ANTiLAG
First Grade
- Messages
- 8,014
I gave you the method by which Ali could obtain the benefit of the defence of truth to a defamation suit. He would not be liable if he named the person and state that the person had denied it.
Bollocks. As a qualified lawyer, that isn't the case. If the plaintiff suffers loss as a result of the allegation, then defamation is on the cards if Ali as a defendant identifies the player. At best you're in the murkier waters of honest opinion.
As for truth - it is a defence to defamation and defending what was said! For example: Is Ali Osama? If true - that player who said that cannot be sued for defamation for what they said.
Q???? Are the words defamatory? Was it about the plaintiff? Was it published? That is the cause of action!
Defences: truth, honest opinion or absolute privilege (saying shit in parliament), qualified privilege (journos)
Alternatively, is a player racist? - prove what they said, and that it was published - that is Ali's problem without witnesses. That is why he faces a loser if he identifies. Sad but true.
It’s not on the person who allegedly said it because he isn’t identified and it was three years ago. These allegations come out of the blue coincidently with the publication of his book.
No. The allegations were raised three years ago by Ali as confirmed by Bayliss. Try to keep up.
Last edited: