win /win

[KLOS]

Just to repeat-

If we go for a civil writ against the Sun they will be obliged to reveal their alleged FA informants ( they will not get Public Interest Immunity). If they refuse they will be liable for the the full damages. If they do reveal, the FA, notwithstanding their denials, will be liable for the actions of their employees and therefore liable for the damages. The FA's lawyers must know this.

[singingranger]

Interesting!

[Nodge70]

To an extent...

I would suspect though that The Sun would hang Shaun Custis out to dry rather than anything detrimental to NewsInt. Which is a shame as he really is one of the good guys out there.

[paulmason]

To an extent...

I would suspect though that The Sun would hang Shaun Custis out to dry rather than anything detrimental to NewsInt. Which is a shame as he really is one of the good guys out there.

Wouldn't the writ be against the sun newspaper / News International, not Shaun Custis ?

[KLOS]

win/win

...and his employers would be liable for his actions which they printed

[Nodge70]

Wouldn't the writ be against the sun newspaper / News International, not Shaun Custis ?

I would punt that they would say Custis was provided with incorrect information in good faith and print a tiny retraction. Worse case scenario is the Editor takes the hit, not the newspaper or the company (it's an *incorrect* story, not a criminal case).

[KLOS]

win/win

Still would not 'unprejudice' the case and the informants would still have to be revealed. The damage is done notwithstanding any apology

[rangerforevereastcote]

informants never get named. if they did noone would ever "inform"
the editor would have to take the rap as he signs of the paper

just for the record i will never buy that rag ever again

[SheepRanger]

To an extent...

I would suspect though that The Sun would hang Shaun Custis out to dry rather than anything detrimental to NewsInt. Which is a shame as he really is one of the good guys out there.

Thought you were logging off until Friday - eh eh eh!!!

[KLOS]

win/win

informants never get named. if they did noone would ever "inform"
the editor would have to take the rap as he signs of the paper

just for the record i will never buy that rag ever again

In which case the story was even more culpable as they could not show that the source wa an FA one i.e. a complete fabrication.

[rangerforevereastcote]

In which case the story was even more culpable as they could not show that the source wa an FA one i.e. a complete fabrication.

thats why these papers keep getting away with it , they always use the term "reliable source" if proven incorect they always say "on this occasion our informant was incorrect" allows them to print utter sh it with no comeback, they then hide the apology on an unseen page in an unseen location and get away with it

only thing that worries me is that the sun would not normally put a backpage headline like this without some sort of info

[KLOS]

But they have quoted 'FA' source and will need to address that in civil action. Both Murdoch and the FA are cornered.

I suppose when desperate they could argue that our side set up the whole thing( posing as anonymous FA people - agents provocateurs- to contrive to entrap them but it still would not excuse their printing it. Hoist with theri own petard methinks.

[Nodge70]

But they have quoted 'FA' source and will need to address that in civil action. Both Murdoch and the FA are cornered.

I suppose when desperate they could argue that our side set up the whole thing( posing as anonymous FA people - agents provocateurs- to contrive to entrap them but it still would not excuse their printing it. Hoist with theri own petard methinks.

No, they're not. They'll just repeat again, it wasn't them. Comes back to Custis and the Sun.

[KLOS]

No, they're not. They'll just repeat again, it wasn't them. Comes back to Custis and the Sun.

Nodge,

I think you misunderstood me. My reference to 'they' was the Sun

I meant to add. SC would do well to ensure that he is personaly indemnified in tort otherwise his goods and chattels could be jeopardy as well as his employers. Moreover, SC may well ( even in civil proceedings) to swear under oath that he does not know the identity of the alleged FA source.At that point he has to decide whether to risk perjury since teh FA sourc might turn (the equivalent) of QE and swear the opposite. Then we are in full blown 'cut throat'territory- Oh what fun.


'Oh judgement thou art fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason'

[WeAreQPR12]

Nodge,

I think you misunderstood me. My reference to 'they' was the Sun

I meant to add. SC would do well to ensure that he is personaly indemnified in tort otherwise his goods and chattels could be jeopardy as well as his employers. Moreover, SC may well ( even in civil proceedings) to swear under oath that he does not know the identity of the alleged FA source.At that point he has to decide whether to risk perjury since teh FA sourc might turn (the equivalent) of QE and swear the opposite. Then we are in full blown 'cut throat'territory- Oh what fun.


'Oh judgement thou art fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason'

is that u Ted?