Atos

[La Poste]

Greetings.

I have just been reading the Guardian newspaper and found this, it's an interesting video report.
Basically saying if you are going to criticise Atos you had better be prepared for legal action.
The link is just to a newspaper page so this site will probably be Ok.
There's a few adverts before the video but then the paper has got to make it money somehow.

Carers versus Atos's attempts to protect its image - video:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... mage-video

You guys must really have to watch out for libel these days.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Fair Comment

If a defendant can prove that the defamatory statement is an expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and not a statement of fact, he or she can rely on the defence of fair comment.

The courts have said that whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going on or what may happen to them or to others, then it is a matter of public interest on which everyone is entitled to make fair comment.

The comment must be based on true facts which are either contained in the publication or are sufficiently referred to. It is for the defendant to prove that the underlying facts are true. If he or she is unable to do so, then the defence will fail. As with justification, the defendant does not to have to prove the truth of every fact provided the comment was fair in relation to those facts which are proved.

Fair does not mean reasonable, but signifies the absence of malice. The views expressed can be exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, provided they are honestly held. If the claimant can show that the publication was made maliciously, the defence of fair comment will not succeed.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why fair comment?
The defence of fair comment provides a greater degree of latitude for the publication of personal opinions and comments, recognising the vital role played by reviewers and commentators in a society where we cannot hope to go to every restaurant, see every film, read every book or digest every political or scientific argument.

The word ‘critic’ itself comes from the ancient Greek, meaning one who offers reasoned judgement or analysis, interpretation or observation. Not all observations will be positive and some can be positively vitriolic. (That said, not all will lead to litigation. The German composer Max Reger is said, as a result of a particularly critical review of one of his works, to have asserted his own right to free speech, retorting: ‘I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review in front of me. Soon it will be behind me.’)

Requirements
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead set out the outer limits of the defence of fair comment in the Hong Kong case of Tse Wai Chun Paul v Cheng [2001] EMLR 31 CFA (HK):

first, the comment must be on a matter of public interest;
second, the comment must be recognisable as comment, as distinct from an imputation of fact;
third, the comment must be based on facts which are true or protected by privilege;
fourth, the comment must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, what are the facts on which the comment is being made. The reader or hearer should be in a position to judge for himself how far the comment was well founded; and
fifth, the comment must be one which could have been made by an honest person, however prejudiced he might be, and however exaggerated or obstinate his views.

Importantly, the fifth proposition pushed aside the word ‘fair’ in favour of a requirement for honesty. Nicholls LJ said: ‘A comment which falls within the objective limits of the defence of fair comment can lose its immunity only by proof that the defendant did not genuinely hold the view he expressed. Honesty of belief is the touchstone. Actuation by spite, animosity, intent to injure, intent to arouse controversy or other motivation, whatever it may be, even if it is the dominant or sole motive, does not of itself defeat the defence. However, proof of such motivation may be ­evidence, sometimes compelling ­evidence, from which lack of genuine belief in the view expressed may be inferred.’

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice ... ir-comment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[La Poste]

Atos Healthcare admitted that doctors and nurses are asked to sign a document which sets out the basic terms of the Official Secrets Act even though much of the company's taxpayer-funded work is not bound by the terms of the Act.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... ecrets-act

The doctor, who spoke to the Guardian on condition of anonymity, said. "I could not have been more surprised when I was told that everybody had to sign the OSA."

"There's something very sinister, cloak and dagger about it. It's weird that it would be used in the context of our work; it's not the same kettle of fish at all."

Signing a statement outlining their obligations under the act would make staff "reluctant to bring matters of concern to the attention of the wider public", the doctor said because of the potential "threat of sinister, treason-like charges".