Quote:
Originally Posted by C_steam
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.
|
Surely that is the very point of the whole business that you have highlighted yourself Steamer:- courts require evidence and proof. That there was intent to do harm is unquestioned; but exactly
who was it with the
intent? AF? - or some rogue taxi driver or
other third party? And can it be proven? (Note: I make no judgements here incidentally - just pose the question)
I do not see how the
party as a corporate body can be implicated other than as the custodian of its own material which has escaped into the public domain.
DED.
-