Attorney-at-law Donna Symmonds Attempts To Intimidate A Bajan Blog

Attorney_at_law Donna Symmonds

Recent world events have demonstrated to the most doubting of Thomases the power of social media. Barbados social media is building momentum, Facebook is said to have 100,000 plus Barbadians as members and recent blogs like Real Talk//Gird Your Loins are helping to ensure a strong Bajan blogosphere. Inevitably, there will be attempts by many to muzzle, threaten and otherwise suborn the social media. After all we represent a threat to the establishment. BU has been subjected to such tactics in the past as the BU family knows. We note the latest such attack with interest.

In a report entitled New Barbados Tourism Authority Director charged with tax evasion? and dated April 2, 2011, Barbados Free Press (BFP) published verbatim a report also dated April 2, 2011 from the Nation . Included in the Nation report was a list of names of persons alleged to have failed to file required tax returns, either business or personal. Fair comment, you would think? NOT according to attorney-at-law, Donna Symmonds.

On April 11, 2011, Donna Symmonds posted the following letter in BFP’s comments section (redacted by BU).

While the relationship between BU and BFP is non-existent, BU is concerned by the bigger picture, the attempt by a senior counsel in Barbados to threaten and browbeat an organ of the social media for having reproduced a report from the Nation, itself available online to all and sundry. BU has to ask the question as to whether the Nation has received a similar letter from Ms Symmonds on behalf of her client and what response (if any) she has received from the Nation.

BU has redacted the name and any identifier for Ms Symmonds’ client out of fairness, as all charges have been unconditionally dismissed and BU is not concerned with the matter per se, but with the attempt to threaten and browbeat an organ of the social media based on a somewhat questionable premise of defamation. Any attempt to intimidate a member of the Bajan social media from any quarter will be taken as an attack on BU.

BU cannot speak for BFP, but for itself it says that, had it published such a report, it would have needed no such threats and unenforceable intimidations (nor would it have entertained them) from Ms Symmonds, but would have responded positively to a polite request and immediately and prominently UPDATE the matter, which was, in any event, public domain and therefore fair comment – but that is the way BU has chosen to operate. BU would have considered it only fair to report on developments as they occur. As for what BU’s response to indemnification for damage sustained, well BU’s response would have been for Donna Symmonds to take a hike!

BU intends to track this issue to see if (a) the Nation withdraws or amends its report; and (b) if BFP follows suit.

This is a matter of interest to all who follow and contribute to the social media.

0 thoughts on “Attorney-at-law Donna Symmonds Attempts To Intimidate A Bajan Blog


  1. Oh well! Fools rush in where angels fear to thread!Any one should know that.BU….. I salute your stance!!!!


  2. Well, irrespective of whether they have a case, if they do bring one, we will see if BFP is still a live entity in 2023, when the case eventually makes the court, to be either sustained or thrown out (which I believe that you have it right).

  3. Pingback: Attorney Donna Symmonds receives public apology from Barbados Free Press | Barbados Free Press


  4. My comments are simple.

    A person is out of the country and not earning, either personally or corporately. In other words, they have no taxable income. Inland Revenue comes along and says that they have not paid their taxes for a time when there was nothing to tax and, inexplicably, are therefore liable (how?) in law. I ASSUME that the person accused said this to Inland Revenue (either personally or through an attorney) and produced back-up evidence to support their contention WELL in advance of the matter coming to court. Instead of this evidence being examined and the Inland Revenue charges dropped, the matter goes to court where Inland Revenue is proved to have laid baseless and defamatory charges. Meanwhile, to compound their error and insult, Inland Revenue publishes a list of people charged and that innocent person’s name is on the list.

    I refuse to believe that Inland Revenue did not have full and complete knowledge of the defence available to the person they chose to accuse. I refuse to believe that Inland Revenue was not fully aware of that person’s innocence.

    So exactly who in Inland Revenue took the decision to continue with these baseless charges? Exactly who in Inland Revenue was tasked with making an assessment of the case? What idiotic megalomaniac in Inland Revenue decided to defame the person wrongly accused by placing their name on a public domain list that members of the Fourth Estate and the social media could report on and to refuse, faced by incontrovertible evidence, to vacate their complaint?

    That a grave injustice and defamation has been done to those who have been demonstrably and KNOWINGLY accused by Inland Revenue, is clear and indisputable. The fault lies squarely at the door of Inland Revenue.

    That said, I agree with David that threatening the social media, even BFP, because it carries verbatim a report published by the Nation both in print on and the internet, is highly questionable and I would be interested to see what efforts have been made to place the blame squarely where it properly belongs. On Inland Revenue.


  5. one has a right to seek duress when one’s character is being defammned publicly. When social media refuses to check the facts such problems arises


    • BU hopes that Donna Symmonds extended professional courtesy to her client when dealing with this matter because to date one would have to conclude she does not desearve one red cent!

      Why post a comment in the comments section?

      Why address it to Managing Director instead of Blogmaster or some other relevant term?

      Many of these lawyers need to be humbled but yet they continue to rule Barbados.

      Did we read somewhere that Verla Depeiza who is on that Nation list of 26 was appointed to the Board of the BTA recently?

      Did we read she is the sister of Francis Depeiza who is Deputy Chairman of the QEH, another lawyer!

      Did we also read that Francis Depeiza’s wife (Weeks) is also associated with the BTA Board?

      It appears croynism and ‘incestuism’ is alive and well.


  6. I’ m glad that BFP is taking this stance, as unity is strength.

    Commonsense says to me that if your name was used in error in this matter, that you may seek clarity on the matter from the source of the error in order to protect your name.

    Why would you take efforts to SHOOT THE MESSENGER?


  7. I got it .. I got it … Donna “Blue Blood” Symmonds, from the house of Jill Asses, wukkin’ together with BFP to drive traffic to that site. Ha ha da trick din wuk with me tho’, they got to come better than that …! Ha


  8. @ac. With respect and in, unbelievably, defense to BFP (will wonders never cease?) the blogs did not fail to check the story, the Nation published the story and the blogs merely pointed out the Nation story and reproduced it, along with the many internet sites to which th Nation is associated.

    I ask you, therefore, to reconsider what you said. Especially given the source of the story in the first place, which is Inland Revenue.

    I ask you also to consider if you, as a rational and non-ego-driven being would have drawn attention to your client by posting a bullying letter in the comments section of the particular blog. Or if you would, in your best judgment, have either merely set the record straight in the comments section or politely requested that the blog in question do so for you, absent demands that such receive your sanction and approval or the sanction and approval of your client and advance a spurious claim for possible damages.

    What say you?


  9. As of April 1st 2011 there were 111,000 persons on Facebook with Ip numbers in Barbados. Aproximately 52% are females and just over 72% is between the age of 18 and 40. Real Politicaal Power is now in the people hand thank to social media. No longer do we police permission to protest Geo-Bombing and Virtual Sit Ins are our weapons!


  10. When Bajans in the diaspora as well as those on the rock need legal services at home, they need to feel that there are in a contract with someone who will be thorough and treat to their situation as if it were their own. “Their own” raises an issue.
    It is an issue if you as a service provider allows your name to be sullied with a charge of tax evasion. To me the only way you could be fully exonerated and be perceptively restored as a service provider worthy of providing to me the level of service that you would give to yourself, is if the D.o.I.R never sent any notice to pay; a point on which dropping all charges of tax evasion would not suffice. If no prior notices were sent and the first time that you were made aware that you may owe back taxes is via a charge being laid, then you should seek a legal opinion on such, because this why any injury to your reputation would have occured. Since there is no record of the D.o.I.R being sued in repect to this matter, nor of the D.o.I.R issuing an apology, then I can assume that communications were sent and were probably ignored until the summoms to court.
    I wouldn’t have much confidence that someone who allows this to occur with their personal obligations, if indeed it did occur, could handle my personal matters without concern. Am I wrong?


  11. @amuse
    Clearly the burden of proof that you paid your taxes, or do not owe taxes, is on the taxpayer. Unless you know that the D.o.I.R did not send any notices to pay, prior to having a summons to court issued then you may have been premature in your insistance that the D.o.I.R is at fault.


  12. To add to Kammie’s point, blogs published by BU are automatically posted to David’s facebook and Twitter pages and from there the message is retweeted or shared in the fb community. It is indeed awesome the power to influence which rest in the hands of ordinary citizens. The traditional media has been forced to get on board as a means to feel the pulse of the people.


  13. It may also be interesting to know that most conversations on Face book take place around 3.00 P.M.


  14. @Adrian. Then the question is: Had the taxpayer discharged their duty and informed the tax authority? If yes, the onus is on the tax authority. Would you agree? So who erred in this case?

    But be that as it may, once the charge was brought, there would have been abundant wriggle room for the accused to contact the tax authority with their evidence and defense BEFORE such a matter arrived in court and, if the tax authority found the defense to be acceptable, to remove the accused’s name from the list that found its way into the hands and pages of the Nation. Matter done.

    However, one has to question the judgement of any counsel who, instead of writing privately to the social media asking that a correction be made, chooses instead to heap publicity on it, demand all kinds of stupid things – and to been made (as I see has been done now) to look very silly indeed. But what do I know – maybe I am wrong and the answer is to threaten instead of making a reasonable request. But I am poor, peaceful and polite and I am going to stick with my approach – it works for me.


  15. @Amused
    Your questions are the exact ones that need answers, have you seen any information that could possibly shed light on them? If not, it is premature to apportion blame to the D.o.I.R at this time. The charge damages her reputation, and the publicizing of this case by her council for whatever reason is likely to turn out the way they intended. This Lawyer’s name could be become a household name in the Bajan diaspora.


  16. @Amused

    “Amused | April 14, 2011 at 10:32 AM | @Adrian. Then the question is: Had the taxpayer discharged their duty and informed the tax authority? If yes, the onus is on the tax authority. Would you agree? So who erred in this case?”

    Once again you beat me to the punch. The lawyer should have informed the tax department of her departure from the island and “unemployed’ status before she left for her studies. It is NOT up to the tax authorities to find this out for themselves. It is a bona fide business relationship.

    @ David

    check the letter link. A letter appears with all names and then the redacted one below that. PLEASE EDIT. thanks, Pat

    I think the Bourne person was referring to that in his mangled way.


  17. @Pat. Good to hear you. You know the system as well as I do. The lawyer must have had notice sufficient time in advance of appearing in court. If so, why was this not straightened out without an appearance in court…..and if the lawyer made best efforts and provided the information to DoIR, why did DoIR not amend its list? My experience of counsel is that DoIR would have been sent the exculpatory evidence. My experience of DoIR is that it simply failed to register or was “misplaced”, but for all I know, the information may not have reached DoIR. Many unanswered questions. But a lot of time and taxpayers money appears to have been wasted by someone’s cockup. It would be interesting to know whose. I know where I would be placing my bet. Where will you place yours?


  18. @Amused

    I dont bet sweetheart. Have not bet on anything since my race days in the 60’s at the garrison. I put my faith in the DOIR. he, he, he.


  19. @Amused
    At the heart of this story is truthfulness. No matter the source.
    As to how i would have approached it. Personnely I think Mrs Symmonds action was intended to clear up the story via media with the sole intent of clarifying what the facts were while at the same time redeeming her clients image in the public arena. If she had choosen another way of dealing with the matter only those involved would have been privy to the truth and the perception of her client being a tax cheater would have remained fixed inthe mind of the public.


    • @ac

      She could have done what you suggested without being threatening.

      In fact she could have done both, i.e. send a private communication and posted publicly if she felt pressed to be so transparent.


  20. @ac. David is right, you know. From what BFP has said, now BU has drawn the issue to their attention (they appear to have missed Ms Symmonds’ comment on their site claiming a preposturous number of comments yearly of which very few apparently make it on to their site) they would have responded favourably to a private and polite e-mail from Ms Symmonds and updated their information. At least that is what they indicate. Instead, their response is…………well……….bellicose.


  21. @David
    Even though I agree with your comment. I can’t speak for the lawyer in But “timing ” plays an important role in decision making that might be one of the underlying factors replying as she deemed necessary and hastily .The issues as it was left unchallenged would have given a false impression to the public. I really do not see the reply as threatening but rather intimidating . All she wanted was an apology and legal fees be reimbursed on behalf of her client.She never threatened to have legal action against BFP for defamation of Character which in itself is libelous. They got off easy!


  22. David, I agree with your last comment to ac. I too think she could have handled the discrepancy better. it comes across as if the other blog is the culprit and defaming her client.

    I hope she feels satisfied with in my opinion the superficial yet thoughtfully written response from the blog she was so eager to hang dry.

    Could she have been underestimating that blog and going after the weakest link or was there something more by posting in the comments?
    Man to man is so unjust do we really know who the hell we can trust?


  23. @ Amused
    My above comments speaks to the problem. THe attorney was well within her right to protect her clients character and integrity. Her only responsibilty was to client. What problems BFP may have with responses only would have prolonged the issue delaying a quick response . One that the attorney wanted as soon as possible in an effort to offset further negativity to her client


  24. @ ac “… legal action against BFP for defamation of Character which in itself is libelous. They got off easy!

    ac are you serious? do they know who are the rightful owners of that blog? Furthermore where they hide out? Just asking


  25. @ Eye spy
    Man to Man is so unjust you never know who we can trust. Oh so true ! A person reputation is all they have even after death.


    • At the end of it all performance is the judge and if Donald Trump were the client he no doubt would be saying to Donna Symmonds, you are fired!


  26. @ Eye Spy

    Would you have rather have this issue played out in a court of Law. By your last comment You too are using threatening words. BTW it would be interesting to know who are the rightful weak kneed owners of the blog who so easily gave in to the wishes of attorney Symmonds by giving an apology just asking?


  27. @ David
    Hell know! Donald Trump loves a “Winner” ands Mrs symmonds got ALL of what she wanted. I think He would have fired BFP for not putting up a good fight and standing up on Principle.


    • @ac

      All she has succeesed in doing is to bring focus to her client by general public being forced to ask why was this matter allowed to reach the court anyway?

      The inland revenue department would not have filed this case without exhausting a process.

      While Donna Symmonds sought to explain why the matter was dropped the point Adrian raised is very relevant and may soak some of her client’s reputational capital now that the blogs have a discussion on the go.


  28. @ac: “Mrs Symmonds got ALL of what she wanted.

    I agree with ac here David.

    What is interesting is how so many, when facing a lawsuit, think they’ve been given a death sentence and will bend over backwards to make it go away….

    (I have to admit to this myself — as you and many know, I was threatened with a lawsuit by C&W for defamation for daring to speak the truth publicly. I stupidly accepted my solicitor’s advise to not take this “to the wall”, and the “problem” magically went away.)


  29. I commend you for taking the stance you did on this issue. I’m glad to see you were able to put aside your differences about the other blog and deal with an issue that could have also been directed at you if you had chosen to publish. When it is all said and done both you (BU) and the other blog (BFP) are all part of the social media and in most cases attempting to provide similar service to us bajans.

    Anyway don’t be surprise if you get a painting. LOL


  30. I need to understand something.

    Can BFP be sued for reporting on an article the Nation Newspaper published?


  31. @Anon: “Can BFP be sued for reporting on an article the Nation Newspaper published?

    Subject to correction from our Learned folk, anyone can be sued for just about anything by anyone.

    Then Court will decide, after a great deal of time, money and consternation….


  32. @ac, I’m not criticizing the blog for offering up an apology if that’s what it takes. At times we have to do what we have to do. It’s what it is but does that written apology comes across sincere to you?


  33. Are there no laws in Barbados to protect the media?

    How can we pride ourselves on being a democracy when persons can’t even report what is happening in the society?

    Would a Freedom of Information Act help in protecting the fourth estate? If so, then the “main stream media” should maybe highlight this issue, and try to lobby government for a more just playing field.

    It seems the media have no rights in Barbados.


  34. I fail to see how these two jokes for lawyers could have set out to “get what they wanted” by posting a libel threat on a blog. What is it you say they got? They got an opportunity to clear their a name? Could I add that they also got notority for being dragged into court not withstanding that the matter was dismissed, and that fact cannot be dismissed away as the charge was. Whatever the circumstances, justified or not, it leads potential clients and future associations to ask why? Why is important to anyone thinking of doing business with this individual as such associations has an element of trust and trustworthiness attached to it. The average person is not dragged to court on charges of tax evasion and even though this person has proven that they did not owe any taxes they may have been neglectful in their personal obligations, to prove their case in a timely manner and may have as a result injured their reputation.

    @anon
    Of course! No law against frivolous law suites. A better question could be; — could the plaintiff/complainant win such a case?


  35. @AH: “A better question could be; — could the plaintiff/complainant win such a case?

    A good question. But it often doesn’t matter.

    It is well known that the legal system is often used to intimidate. Even if the Plaintiff knows they will lose at the end-of-the-day, if they have enough resources they can win through a “war of attrition”.


  36. @Anon,

    I believe so. From my memory, something to do with re-publication (not the right word, but cannot remember now) of a libel.

    I could be wrong though.

    Remember, even if the second publisher thinks that the first has done their due diligence, that is not the issue. The issue is that the second publisher is still committing the act of publishing a libel, merely on the ‘belief’ that the first is correct.

    Now, if the second publisher actually did the research right, checked the court records, published the charge and the dismissal, that is merely reporting the facts of the event and therefore not a libel, because it would have shown the subsequent dismissal, important to the issue at hand.


  37. On a lighter note, man David, you gone and put a picture of the lawyer, now Bimbro’sbro going get excited and book his ticket to come to Bim and look to meet the lady.

    What yuh start man?


  38. @Crusoe et al: “Now, if the second publisher actually did the research right, checked the court records, published the charge and the dismissal, that is merely reporting the facts of the event and therefore not a libel…

    Ah, but interestingly, under Barbados Law, one can be telling the absolute truth but if it is damaging to another party it can still be considered Libelous.


  39. @David

    Ref Quote: all she has succeeded in doing is to bring focus to her client! WEll ! really. and not to be underestimated To herself as well. I wont be surprised if her law office phone is ringing off the hook with potential clients and guess what she didn’t even have to pay a dime for all the Free Publicity which she has so easily gained from the publishing of this article by BFP. A WINNER if you asked me.


  40. If an indivual believes that he/she has been defamed by the publication of an aticle that person can seek redress by asking for damages to his/her reputation.
    The more often the artice is published the greater the increase of the likelihood of damages.


  41. @Chris,

    I would have to defer to the legal experts on that but ‘truth’ should be a fair defense, how can your reputation be damaged, by a statement (proven) about the individual that is part and parcel of the individual and hence a truth of the reputation in of itself.

    There can be no damage.

    Lack of proof may be an issue.

    The only other point may be where there is ‘malicious intent’, for example Mr.X goes for an interview, MrY knows, then writes a letter to the employer and tells the employer that Mr.X streaked at Kensington ten years before.

    There is truth, but there is also malicious intent and damage to Mr.X employment and finances.

    I think that is where malicious intent may come in.

    But, that may all be rubbish and I will wait the legal experts on that.


  42. Halsall,
    Your “opinions” are just that, your “opinions. ” I have some too and one is that there is no way that this complaint against BFP could be successfull and if it could be so due to allegeded bias you mention, it could not prevail under further scrutiny in a higher court, unless those courts wish to jepordize their standing in the eyes of all citizens they are suppose to be serving.


  43. @ Eyespy

    Do you really want to prolong the issue by asking aloud if the “apology “was insincere or not. At this point let’s say the end justify the mean.The court would see the apology as justifiable with the desired intention to resolve an issue .


  44. @Halsall
    Don’t tell me to read it, point to the specific clauses of the act to prove your point.

    Your point being …… “Ah, but interestingly, under Barbados Law, one can be telling the absolute truth but if it is damaging to another party it can still be considered Libelous.”


  45. @Chris,

    Thanks for the link, note that under section 7, the defence of truth stands.

    Note also, that fair comment on reporting a matter from Court, is subject to absolute privilege.

    As to whether the omission of the subsequent dismissal results in comment that is unfair, is open to discussion.


  46. These are all parts of the act
    Defence of truth.
    Defence of comment.
    Reports of proceedings in court.
    Particulars of malice.
    Responsibility for publication
    on and on

    Thinking of the contents of Donna’s letter to BFP find the secton of the act to bolster your case that she has a case.


  47. @ David
    The ‘awesome’ social media also has the power to peddle hate, bigotry and misinformation even more so than the traditional given its ‘underground’ nature. For this reason, blogsters and bloggers need to rely less on vitriol, rumourmongering, rhetoric, hearsay, emotions and cut and paste; and focus more on making sensible, evidence-based contributions. In essence be more responsible when they post. Once such an approach is employed, contributions would become less prone to claims of defamation of character.


  48. To Adrian Hinds

    Truth cannot be damaging, the truth is a fact and therefore can be proven hence it cannot be damaging.

    Am I missing something in your logic.

    I gone.


  49. @Crusoe: “Thanks for the link, note that under section 7, the defence of truth stands.

    But, 7 (2) seems to be a bit wiggly (but then, IANAL):

    “Where an action for defamation has been brought in respect of the whole or any part of matter published, the defendant may allege and prove the truth of any of the charges contained in such matter and defense of truth shall be held to be established if such matter, taken as a whole, does not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to any charges which are proved to be true in whole or in part. (italics mine.)

    I’d be happen to told I’m an idiot, and that both 7 (1) and 7 (2) fully support defense because of the truth.


  50. If an individual at Inland revenue knowingly took a person to court on baseless charges, can that employee be individual be prosecuted?
    Seems the problem is at Inland revenue not BFP.


  51. @Halsall
    That is but one part of the act.

    9. (1) For the avoidance of doubt, the publication of a fair,
    accurate and contemporaneous report in any newspaper or broadcast programme of any proceedings in public before a court (including a court established by a disciplinary law and a tribunal or inquiry recognised by law and exercising judicial functions) shall be protected by absolute privilege.

    BUT

    11(2) In an action for defamation in respect of the publication of any report or matter referred to in Part II of the First Schedule, the provisions of this section shall not be a defence if it is proved that the defendant
    (a) has been requested by the plaintiff to publish at the defendant’s
    expense and in such manner as is adequate or reasonable in the circumstances a reasonable letter or statement by way of explanation or contradiction; and
    (b) has refused or neglected to do so or has done so in a manner
    not adequate or not reasonable in the circumstances.
    (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as protecting the
    publication of
    (a) any matter the publication of which is prohibited by law;
    (b) any matter which is not of public concern and the publication of
    which is not for the public benefit; or
    (c) any blasphemous or obscene matter.

    BUT WHAT BFP DID WAS TO REPRODUCE WHAT THE NATION PUBLISHED. WHAT DOES THE ACT SAY ABOUT THAT?


    • @enuff

      In any situation the purveyors or actors should always act responsibly, that is accepted.

      Because we have some who would abuse it as in anything else what should we then, scrap social media.

      Social Media will reflect the society that produced it.


    • @Crusoe

      Donna who seems fiftyish looks a little too young for Bimbrobro!

      The issue maybe whether our local cadre of lawyers may see the merit in attacking the blogs given our declared mandate of exposing corruption, inefficiency and wrong doing.

      This is something the legal profession has been guilty of for far too long.

      So far it should be evident the blogosphere will not* be intimidated.


  52. @AH: “BUT WHAT BFP DID WAS TO REPRODUCE WHAT THE NATION PUBLISHED. WHAT DOES THE ACT SAY ABOUT THAT?

    What part of section 2 isn’t clear? “‘publication’ means publication by the defendant or his servant or agent in any manner and whether or not in permanent form; and ‘published’ shall be construed accordingly;


  53. @Chris,

    I see part (2) of Section 7 as supporting the defense of truth, per se., it is merely defining the approach, that it is holistic, not absolute.

    I.e. the news publishes that Mr.X drinks at a bar evey Friday night and then spends the rest of the night in the strip club, if the the drinking part is untrue, but the second true, which is more likely to damage his reputation?

    Surely spending his night at the strip club is ‘seen’ to be more damaging to reputation than drinking at a bar, which many do?

    Hence, although all is not true, in substance his reputation is not damaged and hence the defense of truth stands.

    But, if it was the other way around, the defense probably wold fail.


  54. Dont we have a duty of care, for example, if i start the rumour that one of the bloggers is a thief and it is repeated by fifty other persons, all of us have the repsonsibility to ensure that no one is injured as a result of that statement, therefore every person that publish the statment can be sued for damages if the statment was found to be not true.
    For xample, if the blogger was a professional and that statement caused him to be looked at in a differnet light among his peers. If he can show that it caused a diminition of status among his peers, the public and potential clients his damages would be greater than if the blogger was simply a gardener or someone of a lower socio-economic status.
    None of the publisher of the statment can plead qaulify priveledges as a defense as the public has no interest is such a statement.


  55. @Maansseh,

    Yes, what you have referred to is part and parcel of the calculation opf damages i.e. the effect and loss of earnings as a result of reputational damage.

    As for the repitition of a libellous statement, the Act refers to the primary publisher, but it does refer to grounds of belief (that the statement is true or not), I would suspect that reasonableness would enter the consideration of the facts, as one should not repeat slanderous statement at will, without some questioning and thought as to truth.

    Therefore, surely it stands that one cannot repeat a libel at will, with protection from the law, that interprettion would not make sense.


  56. maybe the final decision is up to the court as to how the damages are awarded and not merely alone one a persons socio-economic background.
    A person being a field worker can undergo many serious physical and psychological challenges brought about because of slander the court would take all this into consideration.


  57. To AC

    You seem to miss the point when i introduce the term soci-oeconomic bacakgound to make my point ,hence i will make it clear for you. Do you think that if a doctor was slandered in the eyes of his colleagues and the general public that he will get the same damages as that of a maid, certainly not, and it has nothing to with class.

    When deciding damages, a number of factore are considered, including the loss of income as result of the slander, thus tell me how can a maid get the same damages of a doctor or lawyer in this regard.

    Please note that i am not professing to be an expert in this area, but I know that is what I learnt some 20 years agd while studying the subject of damges, I might be wrong, but I am not normally as my brain is still tracking.

    I gone


  58. Manasseh. EAch case is judge and determined on its merits bringing into the what potential damages were caused to the individual . So to say that a professional would get more because of the nature of his job is ludicrous . They are a whole host of mitigating concerns which eventually determines the damages


  59. The feminine of Jack Ass is Jill Donkey, not Jill Ass. Plus, donkey is a less provocative term than ass. So, please, Jill Donkey.


  60. @Carson Real Talk- Gird Your Loins is not a BLP page. The purpose of Real Talk is to get people to think, question, object, agree, and present their case. One article does not speak to the entirety of the blog nor all the writers. http://realtalk246.wordpress.com/ is the URL for the blog. Read again and share your thoughts there.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.