Dan seems to have a very odd idea about slander. He seems to believe that to succeed you only need to show that some one has said something that is untrue about you. In reality you need to show that someone has said something untrue (to someone else not just you) and that it has damaged your reputation and that damage has caused you financial loss. Dan (as a convicted racist) has an appalling reputation already so it would be quite hard to damage it further ……… equally, as his income is entirely from benefits (if we discount the thousands of pounds that his rich father pays into his trust fund every month) he would suffer no financial loss what ever anyone says . Thus any slander action would fail before it even starts
Dan seems to have a very odd idea about slander. He seems to believe that to succeed you only need to show that some one has said something that is untrue about you.
In reality you need to show that someone has said something untrue (to someone else not just you) and that it has damaged your reputation and that damage has caused you financial loss.
Dan (as a convicted racist) has an appalling reputation already so it would be quite hard to damage it further ……… equally, as his income is entirely from benefits (if we discount the thousands of pounds that his rich father pays into his trust fund every month) he would suffer no financial loss what ever anyone says .
Thus any slander action would fail before it even starts
100%
Helen is wrongen 💯💯