Internet Damages


I hear that some BNP bloke has won about £17,000 of a woman who slagged him off on some discussion board. He won the right for the owners to identify the woman and he then sued her for the said damages.

So all you bad people better watch out!!

Dont know of a link but I am sure some arrser will find it.
Flash!! - I heard you had been drummed out, glad to see it aint true
TUESDAY 21/03/2006 14:27:46
Internet libel damages top £10,000

A prominent member of the UK Independence Party won £10,000 libel damages today from a woman who waged an abusive internet campaign against him.

Michael Keith Smith, who contested the Portsmouth North constituency at the last General Election, brought High Court proceedings against Tracy Williams, who was a contributor to the same internet discussion board.

Ms Williams, of Oldham, Lancashire, used a pseudonym to post claims that the 53-year-old chartered surveyor was a "nonce", a sexual offender, a racist bigot and a Nazi.

Addressing him as "Lardbrain", she also alleged that he had sexually harassed a female co-worker and had been charged with soliciting boys.

In June 2004, Mr Keith Smith, of Castle Street, Portchester, Fareham, Hampshire, obtained a court order requiring the site operator to disclose Ms Williams`s identity.

Legal proceedings then started which only served to provoke her into more "frenzied abuse", said Judge Macduff QC, in London.

He said that Ms Williams, who was not in court and did not file a defence to the action, had not sought to justify her statements which were clearly seriously defamatory.

They continued well into 2005.

Assessing damages, he said that Mr Keith Smith, who had given expert evidence in the courts and served on committees for charities and schools, had a reputation of some integrity.

Although the libels were available to the whole world through the internet, it was likely that few people had read them and many of those who did would have dismissed them as "ramblings".

He awarded Mr Keith Smith £5,000 general damages plus £5,000 aggravated damages to reflect the way Ms Williams - who had met a request for an apology with contempt - had behaved.

He granted an injunction preventing the publication of the same or similar libels and ordered Ms Williams to pay the costs of the action, which Mr Keith Smith put at £7,200.
If you think the two parties are the same I suspect that you are the sort of clown who would actually vote for Blair.
I've never heard of a prominent member winning damages before, how prominent was he and how much of a member? Oh well, I suppose we'll let the courts decide.

Sorry just practicing: allegedly allegedly allegedly allegedly allegedly

New Posts

Latest Threads