Skip to main content

Sally Morgan threatens libel

I am currently at Beyond The Veil, at which claims of being able to communicate with dead are being subjected to critical scrutiny. I just noticed that Jack of Kent reports...

Sally Morgan, the stage "psychic", is bringing a libel claim.

This was announced on Friday by Atkins Thomson, a London law firm experienced in media law matters. Given this experience, one must presume that her decision to bring a claim has not been made lightly, and that she is fully aware the reputational damage that can result from a misconceived libel claim.


The lawyers' statement is not very informative:

"Sally Morgan instructs Atkins Thomson to commence libel action in relation [to] various articles in the press."


Indeed, so vague is this statement one would perhaps need their client's uncanny abilities to know what it actually means.

First of all, it does not say that any claim has actually been issued. It does not even say that any formal "letters before action" have been sent. We could even still be at preliminary stage, without there having been any correspondence yet at all.

Second, it does not say who the defendants will be. Will Morgan be suing just one media organization? Or many? Will she even adopt the illiberal tactic of threatening the individual journalists? (This was the approach followed by the now discredited British Chiropractic Association in their claim against Simon Singh.)

And, third, it does not state what the supposed libels are. Morgan makes considerable amounts of money out of her audiences believing that she talks with dead people. However, it cannot be defamatory to say that Morgan does no such thing.

"Sally Morgan, the stage "psychic", is bringing a libel claim. This was announced on Friday by Atkins Thomson, a London law firm experienced in media law matters. Given this experience, one must presume that her decision to bring a claim has not been made lightly, and that she is fully aware the reputational damage that can result from a misconceived libel claim. The lawyers' statement is not very informative: "Sally Morgan instructs Atkins Thomson to commence libel action in relation [to] various articles in the press." Indeed, so vague is this statement one would perhaps need their client's uncanny abilities to know what it actually means. First of all, it does not say that any claim has actually been issued. It does not even say that any formal "letters before action" have been sent. We could even still be at preliminary stage, without there having been any correspondence yet at all. Second, it does not say who the defendants will be. Will Morgan be suing just one media organization? Or many? Will she even adopt the illiberal tactic of threatening the individual journalists? (This was the approach followed by the now discredited British Chiropractic Association in their claim against Simon Singh.) And, third, it does not state what the supposed libels are. Morgan makes considerable amounts of money out of her audiences believing that she talks with dead people. However, it cannot be defamatory to say that Morgan does no such thing.


Continues at http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2011/10/sally-morgan-is-bringing-libel-action.html I cannot make an active link for some reason...

Comments

Dan P said…
I hope that in the event that the libel suit goes forth, that you direct your attorney to provide a vicious defense, demonstrating her to be the imbecile she is!

I am looking forward to an intellectual bloodfest akin to the the gladiators, although she will be without a weapon, or with a very blunt one, her intellect!
Unknown said…
Hello Mr Stephen Law,
Your 1st, 2nd and 3rd thinking really great for a attorney.
Anybody can take some help from attorney cleveland tn in Tn area.
Giford said…
Would this be the 'libel' that was referred to recently in Fortean Times?
Richard Baron said…
1. Sally Morgan is a competent psychic (assumption).

2. She is undertaking an action for libel (reported fact).

3. She would not undertake an action for libel if she foresaw that she would lose. That would be stupid.

4. She can foresee the outcome of the proposed libel action (follows from 1).

5. She is going to win (follows from 2., 3. and 4.).

6. She will only win if allegations that she is not a competent psychic are false (follows from the fact that justification is a defence).

7. She is a competent psychic (follows from 5. and 6.).

8. The assumption in 1. is correct (follows from 7.).
Bernard Hurley said…
What's all the fuss about Sally talking to dead people. Anyone can talk to dead people it's just that the conversation is a bit one sided.
SteelMagnolia said…
The British drachonian libel laws are chilling, the law places the burden on the defendant.

The same way the McCanns were able to build a million pound fund without a shred of evidence of an abduction ! their lawyers Carter Ruck aware no one can prove it did not happen keeps the money rolling into the fund.

http://slsingh.posterous.com/sally-morgans-lawyer-sends-me-an-email
SteelMagnolia said…
Grief I have only just realized that it was Sally Morgan who put the notion into the head of Princess Diana about a car crash. Diana at this point in her life was an emotional wreck. Sally Morgan may just have pushed her over the edge with her meddling and thrirst for fame and fortune.

Sadly nothing can be proven


http://thedisclosureproject-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2012/01/sallymorgan-how-crystalballs-fits-her.html

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o

Suggesting a new named fallacy: the Non Post Hoc Fallacy (or David Cameron Fallacy)

Many of us are familiar with the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy (' after this, therefore because of this) - Post Hoc Fallacy for short). It's the fallacy of supposing that, because B occurred after A, A must be the cause of B. For example: My car stopped working after I changed the oil, so changing the oil caused it to stop working. Or:  I wore my red jumper to the exam and I passed, so that jumper is lucky: it caused me to pass. This fallacy is so common, it gets a latin name. However, there's a related common fallacy that I think also deserves a name. I am going to call it the Non Post Hoc Fallacy (' not after of this, therefore not because of this), or, perhaps more memorably, the David Cameron Fallacy. Every now and then someone desperate to ‘prove’ that X is not causally responsible for Y – e.g poverty is not a cause of crime, will commit the following fallacy. They will argue that as X has often occurred without Y following, therefore X was not the