Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Self-styled Psychic wins libel payout from the Daily Mail over alleged scam in Dublin

  • 20-06-2013 12:44pm
    #1
    coylemj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,490 ✭✭✭✭


    I can't believe that a national newspaper (even a rag like the Dail Fail) caved in and paid this charlatan money, did they reckon they couldn't find 12 intelligent people to see though her act and tell her to p1ss off?

    The Daily Mail has apologised and agreed to pay £125,000 in libel damages to a TV psychic it falsely accused of using a hidden earpiece to scam a theatre audience.

    Sally Morgan, who has appeared on TV and on stage under the name "Psychic Sally", complained that the article in September 2011 meant she had "deliberately and dishonestly" tricked her audience in Dublin.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jun/20/daily-mail-libel-damages-tv-psychic?CMP=twt_fd

    Edit: title should read 'self-styled psychic wins libel payout ....'


Comments

  • #2
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    coylemj wrote: »
    it falsely accused of using a hidden earpiece to scam a theatre audience.

    The problem is that they (apparently incorrectly) accused her of something specific, rather than just saying "this psychic mallarkey is all a load of scheisse".


  • #3
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Remember that libel law requires the defendent to prove that it's true, not on the plaintiff to prove it's false.


  • #4
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    I wonder what her lawyers advice was like:

    "Litigation is inherently risky and while you have a good case, no one can predict the future...oh nevermind, you already know how it's going to work out"


  • #5
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,750 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    coylemj wrote: »
    ...Edit: title should read 'self-styled psychic wins libel payout ....'

    Fixy.


  • #6
    coylemj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,490 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    seamus wrote: »
    Remember that libel law requires the defendent to prove that it's true, not on the plaintiff to prove it's false.

    Accepted but in this case I didn't expect that the plaintiff had much of a 'reputation' to defend and if I was on the jury and the defendant couldn't prove their allegation, I would have awarded her somewhere in the region of 1p.

    Not zero mind, the jury on the Albert Reynolds v. The Sunday Times fcuked up royally by not awarding him 1p instead of zero.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    valleyoftheunos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭valleyoftheunos


    Big difference between saying "Psychics are charlatans" and "psychic x committed a fraud and is dishonest" Attacking someones honesty can be costly and whilst many of us may not believe in psychics that doesn't mean that any particular psychic has no reputation to defend.


  • #8
    coylemj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,490 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    valleyoftheunos wrote: »
    Big difference between saying "Psychics are charlatans" and "psychic x committed a fraud and is dishonest"

    No difference at all in my book.

    Taking money from people on the basis that you can communicate with their deceased relatives is not alone dishonest, it is preying on the vulnerable which is despicable.

    I heard the people who phoned Joe Duffy, the lads in the rear of the theatre (the equivalent of the projection box in a cinema) were clearly passing on stuff which had been picked up by eavesdropping in the foyer before the show and during the interval. My guess is that the promoter used his muscle to get the theatre to make the statement they did which clearly undermined the Daily Mail's defence that they were in league with Sally Morgan.

    The Daily Mail was also able to show her coming off stage at another show and she was clearly wearing an earpiece. The photo was taken by someone in the wings as she came off stage, the earpiece would not have been visible to anyone in the audience.


  • #9
    valleyoftheunos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭valleyoftheunos


    coylemj wrote: »
    No difference at all in my book.

    I terms of the law of defamation they are worlds apart, about £125,000 apart infact.
    coylemj wrote: »
    Taking money from people on the basis that you can communicate with their deceased relatives is not alone dishonest, it is preying on the vulnerable which is despicable.

    I won't disagree with you on this
    coylemj wrote: »
    I heard the people who phoned Joe Duffy... ...Sally Morgan.

    This doesn't amount to much more than hearsay and conjecture, neither of which is any good in court
    coylemj wrote: »
    The Daily Mail was also able to show her coming off stage... ...in the audience.

    It would seem however that the Daily Mail were not as confident in their defence as you are.


  • #10
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    As a bit of an aside, I thought that I'd contrast this case with that of the Aleister Crowley v Nina Hamnet libel case (1934).

    She wrote a book, accusing him of practising black magic(k) and characterised him as the worst man in the world. He sued for libel. Although he admitted drug use, orgies and practising magic, he denied the use of black magic, as such.

    Link    .
    Counsel for the defence said Crowley had preyed on weak-minded persons for years. He hoped the proceedings would end his hypocritical activities.

    In summing up, the Judge said:
    I have never heard such dreadful, horrible, blasphemous and abominable stuff as that which has been produced by the man (Crowley) who describes himself to you as the greatest living poet.

    The linked newspaper articles report that the jury returned a verdict in favour of the Defendant, but this site seems to say that he was awarded contemptous damages (which would suggest a verdict in favour of the Plaintiff - technically, only).

    Not to be deterred, Crowley said:
    I am considering an appeal

    I remember reading somewhere that Crowley's reputation was so bad that it was considered that he did not have a good reputation to defend. A bad candidate for defamation litigation, by several accounts.

    He was adjudged bankrupt afterwards.

    1934 juries: you couldn't beat them with a stick.


  • #11
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    The Mustard wrote: »
    A

    I remember reading somewhere that Crowley's reputation was so bad that it was considered that he did not have a good reputation to defend. A bad candidate for defamation litigation, by several accounts.

    He was adjudged bankrupt afterwards.

    1934 juries: you couldn't beat them with a stick.

    Sorry lads, couldn't resist:



  • Advertisement
  • #12
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Sorry, stumbled in here. Didn't realise you were having a black mass. Must be all the gowns round here.


Advertisement