Good old Coutts

[Mottie]

.

 

[Mottie]

Definition
Publishing is the activity of making information, literature, music, software, and other content available to the public for sale or for free.

Why use one word when several will do?

Why use two words when twenty will do?

 

[Roy Bloom]

Why use two words when twenty will do?

Removing confusion over the definition of one word generally requires a lengthy explanation, as in fillyboy's case.

 

[Mottie]

Really?

 

[Roy Bloom]

Really?

Naaa! I was just kidding.

 

[motorbiking]

Nige published the report.

Blup

If you allow me to explain the elements for a moment..

To prove Defamation:

A claimant needs to show that the statement complained of:

1. is defamatory, meaning that an ordinary person would think worse of the claimant as a result of the statement;
2. identifies or refers to them, and
3. is published to a third party.

1. The collation of existing commentary, compiled in to a report/essay with additional commentary, ticks the box of making a statement. There are decided cases for re-tweets for example and there is also the concept of defamation by innuendo or the "nod, nod, wink, wink rule" as it's sometimes referred. Anyone reading the 40 page report will conclude point 1. No matter what your opinion of him, it's nasty stuff and much of it is disputable. Just look at the division of opinion here on him.

2. Pretty easy - he is named.

3. Note - Point 3 does not say, made public, merely published to a 3rd party. If I tell you, you are a pedo for example, I do not defame you, if I tell 1 other person, its different. It only need to be created and distributed. The report was compiled and distributed to a supposedly independent risk board, who took decisions based on the content. Additionally, information was shared more broadly and once NF complained to the press, the contents used to brief execs. Lastly we have the false statement made to the BBC. NF then used the SAR to obtain the evidence, which he published to defend himself. That is point 3 ticked.

So defamation is established, you then look at the lawful authority and excuse elements. You are welcome to have a look, I've published links to the act several times. I doubt it will take you long to conclude that none have any merit.

 

[Roy Bloom]

1. is defamatory, meaning that an ordinary person would think worse of the claimant as a result of the statement;

1. The collation of existing commentary, compiled in to a report/essay with additional commentary, ticks the box of making a statement. There are decided cases for re-tweets for example and there is also the concept of defamation by innuendo or the "nod, nod, wink, wink rule" as it's sometimes referred. Anyone reading the 40 page report will conclude point 1. No matter what your opinion of him, it's nasty stuff and much of it is disputable. Just look at the division of opinion here on him.

If I report to you or anyone else that you are considered by many to be a (insert whatever is applicable), it could be considered as advisory, and therefore constructive and informative. It is not a claim that I consider you to be (whatever was applied).
As I understand it, the report did state that "Farage was considered by others to be a disingenuous grifter".
That doesn't mean that Coutts shared that opinion. It probably can be proved to be true that many do see Farage as a disingenuous gritfer.
It was this information that Farage, not Coutts, commuinicated to others.

3. is published to a third party.

3. Note - Point 3 does not say, made public, merely published to a 3rd party. If I tell you, you are a pedo for example, I do not defame you, if I tell 1 other person, its different. It only need to be created and distributed. The report was compiled and distributed to a supposedly independent risk board, who took decisions based on the content. Additionally, information was shared more broadly and once NF complained to the press, the contents used to brief execs. Lastly we have the false statement made to the BBC. NF then used the SAR to obtain the evidence, which he published to defend himself. That is point 3 ticked.

I think this clears up your misconception:
"4. The statement was published

A defamatory statement must be communicated to a third party, in other words not just to the claimant.

For slander claims (oral publication), the words must be apprehended and understood by a third party. For libel claims (written publication), the words must be read and understood by a third party. Therefore, if a statement is published but no one reads it/hears it, there is no claim for defamation."

Defamation - A Basic Guide - What Do I Need To Prove To Bring A Defamation Claim?

This opinion piece gives detailed information about defamation and how you can make a defamation claim.

www.hja.net

The discussion about Farage being a disingenuous grifter was only communicated to Farage. He then communicated those words to millions of others.

If any other information was communicated to the BBC by Coutts, it was the genuine reason for the account to be closed, i.e. the amount of funds, etc. That was the truth, and therefore cannot be considered as libel.

Then there are genuine reasons for a defence, should Farage procede:

Some defences available to a claim of defamation are:

• Truth
• Honest opinion
• Privilege (absolute or qualified)
• Publication of matter for public interest
• Innocent dissemination
• Consent
  
  

  Defamation - A Basic Guide - What Do I Need To Prove To Bring A Defamation Claim?

  This opinion piece gives detailed information about defamation and how you can make a defamation claim.

  www.hja.net

I suspect that Coutts have a choice of defence: Truth, Honest opinion, Privilege, Innocent dissemination, Consent.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

1 side of the legal argument in here, refuses to look at the other side.

I'm sure their lawyers are fully up to speed.

 

[motorbiking]

If I report to you or anyone else that you are considered by many to be a (insert whatever is applicable), it could be considered as advisory, and therefore constructive and informative. It is not a claim that I consider you to be (whatever was applied).
As I understand it, the report did state that "Farage was considered by others to be a disingenuous grifter".
That doesn't mean that Coutts shared that opinion. It probably can be proved to be true that many do see Farage as a disingenuous gritfer.
It was this information that Farage, not Coutts, commuinicated to others.



I think this clears up your misconception:
"4. The statement was published

A defamatory statement must be communicated to a third party, in other words not just to the claimant.

For slander claims (oral publication), the words must be apprehended and understood by a third party. For libel claims (written publication), the words must be read and understood by a third party. Therefore, if a statement is published but no one reads it/hears it, there is no claim for defamation."

Defamation - A Basic Guide - What Do I Need To Prove To Bring A Defamation Claim?

This opinion piece gives detailed information about defamation and how you can make a defamation claim.

www.hja.net

The discussion about Farage being a disingenuous grifter was only communicated to Farage. He then communicated those words to millions of others.

If any other information was communicated to the BBC by Coutts, it was the genuine reason for the account to be closed, i.e. the amount of funds, etc. That was the truth, and therefore cannot be considered as libel.

Then there are genuine reasons for a defence, should Farage procede:

Some defences available to a claim of defamation are:

• Truth
• Honest opinion
• Privilege (absolute or qualified)
• Publication of matter for public interest
• Innocent dissemination
• Consent
  
  

  Defamation - A Basic Guide - What Do I Need To Prove To Bring A Defamation Claim?

  This opinion piece gives detailed information about defamation and how you can make a defamation claim.

  www.hja.net

I suspect that Coutts have a choice of defence: Truth, Honest opinion, Privilege, Innocent dissemination, Consent.

Since your references are discussing Defamation in US law, I didn't bother wasting my time. Please use English Law, given the jurisdiction of the claim. All of your so called choices of defence are specifically covered in the act.

 

[motorbiking]

1 side of the legal argument in here, refuses to look at the other side.

I'm sure their lawyers are fully up to speed.

Yup, negotiation a settlement will be the cry. Remember there only needs to be a single act of defamation and yet we have 40 pages a false/misleading statement made to the press, now corrected and apology issued, followed by the humiliating resignations of the leadership and an offer to reinstate the accounts, no doubt to limit the ongoing damages.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Since your references are discussing Defamation in US law, I didn't bother wasting my time. Please use English Law, given the jurisdiction of the claim. All of your so called choices of defence are specifically covered in the act.

Like gant's "look it up yourself", "go figure", "I've already told you several times", "read the article", etc
It's just a refusal to continue the discussion. It's a cop out.

Allowable defences are truth, justification, fair comment, and privilege. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth.
It would be relatively easy for Coutts to prove their comments were true and fair comment.

On the issue of privilege, both parties had a mutual interest. The potential libellous comments were communicated only to Farage. It can easily be argued that Coutts had a duty to communicate that information to him. He then communicated it to millions.
If I told your boss about your suspected sexual abuse of another employee, and we had a mutual (business) interest, it wouldn't be libel. It would be covered by qualified privilege. If I told your wife, it could be libel (or slander depending on the form of communication)

 

[JohnD]

Remember there only needs to be a single act of defamation

And have you confirmed yet what you think it actually was?

Your vague mumblings are worthless.

 

[denso13]

a disingenuous grifter

Is it defamation if it's true?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Is it defamation if it's true?

"Farage was considered by others to be a disingenuous grifter".

I don't read that as something the bank said about him, just information they compiled internally about him.

Not something they should put out to the public of course. Did they do that though? Or did poor Nige?

 

[motorbiking]

OK lets go through all of it then..

1. truth
2. justification
3. fair comment
4. privilege

1. Sec 2 of the Defamation act says If the imputation (the bad think you said/wrote) is true you have a defence. It further says if you said many bad things then any that are true are defended. If the remaining bad things aren't true, then the test applied is based on the harm done. If one single imputation is not true and damage is done, then you have a claim. Put simply the misinformation presented to the beeb stands out. The dossier as I've previously said - is the gravy.
2. repealed Sec 2 para 4
3. repealed Sec 3 para 8
4. see sec 7 - not privileged not prepared for court, dealing with court, government, statutory business, etc, etc. Just a company compiling a toxic dossier about a customer to achieve a goal.

I do encourage people to read all of it at source, not what has been quoted in the press.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

You'd have to be extremely hard of thinking not to see it, if you understand the first thing about defamation law.