Libel Gone mad

[Somerled]

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.

[tikay]

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?

[Somerled]

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.. 

[tikay]

A million it is true......

[mulhuzz]

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.

[mulhuzz]

A million it is true......

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.

[tikay]

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.

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

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

[gouty]

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".

[pokerfan]

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

[tikay]

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".

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.

[mulhuzz]

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.

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

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

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).

[tikay]

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

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

[tikay]

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.

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

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

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).

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

[mulhuzz]

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.

[TightEnd]

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.

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."

!