You are reading a single comment by @NotThamesWater and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Whether or not he's handsy at parties is not what's in question here.
Except that it is. That's what the law states. Both in statute and precedent.
He could argue in a court that constant repetition of that fact is defamatory
Which would be correct.
he presumably realised that might open him up to having to prove he isn't
No he wouldn't - the onus is on the person making (or repeating) the statement to demonstrate that it is true.
NotThamesWater
ketsbaia
It's because it's a statement of fact. He appears on the list as being handsy at parties. You can't argue that he doesn't. Whether or not he's handsy at parties is not what's in question here.
He could argue in a court that constant repetition of that fact is defamatory, but he presumably realised that might open him up to having to prove he isn't, which may not have gone as well as he would have liked.