Def sounds like the trail of evidence is weak.

Unless the racoon was caged or on a lead. Surly the defence will claim it found the stuff and dragged it into the car.

Even if the driver has a history etc. seems the racoon is all sorts of reasonable doubt.

So aliens may not have built the piramids.

But may have been probing Austrians in the 1700s?

The word “who” is what is missing in this.

Hence the data is not personally identifiable. And that word is exactly where the law draws its line.

Pre Internet. It was just as easy to get numbers like this. You just needed to watch the stock in shops.

Westminster. They get 650 diodes averaging about 5ft7 every 4 to 5 years.

City is not considered personally identification data. So no law applies to it. Anyone you buy your dildus from can sell data based on city and size. Just not your address and name.

The sales numbers and distribution etc is considered their data not yours.

Yep publication like private eye have a rep for fighting such cases as well. But much more directly. IE they spend a huge amount in courts accused of libel. Mainly because wealthy in the UK use the law to try and silence the press. The publication really has a hard time due to the cases against them. But also has huge support due to it. (It’s a print only paper).

The Reg tends to provide evidence or use “bug” like tricks to avoid open accusations. Things like.

“Some may suggest the claims from apple are less than honest”. The wording seems subtle. But it is common in British media because no provable claim is actually made. To sue me here (if I had the assets and influence to bother). Both I and apple are placed in a situation where Proof cannot be assigned. I did not say something I reported on another group of individuals. Changing what apple has to prove.

Apple: “Some may suggest humanpenguin invented the people he is reporting on”

The reason is. Libel laws. Without evidence, claiming anything the company says is false can get you sued. And those laws are very nasty in the UK. Where the Guardian has most of its assets.

If I say. Yeah, some inventive developer def put the code in to express his anger at trump. While I could be sued here. I really have nothing to lose and little influence for apple to give a shit. It would cost them more than my comment could ever lose them. Or they could ever get from me.

But the folks paying and editing newspapers. More so, big ones with long histories. Yep, in the UK, libel laws really do not require apple to prove my statement was false. But me to prove them true.

It is supposed to turn into the blood of a 2000year dead man. Pretty sure mixing alcohol is a minimum safty requirement.

A very huge fan base of Jeremy Clarkson can argue that he should not be called a cunt. So yeah that would fail.

Not even sure the most supportive brexiter would say the same of farage. You only have to look at his smile. And you feel the urge to throw milkshake at it. So yeah.

Now the fun part.

Where the prosecution aregues being a cunt is a legally protected privilege. So telling folks not to be is offensive.

At some point ideally. But how can we protect politicians from this offence. Becomes a major news event.

This could be such an interesting trial.

First the procecution will need to prove that the majority of readers will feel harrased or offended by the word cunt.

So this shuuld lead to a discussion of meaning.

At this ppinr we can hope the defence points out.

Procecuting someone for expressinf a non violent request to be good to humanity. Definatly counts.

Thecnically because they would have the same responsibilities.

IE you cant accuse an elephant of murder. So if you get trampled by one. It is an accident and the zoo or no one if in the wild. Is responsible. Not poor Nelly who just wanted a walk.

Ah, UK! Vs US English, I think. First off, libel laws in no way require blood alcohol testing to do anything, But I’ll add to this later. And to report may be a US interpretation, but in the UK a reporter does not report. A journalist writes. In UK English, reporting a person means passing info on to an authority figure. Although I will admit, many younger folks seem to mix US English nowadays. So it is getting more confusing.

We also do not tend (as a society) to judge people for getting drunk. Unless they are in charge of something. So newspapers etc rarely have reason to comment on an individual who stumble out of a bar, vomit, etc. Most would only give a shit if he was supposed to be elsewhere. They report on how much it happens as a social issue often.

But you are correct, our libel laws get out of hand. But what must fail to realise, it is not the formation of the law that is the issue. You can indeed indicate a person seems drunk if their actions would be interpreted as drunk. You will notice the word “seems” holds a lot of weight in that sentence. As honestly it should. There are many other reasons a person may exit a pub to vomit and pass out. It would be bad journalism not to consider the possibility of food poisoning or health issues. Honestly, if you see someone pass out, you should be calling for an ambulance drunk or not.

The issue with our laws is more the cost. Because anyone can accuse someone of libel. As It is a civil matter, not criminal. This means you tend to be required to prove yourself innocent once an individual brings the case. This leaves the wealthy able to use the law to silence others. As few are able to afford a defence. The real issue is that libel is a civil offence rather than a crime. A serious complexity in our old system.

Put bluntly, assuming you are in the UK. I am technically able to start a civil case against you for any darn reason I want. Technically, I could accuse you of libel for insulting my nation with your original comment. But to do so, I’d be required to pay all my own costs. As would you until you won. At that time, you can ask the court to assign costs. And in a case like that they likely would (because you would prove I suffered no harm from the claim). But if I am wealthy, you are likely bankrupt and having to back down before we get that far.

Why would anyone report a drunk. It is not a crime. So why the hell would anyone listen to whining shits reporting them. The people being reported to have no authority to do anything based on being drunk alone.

What has JKR got to do with UK rules etc. She is just a mouthy idiot that has money. Not an official part of our legal structure.

Cant you.

Lived here most of my life. Never seen anyone critisized for calling a drunk drunk.

Because in genral. Being drunk os not a crime. So why the hell would anyone care how accurate you are being.

Darwin would have to disagree.

Heck a large part our planets science history were considered morons when they proposed ideas.

This guy trully is a moron. But the human races history of collective judgement is far from good.

A guess. But to prevent folks claiming they are not drunk.

The UK has a long history of people thinking they can handle drink. When the law changed (1967), there were loads of news articles. With people claiming it did not affect their ability to drive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_tqQYmgMQg

So the media likely used the word drink intentionally to indicate. Drinking alcohol is the crime. Not being drunk or not.

hence,

“the bar had escaped being blown”

Again I agree on principal.

But this event does not look like that.

This will look to outsiders, including those that voted Brexit in the UK (and a % that did not). Like the EU customs agency is punishing the UK for leaving,

And while that is in no way good for the UK. It is exactly what UK and US right wing nutcases want.

As it allows a pretty believable attack that the EU is no longer a vol entry organization. But one that will actually work to destroy the econ of anyone that leaves once they are a member.

Come on, be honest with yourself. Looking at the right wing’s use of misinformation over the last decade or so. And the number of people believing it. I’m sure you can see how dangerous this can be. Accidental or intentional. It could be used to harm EU trade outside the EU.

Err.

Negro existed for 400 years or more.

Miget came from greak shows fron the 1700s.

Arsehole has a very long history. But you would still be offended it I called you it? And likely object to a pub called the puckered arseholes retreat.

Actually scratch that. Id likely drink there. But yeah my point stands.

Every ofensive thing has a long history. Progress is non exisrant if we dont evolve. And language is one of the things that evolves rapidly.

Its more about why the name exists amd the links it crate. then the age of its creation.