ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459
Date: Sept 26, Time: 5 pm PT – New Tiered Registry Law

Monthly Meetings

Q4: 10/14 in Los Angeles

International

UK: Facebook damages payout to Limavady child sex abuser may be reduced

Facebook remains liable in damages for details about a convicted child abuser featuring on pages set up to name and shame paedophiles in Northern Ireland, the Court of Appeal has ruled. But senior judges restricted the period when the social network knew private information was being published – meaning a £20,000 compensation award to the sex offender could now be cut. Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan indicated that a further hearing will explore the appropriate level of payout due to the changed circumstances. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Eric Knight

    So let’s get this straight:

    1. Registrant is trying to live his life, and Facebook posts urge harm against him.
    2. Registrant successfully sues Facebook and gets £20,000 judgment.
    3. Registrant’s former victims sues HIM to get the payment, and the payment is halted.
    4. Subsequent appeal by Facebook to reduce or eliminate judgment is successful, at least for now.
    5. Registrant is STILL be liable for payment to his former victims, as there are, as far as I know, no contingency clauses that stipulates that he would collect the award before being liable.

    In all this time, is name is thrown all over the place, ruining his life for good.

  2. Eric Knight

    I found out one more piece of excrement:

    “Contending there had been a failure to properly identify the unlawful material, counsel insisted the sex offender had to live with name-calling as part of his conviction.”

    This counsel is OUT OF ORDER and I’m surprised that the counsel for the registrant didn’t register a major complaint. In fact, because there is NO order by a judge that the registrant “had to live with name calling” as part of his conviction, this statement would have been rendered incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, at least in a US court. Not knowing UK law, this may not be the case, but in general UK courtroom procedures are far more restrictive than in the US, and such a statement should have been dealt with by the Lord or Ladyship (judge).

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *