blonde poker forum

"Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*."

Sent as a tweet, how is the above libellous?

Really surprised by the verdict!

absolutely shocking.

disgraceful.

an appeal should be launched immediately.

Because it was a clear & deliberate innuendo relating to a matter in which Lord McAlpine had been wrongly accused. He was wholly innocent but the irresponsible side of Social-Media were having a field day.

It was a terrific ruling in my personal opinion, it is bang wrong that people can say what they like on Social-Media without recourse to the normal legal processes.

If you were wearing his shoes, I can't imagine you'd be very happy at what happened.

Ha!

Amazing how such different views can be held.

She didnt say anything

There has been an interpretation which is very dangerous

If he was trending, she was far from the first, so everyone else prior to her tweet has libelled him too?

Very dangerous ruling IMO

you absolutely cannot infer any damage to Lord McAlpine's reputation from a simple tweet which doesn't make any accusation.

absolutely scandalous decision.

I have no doubt that Lord McAlpine had great cause to be concerned, shocked and annoyed at many things which were being published around that time (specifically: the BBC's Newsnight program) but to say that this specific tweet was libellous is to err in both fact and law.

its an absolute million that this isn't overturned on appeal.

You KNOW what she was alluding to, & so did she, & everyone else.

The fact that others did not get prosecuted changes nothing.

So if YOU were in his shoes, you'd be fine with all the innuendo & slurs then? Go on, try the obverse test.

You are wrong thou, not only did I not know at the time, I wouldnt have known if you had shown me the tweet

You are suggesting that we cross a very dangerous line that everyone knows everything and can there infer whatever they like into something and twist it as they see fit to bring a libel action.

Im with MullHuzz, million this doesnt get overturned

So you don't want to try the obverse test, & imagine how YOU would feel in his shoes then, you of all people?

Sadly, I don't know what "million this does not get overturned" means, truly.

When you have been maligned on Social-Media, it is, believe me, "not nice". I hope you never have to suffer it.

At the time of the tweet his name had been wrongly and disgracefully associated with the child abuse scandal in North Wales and this tweet followed about 48hours of constant coverage on news, newspapers and social media

McAlpine's brief said this morning "Only a moron who was very busy would not have known what the tweet was referring to"

The judge agreed

think its a fantastic decision

 while I do think that sometimes that libel laws are used as a sledgehammer to crack a nut it really is about time that aload of people on social media bear this type of ruling in mind when it comes to what they post on twitter and the like

As someone who has been on the receiving end of libellous stuff on social meida, without the resources to do anything about it, I think its a step in the right direction

Tikay, what's amazing is that you can't even be sure *she* knew what she was alluding to, much less knowing that Guy or I knew.

That's the real danger of this decision and is a real backward step for the state of British libel law -- which was improving apace with the introduction of the Defamation Act recently -- although improving apace from what was largely considered the most claimant friendly and litigous system in the world is no great shakes, to be honest.

edit: million this doesn't get overturned suggests that we think it is a one million to one shot (1,000,000/1) that this decision isn't overturned on appeal.

Both those.

Until you have been on the wrong end of it, it is hard to grasp.

I was aware of the story and only came to the conclusion that's what she "MIGHT" have meant.

Utterly ridiculous decision, far too much weight put on someone's own interpretation of something.

Tikay, we don't know what she was alluding to. Only she knows for sure.

Things a million times worse and more direct have been said about people, are they going to go back through and have a hearing for them all.

#Farce

They agreed a settlement.

As the Judge noted, for me NOT to know would be very unlikely.

It is a FACT that she DID know, too. She was point-scoring, & it cost her.

Verdict won't be overturned as Sally's already said she won't be appealing it and I think they've agreed damages to be paid too.

I agree totally with what Tikay's saying about people being held responsible for what they write on social media - you can't just say what you like without facing the consequences.

However I really don't see how the original tweet was libellous, or how it caused damage even if you accept it was libellous. If anyone reading the tweet did indeed attribute the same meaning as the High Court has done, then they must have already known about the allegations, in which case there's been no damage done. (Very clumsily put,sorry)

Yes she was clearly drawing attention to the shitstorm which was festering on Twitter, which was stupid and rather childish, but that's a long way from directly inferring that there was truth behind that shitstorm.

So she will not be appealing then?

Well, I read it on Twitter, so it must be true..  ;)

A million it is true......

Tikay and Tighty appear to be confusing the issues here:

1. was that Tweet libellous?
on any understanding of the facts and the law, no, not in my opinion. I fear Hon Mr Judge Tugendhat has erred in his application of both the facts and the law here.

2. should people be careful what they say on social media and understand more about the law of libel?
yes. and there are far better shining examples you could find to support that arguement.

If she'd tweeted 'Lord McAlpine is hiding something related to that children's home' then she'd have no leg to stand on, but she didn't accuse him of anything, nor even direct the reasonable reader to thnk that she was accusing him of something.

She's not appealing, which is short-sighted at best (I'm certain she'd win on appeal fwiw...) but has rather decided to take the settlement (one assumes) because she doesn't want to spend millions defending her name over some completely lol-issue.

That's a great shame.

If you were in his shoes you'd accept her Tweet & say & do nothing then?

Bet you every penny on earth you would not......

I followed her on twitter mainly as I found she gave me the horn! She was always in the shite on there and seemed to have no thought for what she tweeted. On a weekly basis she was putting her foot in her mouth but obviously never learnt a thing.

Pretty naive really. She did have the best location on twitter though. It simply said "under Big Ben".

Anyone that follows Bercow on twitter would know what she meant.

It's not like he's suing some random for asking a question.

It's a fair cop guv, IMO.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10078119/Court-rules-against-Sally-Bercow-over-her-innocent-face-McAlpine-tweet.html

She was known for it, she did it non-stop, smearing the reputations of all those she could. She was a Social-Media troll. And then she got caught.

I don't do vindictive & all that stuff, but I'm not surprised she got done, & I'm very glad.

well i rather think that, in Lord McAlpine's shoes, I'd have sued the people who got me trending. except they don't have money, so he didn't. (bore).

It is not in doubt - EVERYONE knew what she meant.

He made a settlement offer to ALL those who tweeted & re-tweeted it, with the money to go to charity.

again, whatever you think of Sally Bercow (and there are many and varied opinions), you must not be persuaded that her Tweet on that day was libelous.

I'm not confusing any issue. Does make me laugh that laymen can so confidently assert "I fear Hon Mr Judge Tugendhat has erred in his application of both the facts and the law here."

!

We must agree to differ.

and what was that settlement offer? and was it the same offer as SAlly Bercow was made? I doubt it.

The reasons he sued Mrs Bercow are obvious.

As with armchair football managers, with respect. How can we possibly know the Law better than a Judge?

He's done alright out of this - £185k from the BBC, £125k from ITV and now an undisclosed amount from La Bercow.

Won't get taxed on it either, as he's a non-dom - he quit his seat in the House of Lords in order not to pay UK taxes.

Good, he deserves some compansation for what he has suffered.

Here's the judgement - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/1342.html (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/1342.html)

Paragraph 85 is the most important.

Did you know his grandfather was "concrete" Bob , TK ?

Paragraph 83 is equally revealing.

I most certainly did, I'm very familiar with the Family, & their Construction business, for whom I have done much sub-contract work down the years.

I can confidently assert it because I believe it to be true -- it's very easy, you just understand the issues to a high level and compare what should have happened with what did happen. You don't have to take my word for it, but some of the leading experts on libel law in this country would agree with me as well.

I wouldn't exactly call myself a laymen when it comes to libel law, either, fwiw, but that doesn't seem important.

Not really an issue of law as such, more an issue of what is reasonable to infer. It's actually a pretty good judgement, even though I disagree with the conclusion drawn in that section. Very fine line between what is stupid and what is libellous.

It's pretty much like the original TwitterJokeTrial, but in reverse - in that one the authorities initially took the chap's tweet at face value even though it was clearly a joke (albeit an unfunny one), whereas here the tweet has no harm at face value, but when you look at the hidden inferences it can cause harm.

this is an interesting postiion -- except it assumes that those inferences are reasonable, which I don't ever think they can be. I find the 'conviction by jigsaw completion' line of argument to be particularly troubling.

Yup. I agree. It is troubling, but it is a plausible line to take. All a matter of interpretation.

One of my finest moments as a lawyer was winning a defamation case whilst representing breeders of bedlington terriers who had been accused of defaming breeders of cocker spaniels. Was tremendous fun and the highlight of my brief career.

Having skim read that judgement I am utterly bemused by the decision.

Tikay - I agree with you that what he faced was awful and yes I would hate it. However - the facts are that the Tweet its self was not libellous.

You cannot suggest that people are aware of things that they are not. Showing me that tweet would neither have enlightened me to anything, nor made me want to check why he was trending. You and Tighty assume too much.

To suggest you can libel someone by inference (especially inference as non guided as this one) is a joke. And the Judge specifically refers to it being an inference which has libelled him!

As with Lord Mc,  it appears you dont like Bercow (and to be honest I couldnt tell you a single thing about the woman, but Id guess she was spouse of the speaker), but this is no reason to believe that the specific tweet was libellous. You claim to not be vengeful but it is quite clear from the tone of your posts that you dislike her and you are delighted about the result.

Not withstanding this - do I get to bring an action against his barrister? Who has just called me a moron ? (or maybe I was busy).

In this case, I most certainly AM vindictive, which is a rarity for me.

As I have tried to explain on several occasions, there is, in this instance, a good reason for that.

'Nuff said.

I wasn't particularly following the news coverage at the time because I didn't think it was particularly interesting.

But I noticed enough to know that the Newsnight reference was about "a senior Conservative"

and I noticed the reporting of Sally Bercow tweeting about Lord McAlpine

So I absolutely put together the libellous assertion through inference rather than any foreknowledge before her tweet.

Her intention was pretty clearly to help spread that knowledge about Lord McAlpine - that knowledge was defamatory; so how can it be anything other than libellous?

Because she asks a question. You have to do an awful lot (as your post proves) to get from A-M to realise what its about.

What are you infererring from *innocent face*? her face, his face? is smiley face different? What about if it was proceeded by a hashtag and not **?

If she had 1 follower who lived in deepest darkest peru and check his account fornightly (or maybe he is a moron, or just busy), is it still libellous?

really? seeing a line about the Newsnight show and seeing a line about her tweet and not even reading the whole of either story is an "awful lot"?

so its newsnight that have libelled him, not her.

I'm certainly not sure that her intention was clear one way or the other - I just think she was being stupid and mischievous (which indeed can be defamatory) but I still reckon very few, if any, people who read the tweet made the jigsaw puzzle link, you only did due to the way the news reported the tweet, not from the tweet itself.

As I recall at the time, the reason folk were (stupidly) adding 2 and 2 to make 5 is the fact that Macalpine paid a lawyer to watch the inquiry into child abuse at the Children's home in Wales, and the police investigation had been shambolic at best. The fact that the original abuse allegations still haven't been properly dealt with is a far bigger scandal than a stupid tweet from a foolish woman.

Just because you're not the original source of defamatory information - doesn't stop it being defamatory when you repeat it or refer to it.

Every tweeter who repeated it was guilty of libel - that's why he got so many of them to reach settlements with him.

so If i buy a copy of teh Sun who libel someone, and sell it to my friend, I am guilty too?

I also notice you ignored my followers point

If you buy a copy of the Sun and re-publish what they print then you are.

When you tweet, you are publishing information - that's why you can be liable for it's content.

it was irrelevant

Lord McAlpine has made settlements with insignificant tweeters which amount to receiving an apology - the more influential the person who libels you the more damage they do; hence the proportionate increase in how much you should go after them.

Newsnight had to apologise, & paid £185,000 in damages. It is a matter of view, over which we differ, as to whether Mrs B, effectively, repeated the unfounded allegation. 

The man was accused of molesting children in a children's home, which, in today's climate, was a very serious & damaging allegation. It was later agreed by all patties that he had never been anywhere near the Children's home in his life.

Mrs B could not have been referring to anything else, given the huge media noise at the time. 

I believe settlements were made by several hundred people who re-tweeted or repeated it.

The facts are that libel by inference (that inference being deicded by 1 man) is a very dangerous place to be!

Lets say we were talking about the poker community.

