I always thought it was likely, but good to have it confirmed, give that English libel law still needs more reform.
There’ll be some furious coping from the chuds that were going on about how this suit meant it must all be made up, now.
Kenny_Bi-God_Omega on
Good.
The idea that the Guardian, of all newspapers, would engage in some sort of mass conspiracy with 12+ women to take down the guy who made Kidulthood and who you might remember from Doctor Who 15 years ago was always absolutely laughable.
>Barristers for Clarke told the court that there was a conspiracy of people with financial and personal grudges against him who engineered his downfall because they could not bear to see him receive a Bafta award.

Pretty clear judgement too. The meaning of the articles was substantially true and Noel Clarke was not deemed to be a credible witness.
SakuraSpring24 on
βThe court considered that, overall, mr Clarke was not a credible or reliable witness.β From the press summary and in para 128 of the judgement.
5 Comments
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Good
I always thought it was likely, but good to have it confirmed, give that English libel law still needs more reform.
There’ll be some furious coping from the chuds that were going on about how this suit meant it must all be made up, now.
Good.
The idea that the Guardian, of all newspapers, would engage in some sort of mass conspiracy with 12+ women to take down the guy who made Kidulthood and who you might remember from Doctor Who 15 years ago was always absolutely laughable.
>Barristers for Clarke told the court that there was a conspiracy of people with financial and personal grudges against him who engineered his downfall because they could not bear to see him receive a Bafta award.

Pretty clear judgement too. The meaning of the articles was substantially true and Noel Clarke was not deemed to be a credible witness.
βThe court considered that, overall, mr Clarke was not a credible or reliable witness.β From the press summary and in para 128 of the judgement.