Defamation suit hits veteran BBC correspondent for reports on fraud

[simonuk]

Just where would certain people be without the ever popular defamation, and when appropriate, LM laws ?

Perhaps they would be forced to be more careful when covering up their crimes like the greedy corrupt British establishment.

The fact that a corrupt official or criminal can hide behind the law that protects face is something Thailand should be ashamed of.

Honestly is not valued at all in Thailand only image.

[simonuk]

Just where would certain people be without the ever popular defamation, and when appropriate, LM laws ?

Perhaps they would be forced to be more careful when covering up their crimes like the greedy corrupt British establishment.

The fact that a corrupt official or criminal can hide behind the law that protects face is something Thailand should be ashamed of.

Honestly is not valued at all in Thailand only image.

There is a worrying trend here now , the persecution of foreigners who dare to point out how badly the country is run.

Things are going to get worse. MUCH MUCH worse.

Time to change the name back to SIAM because this is no longer a free country its a facist state.

[Sawan Chan 7]

As Thailand seems so pledged to keep its image to the world then having cases like this and others, does nothing but make people abroad look at it and laugh. Its image is not seen in a positive light and with the world glued to social media, it will not be able to stop the ridicule from this story. When will it learn!

LOL... learning in this place is not a priority or done often. So it'll remain backward.... paralized..... corrupt.

One should learn to spell before criticizing education.

[GinBoy2]

Over the past 10 years, the BBC has had many problems concerning the legality of the information provided by correspondents. Many of the reporters use the freedom of speech to spread false rumors and lies. During the Red Shirt rebellion, the BBC was putting out questionable information daily. They even went to the point to having Red Shirt minders with them on location.

Got proof?

tomross; I'm also up for a bit of backup to substantiate your claims.

I've seen many people disagree with Head's reporting, but bias is a fact of life in any media outlet; sometimes you agree with their bias, other times you don't.

But you seem to be making allegations rather more serious than simple bias, which I for one have read no such similar accusations.

A link to some credible source to back up your allegations may do wonders for your own credibility...or not!

[nauseus]

Over the past 10 years, the BBC has had many problems concerning the legality of the information provided by correspondents. Many of the reporters use the freedom of speech to spread false rumors and lies. During the Red Shirt rebellion, the BBC was putting out questionable information daily. They even went to the point to having Red Shirt minders with them on location.

Got proof?

tomross; I'm also up for a bit of backup to substantiate your claims.

I've seen many people disagree with Head's reporting, but bias is a fact of life in any media outlet; sometimes you agree with their bias, other times you don't.

But you seem to be making allegations rather more serious than simple bias, which I for one have read no such similar accusations.

A link to some credible source to back up your allegations may do wonders for your own credibility...or not!

There is no direct proof but I'm glad that you acknowledge that Head's reporting was consistently biased for this bad period.

If you could look at all the BBC TV reports again and analyse them then you would see this trend. It was after this that I lost faith with the BBC completely.

The BBC had other so-called journalists on air at the time too, including Alistair Beefhead and one young girl (can't remember the name) who did one report that was so obviously skewed, even the beeb removed her immediately, never to be seen again. It was almost as tragic as all the mayhem in 2010.

[GinBoy2]

Over the past 10 years, the BBC has had many problems concerning the legality of the information provided by correspondents. Many of the reporters use the freedom of speech to spread false rumors and lies. During the Red Shirt rebellion, the BBC was putting out questionable information daily. They even went to the point to having Red Shirt minders with them on location.

Got proof?

tomross; I'm also up for a bit of backup to substantiate your claims.

I've seen many people disagree with Head's reporting, but bias is a fact of life in any media outlet; sometimes you agree with their bias, other times you don't.

But you seem to be making allegations rather more serious than simple bias, which I for one have read no such similar accusations.

A link to some credible source to back up your allegations may do wonders for your own credibility...or not!

There is no direct proof but I'm glad that you acknowledge that Head's reporting was consistently biased for this bad period.

If you could look at all the BBC TV reports again and analyse them then you would see this trend. It was after this that I lost faith with the BBC completely.

The BBC had other so-called journalists on air at the time too, including Alistair Beefhead and one young girl (can't remember the name) who did one report that was so obviously skewed, even the beeb removed her immediately, never to be seen again. It was almost as tragic as all the mayhem in 2010.

That's bias, as I said before all media is biased one way or another, and bias is very much in the eye of the beholder.

But bias is very different from what was being claimed; false rumors, lies etc.

If that is being claimed as a fact, as it was, then a request for some validation is quite reasonable.

Without that, maybe the person claiming said facts needs to look hard at themselves in the mirror when accusing others of spreading lies and false truths.

[Briggsy]

Court case may lumber through the courts for years during which time the story is shut down. No further accusations or repetitions of the original story will be published. That is one of the plaintiff's aims.

[jayboy]

Over the past 10 years, the BBC has had many problems concerning the legality of the information provided by correspondents. Many of the reporters use the freedom of speech to spread false rumors and lies. During the Red Shirt rebellion, the BBC was putting out questionable information daily. They even went to the point to having Red Shirt minders with them on location.

Got proof?

tomross; I'm also up for a bit of backup to substantiate your claims.

I've seen many people disagree with Head's reporting, but bias is a fact of life in any media outlet; sometimes you agree with their bias, other times you don't.

But you seem to be making allegations rather more serious than simple bias, which I for one have read no such similar accusations.

A link to some credible source to back up your allegations may do wonders for your own credibility...or not!

There is no direct proof but I'm glad that you acknowledge that Head's reporting was consistently biased for this bad period.

If you could look at all the BBC TV reports again and analyse them then you would see this trend. It was after this that I lost faith with the BBC completely.

The BBC had other so-called journalists on air at the time too, including Alistair Beefhead and one young girl (can't remember the name) who did one report that was so obviously skewed, even the beeb removed her immediately, never to be seen again. It was almost as tragic as all the mayhem in 2010.

That's bias, as I said before all media is biased one way or another, and bias is very much in the eye of the beholder.

But bias is very different from what was being claimed; false rumors, lies etc.

If that is being claimed as a fact, as it was, then a request for some validation is quite reasonable.

Without that, maybe the person claiming said facts needs to look hard at themselves in the mirror when accusing others of spreading lies and false truths.

He can't because he's either paranoid or telling lies.

As for the question of bias - a totally different matter as you rightly point out - he had yet to give any examples to justify his claim.

This kind of hysterical reaction to BBC reporting is quite common.Normally it just signifies scrutiny which is uncomfortable.

[stickylies]

Why would u want to own a house (not the land) in los. The house plus the land I rent for the last 5 years was initially sold for 650000 and is now for sale for 950000 (>10 years later) and nobody is interested to buy for that price. The Thai prefer to buy new house in new moobaan for 1000000thb. The owner keeps asking me if I want to buy. She doesn't understand why I'm not interested. I can buy a studio/condo at home, new, for 45000 euro and rent out for 590/month... That studio will be worth 70000 in 10 years.

[Ciaran Mc]

Although I am no great fan of Mr Head for his skewed, unsided reporting on the political crisis pre-coup, I am with him on this one.

That's your view and I appreciate Jonathan Head became a hate figure for the myopic mainly Sino Thai urban middle class.However his true offence was to scrutinise the cynicism and deceipt of the unelected elites.These people and the useful idiots in their trail cannot bear any deviation from the approved narrative.The predictable but utterly stupid suggestion that he was sympathetic to Thaksin can be demolished simply by looking at what JH said and wrote.

I have it on the personal opinion of Khun Anand Panyarachun - universally regarded as someone of knowledge and integrity - that JH is a journalist of the highest distinction.

And that's your view. I've read what Jonathon Head wrote and do find him often a little economical when it comes to mentioning past Shin transgressions; and always seemingly choosing words that flatter them.

Quite frankly, with absolutely no disrespect intended to the former PM you want to name drop and impress us with your contact, I doubt he would be a universally known or recognized figure.

If you don't find his work to be sympathetic to the Shin cause, you should perhaps review it without your own bias. But that's not really possible, of course.

However, here he does seem to have fallen foul of Thailand's rather unique defamation laws which is unfortunate.

It's a satisfying delusion on the part of many dullards and mediocrities that one man's opinion is as good as another's.It isn't.That's a different matter from saying all should have the right to express an opinion - with which I would agree.

If you can provide some referenced examples of JH's bias, please supply them.Taking all sides seriously does not qualify as bias.

If anybody wishes to read some zany criticisms of JH's work by all means Google "Jonathan Head" "bias" and you will find a splendid article by Tony Cartalucci.That should satisfy you and other fruit cakes out there.Interestingly even the bonkers Cartalucci recognises JH's intelligence and knowledge.

I freely admit to name dropping Khun Anand.We are both Cambridge men and occasionally meet at social functions.The fact that neither you nor your circle of acquaintances appear to understand his significance in recent Thai history pigeonholes you more than you apparently have the wit to grasp.Most Thais understand his significance perfectly.

you may have been to Cambridge but your comprehension skills are pretty pathetic . . Baerboxer obviously knows who Anand Panyarachun is (as do I) . . and he sure as <deleted> isn't "universally regarded as someone of knowledge and integrity" !!

[MiKT]

Well, its very odd, because I for one always think that JH was far, far to sympathetic to the yellow shirts during the riots that were engineered for the military to take over the country- as admitted and then denied, so its presumably its only half defamation to mention it.

However, I do wish him the Very Best of Luck with this case and I am sure he will have not only the full formidable force of the BBC behind him and the best lawyers that money can buy (very, very ironic in this case), he will also have the (often unfairly criticized) British embassy staff actually working hard on his behalf.(How they do love Aunty).

But unless your name is Charlie, being sued for defamation is just money in the bank for a journalist, think of the headlines, think of the money he (and Aunty) can make selling his story around the world. Think of the jokes that are going to be spun-off from this (Lawyers Jokes are already overstocked, but there's always room for one more) Think of the egg on the face of the Thai judiciary if they cock this one up as well. (sings "oh happy day").

Think how much he will make if they actually stick him in clink. Golly I can hardly sleep with excitement. I think I would actually make the effort to take him a packet of Rizla's.

Go J Boy Go!

Just to be clear that's J Boy as in JH - not Jayboy as in intrepid, but often wrong TV poster.

[taxin]

While this defamation law is in force it will always be used by criminals to cover up their crimes or exact a measure of revenge on someone who writes about them.

Yes it will. Just as it will always be used by people who have been defamed or libelled or slandered. Evil and nasty and brutish and outlaw people use every law. So do law-abiding citizens.

For example, in this case, the journalist could sue the lawyer if he believes the lawyer is slandering him or libelling him in the lawsuit - which it sort of sounds like he is.

It's a law that appears to have been designed to make people keep their mouths shut and silence journalists.

The law itself wasn't designed, it was copied. If you are from the UK or Europe or North America you will be quite familiar with it.

BUT there is one huge difference in that it is both a civil and a criminal law. The language and the provisions of the law are straight out of British law. It's the penalty phase that makes it (I think) unique to Thailand. Until then, you get to charge/defend just as you would anywhere.

To get off, a defendant has to prove not only that what was asserted was true but also that it was in the public interest for the assertion to be published.

And the Thai courts will only consider the "public" as the Thai people, therefore Mr Head will lose because the Thai people dont watch the BBC, nor do they care what Mr Head says. Although I hope im wrong.

[asean]

It is illegal for a foreigner to own land. A fact.

It is illegal to use nominees to own land. Another fact.

Buying land for a spouse means gifting the money to the spouse. Another fact.

How did the foreigner suffer fraud?

Correction. A foreigner can legally own a house.

[trogers]

It is illegal for a foreigner to own land. A fact.

It is illegal to use nominees to own land. Another fact.

Buying land for a spouse means gifting the money to the spouse. Another fact.

How did the foreigner suffer fraud?

Correction. A foreigner can legally own a house.

Where in my post was 'house' mentioned?

[jayboy]

It's a satisfying delusion on the part of many dullards and mediocrities that one man's opinion is as good as another's.It isn't.That's a different matter from saying all should have the right to express an opinion - with which I would agree.

If you can provide some referenced examples of JH's bias, please supply them.Taking all sides seriously does not qualify as bias.

If anybody wishes to read some zany criticisms of JH's work by all means Google "Jonathan Head" "bias" and you will find a splendid article by Tony Cartalucci.That should satisfy you and other fruit cakes out there.Interestingly even the bonkers Cartalucci recognises JH's intelligence and knowledge.

I freely admit to name dropping Khun Anand.We are both Cambridge men and occasionally meet at social functions.The fact that neither you nor your circle of acquaintances appear to understand his significance in recent Thai history pigeonholes you more than you apparently have the wit to grasp.Most Thais understand his significance perfectly.

you may have been to Cambridge but your comprehension skills are pretty pathetic . . Baerboxer obviously knows who Anand Panyarachun is (as do I) . . and he sure as <deleted> isn't "universally regarded as someone of knowledge and integrity" !!

I think your comment:

" ...Anand Panyarachun . . he sure as <deleted> isn't "universally regarded as someone of knowledge and integrity"

tells us all we need to know of your position.

[wandasloan]

To get off, a defendant has to prove not only that what was asserted was true but also that it was in the public interest for the assertion to be published.

And the Thai courts will only consider the "public" as the Thai people, therefore Mr Head will lose because the Thai people dont watch the BBC, nor do they care what Mr Head says. Although I hope im wrong.

The words are spelt correctly and so on but I'm not sure what your message is. Let me try this.

A big Canadian company is sueing Greenpeace for defamation because Greenpeace made certain charges in writing about the company. In making its decision for its ruling, is it your feeling the Canadian court should consider what Thais think about the case?

Here are the basics of what I'm talking about: Canadian Logging Company Sues Greenpeace for Defamation: Media Ignore

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/alatheia-larsen/2016/02/08/canadian-logging-company-sues-greenpeace-defamation-media

Good background and back story here in the Financial Post:

http://goo.gl/FqJRKL

[louse1953]

Aren't laws in Thailand quite clear?

You can't own a house.

He bought a house.

Yes they are clear,you can own a house but not the land it sits on.

[louse1953]

Aren't laws in Thailand quite clear?

You can't own a house.

He bought a house.

NOT true. You can own a house - you can't own the land.

I have a usufruct document - annotated by the CM Land Office on the title deed for the land - which gives me ABSOLUTE right to the house and to live in it no, matter what happens to my relationship with the land owner - my partner.

Neither can the land can not be used as collateral for obtaining a loan by my partner - another wheeze or scam I read about, which can result in said land being taken over by the creditor upon default.

A usufruct is little known outside of CM province and I have heard it isn't accepted by some Thai Provincial Land Offices, despite it being perfectly legal and binding in Thai law.

A usufruct is considered stronger than the more commonly used 30 year lease arrangement, less costly, and not needing renewal every 30 years of course!

Usufruct is well known by many people throughout Thailand,even in darkest Issan.Why people don't use them is the mystery.

[louse1953]

Why would u want to own a house (not the land) in los. The house plus the land I rent for the last 5 years was initially sold for 650000 and is now for sale for 950000 (>10 years later) and nobody is interested to buy for that price. The Thai prefer to buy new house in new moobaan for 1000000thb. The owner keeps asking me if I want to buy. She doesn't understand why I'm not interested. I can buy a studio/condo at home, new, for 45000 euro and rent out for 590/month... That studio will be worth 70000 in 10 years.

Using your arguement,who would want to buy a 10 year old condo when they can buy new.

[taxin]

To get off, a defendant has to prove not only that what was asserted was true but also that it was in the public interest for the assertion to be published.

And the Thai courts will only consider the "public" as the Thai people, therefore Mr Head will lose because the Thai people dont watch the BBC, nor do they care what Mr Head says. Although I hope im wrong.

The words are spelt correctly and so on but I'm not sure what your message is. Let me try this.

A big Canadian company is sueing Greenpeace for defamation because Greenpeace made certain charges in writing about the company. In making its decision for its ruling, is it your feeling the Canadian court should consider what Thais think about the case?

Here are the basics of what I'm talking about: Canadian Logging Company Sues Greenpeace for Defamation: Media Ignore

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/alatheia-larsen/2016/02/08/canadian-logging-company-sues-greenpeace-defamation-media

Good background and back story here in the Financial Post:

http://goo.gl/FqJRKL

I thought my message was perfectly clear. A Thai court would not consider the "public" as any persons outside of Thailand, unlike other civilized countries (such as Canada).

[MiKT]

As Thailand seems so pledged to keep its image to the world then having cases like this and others, does nothing but make people abroad look at it and laugh. Its image is not seen in a positive light and with the world glued to social media, it will not be able to stop the ridicule from this story. When will it learn!

LOL... learning in this place is not a priority or done often. So it'll remain backward.... paralized..... corrupt.

One should learn to spell before criticizing education.

"criticising" please.

[Sawan Chan 7]

As Thailand seems so pledged to keep its image to the world then having cases like this and others, does nothing but make people abroad look at it and laugh. Its image is not seen in a positive light and with the world glued to social media, it will not be able to stop the ridicule from this story. When will it learn!

LOL... learning in this place is not a priority or done often. So it'll remain backward.... paralized..... corrupt.

One should learn to spell before criticizing education.

"criticising" please.

Either is correct.

[katana]

While this defamation law is in force it will always be used by criminals to cover up their crimes or exact a measure of revenge on someone who writes about them.

Yes it will. Just as it will always be used by people who have been defamed or libelled or slandered. Evil and nasty and brutish and outlaw people use every law. So do law-abiding citizens.

For example, in this case, the journalist could sue the lawyer if he believes the lawyer is slandering him or libelling him in the lawsuit - which it sort of sounds like he is.

It's a law that appears to have been designed to make people keep their mouths shut and silence journalists.

The law itself wasn't designed, it was copied. If you are from the UK or Europe or North America you will be quite familiar with it.

BUT there is one huge difference in that it is both a civil and a criminal law. The language and the provisions of the law are straight out of British law. It's the penalty phase that makes it (I think) unique to Thailand. Until then, you get to charge/defend just as you would anywhere.

"The language and the provisions of the law are straight out of British law"

I don't think that's correct that Thai and British libel laws are the same. Under (UK) English law, in contrast to Thailand, truth is a defence in libel:

From Wikipedia:

"...English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals; note that under English law companies are legal persons, and may bring suit for defamation) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest)..."

"...A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

[taxin]

While this defamation law is in force it will always be used by criminals to cover up their crimes or exact a measure of revenge on someone who writes about them.

Yes it will. Just as it will always be used by people who have been defamed or libelled or slandered. Evil and nasty and brutish and outlaw people use every law. So do law-abiding citizens.

For example, in this case, the journalist could sue the lawyer if he believes the lawyer is slandering him or libelling him in the lawsuit - which it sort of sounds like he is.

It's a law that appears to have been designed to make people keep their mouths shut and silence journalists.

The law itself wasn't designed, it was copied. If you are from the UK or Europe or North America you will be quite familiar with it.

BUT there is one huge difference in that it is both a civil and a criminal law. The language and the provisions of the law are straight out of British law. It's the penalty phase that makes it (I think) unique to Thailand. Until then, you get to charge/defend just as you would anywhere.

"The language and the provisions of the law are straight out of British law"

I don't think that's correct that Thai and British libel laws are the same. Under (UK) English law, in contrast to Thailand, truth is a defence in libel:

From Wikipedia:

"...English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals; note that under English law companies are legal persons, and may bring suit for defamation) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest)..."

"...A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

With the exception of Thailand, where the defendant is still prosecuted, even if the statement made was proven to be true.

[bim]

While this defamation law is in force it will always be used by criminals to cover up their crimes or exact a measure of revenge on someone who writes about them.

Yes it will. Just as it will always be used by people who have been defamed or libelled or slandered. Evil and nasty and brutish and outlaw people use every law. So do law-abiding citizens.

For example, in this case, the journalist could sue the lawyer if he believes the lawyer is slandering him or libelling him in the lawsuit - which it sort of sounds like he is.

It's a law that appears to have been designed to make people keep their mouths shut and silence journalists.

The law itself wasn't designed, it was copied. If you are from the UK or Europe or North America you will be quite familiar with it.

BUT there is one huge difference in that it is both a civil and a criminal law. The language and the provisions of the law are straight out of British law. It's the penalty phase that makes it (I think) unique to Thailand. Until then, you get to charge/defend just as you would anywhere.

"The language and the provisions of the law are straight out of British law"

I don't think that's correct that Thai and British libel laws are the same. Under (UK) English law, in contrast to Thailand, truth is a defence in libel:

From Wikipedia:

"...English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals; note that under English law companies are legal persons, and may bring suit for defamation) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest)..."

"...A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

With the exception of Thailand, where the defendant is still prosecuted, even if the statement made was proven to be true.

Thats untrue. Sue me.

[Wilsonandson]

These types really hate it when you pull them up on their corruption! This guy, national fruit and the plagerizing Chua professor.

Mr Head may experience bricks through his car windshield soon.

You forgot the Phuketwan law suit. Anyhow whilst surfing I came across this article. Four days old but interesting all the same.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.benarnews.org/english/news/thai/Jonathan-Head-02082016133450.html&ved=0ahUKEwijt62-iPLKAhWBRJQKHbMqCTAQFggmMAQ&usg=AFQjCNHqCZyA6PpdjWGYO3FKn96QxyzB2A&sig2=jujdUzeHaG4qaCq_b3ALxg

[Wilsonandson]

The office of the lawyer sueing Johnathon is a dirty town house, paint peeling off, flea pit. Who would believe or trust in a lawyer who works here in such a dump. How can a low-so lawyer sue a highly respected and internationally known journalist? Unbelievable.

[MiKT]

The office of the lawyer sueing Johnathon is a dirty town house, paint peeling off, flea pit. Who would believe or trust in a lawyer who works here in such a dump. How can a low-so lawyer sue a highly respected and internationally known journalist? Unbelievable.

No, I don't think that's right, I think that every low-down scum bag should have the right to sue Aunty tattooed on their bum.

I am sure he hopes the court will feel sorry for him.

But like much else in this part of the world you cannot tell a book from its cover. I bet he is worth a bob or three or else he would not have made it to being a lawyer.

I expect the back garden is knee deep in gangsters (sorry alleged gangsters) discarded cigar buts.

Pass the Vig Vinny I am feeling peckish for a few oysters.