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

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

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

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

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist