Sigmund

BREAKING: The Police is currently tear-gassing some APC supporters who came for the National Convention because they started asking for the monies they were promised. Now, many are still stranded in Abuja with no means of returning to their bases. The Breakfast is going round.

James Garner on his England debut: - 59 touches - 37/40 passes completed - 4 chances created - 3 tackles won - 6 duels won Player of the Match 👏

You all don’t listen

Scott Mctominay with his mural 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🥶

There is no top politician in Nigeria who does not have a file with the EFCC, DSS, ICPC, or other agencies.

"I think Ronaldo's head hits the pillow and he thinks, I wish I was as good as Messi!" Joe Cole explaining the mentality of elite level footballers in our latest Breakdown episode 🧠

"I think Ronaldo's head hits the pillow and he thinks, I wish I was as good as Messi!" Joe Cole explaining the mentality of elite level footballers in our latest Breakdown episode 🧠

Una too funny for this country. There is a principle in tort law called the Bane and Antidote. The principle is that, if you are going to allege that a statement is defamatory, you cannot just pull one line out of thin air and run to court with it. You have to read the entire publication. If, when read as a whole, the context neutralises the damage, the sting is gone. The claim dies there. Knowing that principle, I couldn't help but laugh at this. That is exactly what happened here. Read that thread from the beginning. This man supported, publicly, a position that championed "all men are rapist / men are guilty of rape until proven otherwise". Someone quoted his own tweet and said by your logic, here is what you are, "a rapist". Now he wants to sue for defamation. The quoter did not call him a rapist. The quoter held up a mirror. He took his own argument, followed it to its logical conclusion, and showed him what it looked like. That is not a defamatory statement. That is a syllogism. That is rhetoric. That is what happens when you make extreme claims in public discourse. Defamation law was never designed to protect you from something like this. No reasonable person reading that thread "in full context" would come away genuinely believing this man was being identified as an actual rapist. The context neutralises it completely. The bane and the antidote exist in the same publication. There is no sting. And without a sting, there is no defamation. All in all, lawyers will cash out. That's a good one.