Quote:
Originally Posted by douglas denny
The party might be legally/technically responsible under DPA, (perhaps? not yet proven!), - but is certainly not morally so as there was no intent to do harm to West by the party.
|
Which is where we differ, I'm afraid. I think if this goes to court (after any DPA case) UKIP will have a VERY hard time showing that there was no intent to do harm. Certainly there can be no doubt that the video was posted to be harmful, the get-out may be whther the party can show fuller (if it was she) was acting alone BUT then you get the issues of a) why UKIP had no systems in place to prevent such an act and (more importantly IMHO) b) given all the things in the public domain regarding JW's previous actions, why didn't the party discipline him? It may well look like that the party decided to take action through an employee as retribution. Or anyway, that'll be where the lawyers are coming from, I'd suspect.