Extraordinary, that a list administrator would say that naming the home was libellous. You did not accuse the organisation of stealing the medal, merely stated that the medals were stolen from the home. For that to be libellous, it would have to be untrue Truth is an absolute defence against libel. Only lies can be libellous. But we veer off-topic . . .

"Paul Irving" <pauljirving@ntlworld.com> wrote > Extraordinary, that a list administrator would say that naming the home > > was libellous. You did not accuse the organisation of stealing the > medal, merely stated that the medals were stolen from the home. I too had problems understanding why a mere mention of the place where the theft took place could be considered to be in any way libel. For that > to be libellous, it would have to be untrue Truth is an absolute defence > against libel. Only lies can be libellous. I think that the 'truth' defence depends upon the country. I'm fairly sure that it applies in the US but it doesn't in Australia. Here sueing newspapers for libel used to be a nice little earner for politicians.

Truth is an absolute defence here in England, but the burden of proof is on the person who made the statement. I suspect it is the same in Australia, & is how your Australian politicians make money. They rely on it not being possible to prove the allegations.It also happens here. However, I can't see how this claim would be libellous even if untrue. But we really shouldn't take this further. Too far off-topic. moura wrote: > "Paul Irving" <pauljirving@ntlworld.com> wrote > > >> Extraordinary, that a list administrator would say that naming the home > >> was libellous. You did not accuse the organisation of stealing the >> medal, merely stated that the medals were stolen from the home. >> > > I too had problems understanding why a mere mention of the place where the > theft took place could be considered to be in any way libel. > > For that > >> to be libellous, it would have to be untrue Truth is an absolute defence >> against libel. Only lies can be libellous. >> > > I think that the 'truth' defence depends upon the country. I'm fairly sure > that it applies in the US but it doesn't in Australia. Here sueing > newspapers for libel used to be a nice little earner for politicians. > > *************************************** > > BGS Website: http://www.bucksgs.org.uk/ > BFHS Website: http://www.bucksfhs.org.uk/ > Bucks Genuki Website: http://met.open.ac.uk/genuki/big/eng/BKM/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BUCKS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >