| Date | Original Topic |
| 21st August 2005 | Pte Brickey at Rorke's Drift?
By Glenn Wade
The original topic posted here has raised the question of legal consequences which the contributor and the website don't consider worth the risk.
However, the following responses are considered worth retaining as a general debate point.
Alan Critchley
Webmaster |
| Date | Replies |
| 21st August 2005 | Mike McCabe
Forgive me for pointing this out, and it is not a comment in agreement/disagreement with what you say, but remarks made on internet websites can be considered actionable in civil law in certain circumstances by a complainant. Especially by one that can afford litigation.
MC McC |
| 21st August 2005 | Glenn Wade
Hi Mike
Thanks for pointing that out, I mean no offence to him personally but I stand by what I say. This is my opinion of his book and proper research will prove that the book is error ridden and a disgraceful attack on a brave dead man. The main thrust of my post was with regard to Pte Brickey but if it breaks any forum rules than I am in total agreement that it should be removed.
All the best
Glenn |
| 21st August 2005 | Trevor
Seem to be back tracking there mate! |
| 21st August 2005 | Paul Cubbin
Forgive my naivety, but isn't Glenn entitled to say what he likes as long as he makes it clear that he is expressing a personal opinion and not stating fact?
Of course, it may be an opinion shared by many, but that's a different matter. |
| 21st August 2005 | Coll
Glenn
I've got a feeling that I'm going to be very wrong, but I recall reading about a soldier who was wounded while on the roof of one of the buildings, falling off and landing on top of another defender fighting from the ground below, who basically broke his fall and prevented any further injuries.
Names, I know not. Could this be termed 'saved' as in the fact it was more by accident than any action taken by the man on the ground. I'm not sure.
Was the man wounded badly enough to be saved later, as in the treatment of his injury ?
Another detail I can't confirm.
However, maybe me posting this might get the true story.
Coll
PS. Please don't tear me apart guys. I've read so many 'bits' of information over the years, it is difficult to remember the sources. |
| 21st August 2005 | David Alan Gardner
Glenn, I don't think you've much to worry about on the legal front.
I don't think your comments would be regarded as defamory,and in any case there may be some truth in your comments which would be an adequate defence:-) |
| 21st August 2005 | James Douglas
The interests of the webmaster deserve consideration too. Me learned friend, above, might like to read: http://www.mattcollins.com.au/oupupdate11.htm
Defamation simply has to be alleged with enough prima facie credibility to find a place in the court lists if the complainant has the resources to maintain the action. However, the effort would probably be placed on securing resolution to the complainants satisfaction out of court if it were assessed that an allegation of defamation might be proven. Actions might also be pursued in jurisdictions other than the UK courts.
But, see also: http://law.web-tomorrow.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/Defamation
Worth more care generally before posting comments, I'd have thought.
JS D
|
| 22nd August 2005 | Michael Boyle
I know that British libel laws are among the most liberal, but don't they require an attack on a person's character rather on a published work? (I've read some pretty mean-spirited attacks on the works of British archeologists and anthropologists that didn't result in libel). However there are other turns of phrase that would seem less contentious.
Back to the original inquiry though, could the "Brickey" in question be yet another period name mangling? Was there a similar anecdote relating to Buckley, Thomas. Private. 25B/1184, B Company?
MAB |
| 22nd August 2005 | Arthur Trent
Well of course somebody has to complain first. And a consideration, at least in setting damages, is how many people might have seen the post in the first place. As there now seem to be only about a dozen readers or contributors to this site I cannot see conclusions being formed that very much harm has been done.
Art |
| 22nd August 2005 | Mike McCabe
A good, eminently sensible, and very respectable decision - at head of post.
It is also in all interests to keep each other and the site operators steering safely between the various rocks and lighthouses.
More pro-active weeding by the webmasters - allowed for by the site rules - should be a routine feature. We can all find posts that drift over the edge from time to time. They have years of accumulated experience and good judgement and I think few sensible people would dispute their rulings.
MC McC |
| 22nd August 2005 | Peter Weedon
Agreed. I would rather have a moderated site than no forum at all.
Peter |
| 22nd August 2005 | Peter Weedon
I attended a lecture in the UK a number of years ago given by a South African-based guide. He also referred to a Pte Brickley, falling onto Lugg.
There was a Private Bickley who escaped Isandhlwana but did not fight at Rorke's Drift as far as I am aware.
Peter |
