Libel Gone mad

[tikay]

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.

We must agree to differ.

[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).

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

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.

[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.

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."

!

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

[AndrewT]

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.

[tikay]

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.

[Somerled]

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

Paragraph 85 is the most important.

[pokerfan]

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

[mulhuzz]

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

Paragraph 85 is the most important.

Paragraph 83 is equally revealing.

[tikay]

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

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.

[mulhuzz]

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."

!

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.

[Somerled]

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.

[mulhuzz]

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.

[Somerled]

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.

[outragous76]

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).

[tikay]

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.