You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Parliamentary Privilege
@Tikay10 picture of my namesake today reminded me that a very important legal decision has been reported today.
The more Right Wing of our Press are showing their true colours on this one. Not quite so Right Wing, and not so anti the European Court of Human Rights when it comes down on their side
Background. Sir Philip Green believed he had been treated most unfairly by the Telegraph. They had alleged that he had used his power and influence to inflict himself on a variety of young girls and supermodels. That various people felt amounted to "Me too" acts. I have no idea whether this is true. Part of the reason for that is that Sir Green successfully got an Injunction stopping anyone mentioning it.
Then a Labour MP took it on himself to name and shame the "good" Sir by publicly naming him in the House of Commons. MPs have an absolute right to say whatever they like in Parliament (what is known as Absolute Legal Privilege). Sir G then took this to the ECHR claiming this circumvents the rules relating to a fair trial.
It was an unusual case. 1 of those rare occasions when I wanted both sides to lose. But the ECHR has ruled that our Parliament is perfectly entitled to retain Absolute Privilege.
As it happens, I disagree with this decision. I honestly believe MPs should instead have "Qualified Privilege"-where someone can only be sued if they say something defamatory and that it was primarily motivated by malice. But the ECHR is not the monster that the Press try to portray it as.
Something that the Press will conveniently forget when they trot out their anti-ECHR nonsense.
The more Right Wing of our Press are showing their true colours on this one. Not quite so Right Wing, and not so anti the European Court of Human Rights when it comes down on their side
Background. Sir Philip Green believed he had been treated most unfairly by the Telegraph. They had alleged that he had used his power and influence to inflict himself on a variety of young girls and supermodels. That various people felt amounted to "Me too" acts. I have no idea whether this is true. Part of the reason for that is that Sir Green successfully got an Injunction stopping anyone mentioning it.
Then a Labour MP took it on himself to name and shame the "good" Sir by publicly naming him in the House of Commons. MPs have an absolute right to say whatever they like in Parliament (what is known as Absolute Legal Privilege). Sir G then took this to the ECHR claiming this circumvents the rules relating to a fair trial.
It was an unusual case. 1 of those rare occasions when I wanted both sides to lose. But the ECHR has ruled that our Parliament is perfectly entitled to retain Absolute Privilege.
As it happens, I disagree with this decision. I honestly believe MPs should instead have "Qualified Privilege"-where someone can only be sued if they say something defamatory and that it was primarily motivated by malice. But the ECHR is not the monster that the Press try to portray it as.
Something that the Press will conveniently forget when they trot out their anti-ECHR nonsense.