Negranu "libels" helmuth in a similar way. Are you suggesting a judge is able to assess inference? Or impact? When he has heard of neither, and knows nothign of which heis being asked to rule on?

This is why its dangerous. This is now common law, that we will all be subject to. And for that reason it is absolutley hilarious!

Good debate. However, I am a busy moron so don't have the time or ability to comment.

The judge seems to think the fact he has a  knighthood makes a difference!  Id say less that 5% of the population would have known him/told you anything meaningful about him. Id say that hasnt changed as a result of this case.

and this is of even bigger concern

"Lord McAlpine's solicitor Andrew Reid said Mrs Bercow had agreed a settlement with the peer."

"legislation" though the back door. If it goes to a ruling then the judge should decide damages! Getting fishier by the second! Infact it absolutely stinks!

For the people that had never heard of Lord McAlpine before all of this, he's now just the guy that was involved in that children's home case. Sally Bercow is a big part of the reason why his public position has shifted from being a relative unknown to being a man accused of sexual exploitation of children, of which he was entirely innocent.

I don't see any logical progression where you can agree that Newsnight/ITV should have been fined, but that Mrs Bercow should have been found not guilty of libel.

It was always the case when this went to Court that there was to be a separate hearing on damages if the tweet was deemed to be libel.

Pretty standard for damages to be agreed without a judgment in libel cases  too. In fact often if the libel damages end up being decided at a lower level than offered before going to Court the "winner" can be made to pay the "losers" legal costs.

Standard for damages without a judgement yes, but not after one!

Case was always to be divided into 2 separate hearings - one on meaning, one on damages. To keep legal costs down presumably.

so it stinks then that they can agree damages between parties

Don't see why it stinks. Why involve the judge and lawyers in an expensive hearing if the 2 sides can agree an amount?

when 2 politicans go to court and create common law on a hot topic? and get a weird verdict?

cant think

fortunately it doesn't create that much common law, as the deciding legislation in future cases will be the Defamation Act, although one prominent legal blogger (and probably in the top 5 'most expert people on British libel law') has said that the judge's reasoning probably would have amounted to the same conclusion using the new act, which is interesting.

I don't think it creates any precedence anyway - inference has always been part of defamation law hasn't it?

Don't think his domicile matters tbh. Damages aren't taxed as income AFAIK

Michael Tugendhat is an outstanding civil lawyer, particularly on media issues.

Not saying his opinions can't be criticised or political pressures can't be involved in decision-making, but I'd choose his analysis over my own every day of the week.

No issues over precedence; this is a High Court settlement, rather than a ruling by an appeal court

there's only Eady J who I'd place above him on the bench for the understanding of media law and privacy, no doubt.

I think he got this one wrong, and badly, is all.

Fair enough. As you know, that is the beauty of our legal system. And why so many are in work.

not if the proposed reforms to legal aid go through, but that's a different topic.

It is possible the Jackson reforms have done more than the profession has realised yet.

This week's b3ta newsletter subject line:

I've got smoothie all down my chin *innocent face*

Made me laugh :D

She's never been appealing to me.

I never paid attention to it at the time because all sorts of random accusations were coming out of the woodwork about all sorts.  I never paid attention to it on Sky earlier today either because I just wasn't bothered.  It wasn't until a thread became six pages long on blonde that I decided to have a proper look at the whole thing.  If you're not in the know, you weren't to know...imo.

Is this really true Dan?  Strikes me that it was McAlpines decision to sue her for that tweet that was responsible for that shift and his main reasons for doing that are political.  Lots of people tweeted about McAlpine at the time but he chose to prosecute Sally Bercow on political grounds which seems pretty petty to me.

If she hadn't written "innocent face" after her question, would she still have committed a libel?

Absolute not, no.

He initially issued against everybody who tweeted or retweeted, but decided to drop hands against everyone who had fewer than 500 followers if they made a donation to Children in Need.

The Bercow money will be going to charity, too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/21/lord-mcalpine-twitter-defamation-cases

This is completely the point the law is making.  If you genuinely don't know why X is trending you say 'Why is X trending?'  If you want to appear all knowy winky to your 'fans' then you at some passive pretentious BS on the end which you think wouldn't stop you from backing out of your statement if someone calls you on it.

Excellent verdict IMO.