statement that causes a typical Joe to think less of the person or even more easily, causes the person to lose out in their trade or profession as a result of the statement. Kate lose her contracts last week so connect the dots.

In the US, following NY Times v Sullivan from the mid-60s, the person would have to prove actual malice on the part of the person making the statement and after Gertz v Robert Welch you can't win a case when a statement is made as opinion rather than as fact ("I think Kate Moss is a cokehead" is pretty much allowed over there).


In any case the word "false" is pretty relevant - you can't get done in most jurisdictions for making a statement that happens to be true. Kate Moss is a cokehead - she said she was during the week.

But for starts theres two things, one theres the simple fact for the first week, there were photos of kate moss reportingly snorting coke, however without a chemical anaylsis of what she was stuffing up her nose, was it ketamine, heroin, powdered milk? Theres an ethic there, you're fairly certain what's she's snorting up, the source who provide it is making a claim, but you cannot prove it, tacking on the alledgly protects yourself againist making an assertion you cannot definetly prove.

sceptre

mycroft wrote:

tacking on the alledgly protects yourself againist making an assertion you cannot definetly prove.

Ah, but that's exactly where we started. Does it now?

Especially when everyone knows "allegedly" is tacked on to aim for that very target of trying to make a comment or allegation that you can't prove to try to get away with it with your ass in the air and your nose possibly far from the ground. "Allegedly" would imply that someone else said it (whatever it is), perhaps (or preferably) even with some degree of knowledge or authority. So who might that be then in any given circumstance?

I would tend to draw a line between "Kate Moss is a cokehead, allegedly" and "the alleged burglar who appeared in court yesterday". It isn't a hard and fast line but the alleged burglar has been accused by someone/something that might well know something about it, is named and has a history of quite often knowing something about it as opposed to merely using the word "allegedly" as a catchall phrase to avoid Kate Moss suing when she's accused of killing small babies and drinking their blood, allegedly.

Nevertheless where the discussion started was with the idea that "allegedly" may not be a getout clause for people or newspapers (in particular) that choose to use it in the absence of any other form of (good) supporting evidence, which I tend to agree with.

mycroft

sceptre wrote:

Ah, but that's exactly where we started. Does it now?

Especially when everyone knows "allegedly" is tacked on to aim for that very target of trying to make a comment or allegation that you can't prove to try to get away with it with your ass in the air and your nose possibly far from the ground. "Allegedly" would imply that someone else said it (whatever it is), perhaps (or preferably) even with some degree of knowledge or authority. So who might that be then in any given circumstance?

I would tend to draw a line between "Kate Moss is a cokehead, allegedly" and "the alleged burglar who appeared in court yesterday". It isn't a hard and fast line but the alleged burglar has been accused by someone/something that might well know something about it, is named and has a history of quite often knowing something about it as opposed to merely using the word "allegedly" as a catchall phrase to avoid Kate Moss suing when she's accused of killing small babies and drinking their blood, allegedly.

Yeah but you're missing the point, saying Kate Moss is a cokehead, allegedly on the backdrop of photos of her snorting lines of white powder, which is allegedly cocaine, now if she sues, you have the right to to say that these photos combined with the statement of the photographer, in addition to the alledgely, secure your defense.

Now if you wrote a story saying kate moss hu*ped a donkey in a bar in mexico city, while snorting lines of red ants, alledgely, but offer nothing by way of supporting evidence (ie photos of kate moss, a happy donkey, and bunch of worried looking ants) is you making an unsupported allegation.

Ditto the accused in your burglarly is always alledged to have commited the crime, because guilt has not being proved yet.

Nevertheless where the discussion started was with the idea that "allegedly" may not be a getout clause for people or newspapers (in particular) that choose to use it in the absence of any other form of (good) supporting evidence, which I tend to agree with.

Agreed and I think the best description of the Moss kerfluffal is there needs to be a term for newspapers yelling at the top of their lungs, what was already blatantly obvious, to the general public, I just think that there's a number of papers that have tacted on the alledgely as a prefix to this story, and a number of papers that haven't, and the latter usually have bigger lawsuit warchests

Eoin

Is it not so much of a legal thing as just an English language thing? i.e. it simply means that it was alleged that Kate Moss snorted cocaine (to continue using the example).

Even if it is not proven that she did, and in fact even if it was proven that she didn't - it was still alleged that she did, and this is fact. There is a big difference between "Apparently" and "Allegedly".

Ann Elk

Also, when it comes to Libel law, in the interests of free speech, the press have a defence of 'fair comment' open to them which means they have more leeway than you and I. So in the Case of Kate "the alleged donkey humping, red ant snorting" Moss, the press may get away with such comments by claiming that the public had a right to know that a role model for young ladies, and the personal fitness trainer for many a pubescent youths' right arm may be doing bold things.

Allegedly

bonkey

sceptre wrote:

Secondly, libel law is based on the tort of injuring someone's reputation by making a false statement of fact.

Ah, but if someone else has already alleged that kate Moss is a cokehead, then I'm making a true statement of fact by saying "it has been alleged that kate Moss is a cokehead".

Given that libel requires falsity, that shouldn't be libellous.

Now, with the aid of some grammatical restructuring, I get to "Allegedly Kate Moss is a cokehead", and then on to "Kate Moss is a cokehead, allegedly".

At no time am I making a false statement, as long as someone else has alleged this about her, and I am aware of those allegations.

So who might that be then in any given circumstance?

Why does that matter. I haven't said or implied that I put any faith in the allegations, simply stated that allegations had been made.

jc

DublinWriter

bonkey wrote:

At no time am I making a false statement, as long as someone else has alleged this about her, and I am aware of those allegations.

As long as you can source the original alligator!

Time to call in Ray Mears.

monument

Moss might not be the best example for this, hasn’t she reportedly admitted to been a cokehead?