Bullying BBC attacks man suffering from autism!

Bullying BBC attacks man suffering from autism!

I would question whether the BBC can justify spending TV Licence fee payers money attempting to defend the indefensible?

It is my contention that the BBC, Jeremy Vine and Paul Staines/Guido Fawkes defamed me during a radio programme by referring to me as a murderer.

According to Wikipedia: "Hirst pleaded not guilty to murder, pleading guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. This plea was accepted by the prosecution".

According to Wikipedia:

"Defamation

How to prove Libel

There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place.

First, the person must prove that the statement was false.

Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm.

And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement".

The defendants accused me of a criminal act I am not gulity of committing: "If the false statements fall into certain categories (such as accusing an individual of a criminal act), the statements may be defamatory per se for which damages need not be proven".

According to the BBC: "it is immaterial whether you were convicted of manslaughter or murder".

I beg to differ.

"Diminished responsibility is a partial defence which, if successfully pleaded, reduces liability from murder to manslaughter (s 2(3) of the Homicide Act 1957).

For a successful plea, the defendant bears the burden of proof; he must prove (on the balance of probabilities) that:

(a) he was suffering from an ‘abnormality of mind’,
(b) resulting from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury,
(c) that substantially impaired his responsibility for the killing".

The BBC has no public power to alter the criminal law, or verdict of a court, therefore it is contended that the BBC has abused its power.

To add insult to injury the BBC instead of issuing an apology and remedying the matter has resorted to the bullying tactic of attempting to defend the indefensible.

"In the event that you decide to pursue a claim we will seek summary judgment, alternatively a ruling on meaning in accordance with CPR PD53 para 4.1.".

According to Basic Libel for Idiots:

"In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!

For example, if you said Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV licence in his life that would not be defamatory - or it is very unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke, that would be.

Why? Because Peter Sutcliffe's reputation will not be damaged by the TV licence revelation (he is after all a mass murderer). Of course, his lawyers would still be free to bring the case to court, but it is very unlikely they would succeed.

Greg Dyke, on the other hand, runs the BBC , so to say he wilfully doesn't pay his TV licence could have a seriously detrimental effect on his career. He could be fired or his reputation damaged (note:Dyke has now left the BBC).

It is not for the judge or jury (at the outset) to decide how damaged he is - they just have to confirm that such accusations are false and damaging. Then the judge and/or jury decide on monetary damages".

I do not anticipate any difficulty in relation to obtaining confirmation that the accusation is false. Establishing damage I expect will be rather more difficult, but I don't think it is insurmountable. For example, at least in the case of Paul Staines/Guido Fawkes I contend that his defamation was not issued as fair/honest comment but was instead a false statement motivated by malice.