Sally Bercow refuses to settle libel claim with McAlpine

McAlpine demanded £50,000 libel damages and an apology from Bercow after her Twitter post which he claimed linked him with allegations of child sex abuse.

Bercow is a right sort

If I were McAlpine, I'd be able to come to some sort of an arrangement with her!!!

She's scary mad.

This does sounds rather tasty!

God awful woman... but good on her for standing up for herself.

She has clearly had advice from Carter-Ruck... hence going on with this

I mean.. how the phuck is "Why is XZZ trending" libel?

It simply is not... bullying can only work to a certian extent.... and if you have deep pockets you can really try and turn the screw... but you will need a strong legal argument to prevent massive egg on face.

1000%

Pre-xmas

Settlement out of court, no chance "they" will want to go all the way on a loser.

Is that really all Bercow said re: "Mcalpine trending on Twitter"? If so i'd imagien she had a bit of a case(she's no doubt been well advised) Though i'd imagine this mentally ill woman would do anything to give her some/more publicity.

McAlpine's been raking it in from people who never actually named him

Yup that was the full extent of here tweet... she failed to be bullied... and will win.

I'd love to see her counter claim and do him

will she send Pads round...

Don't like her but I can't see how that is libel.

Moran gets a two year treatment order for 53k expenses fiddle

Treatment for what?

he could end up losing more than 50k in fees

does he really want all the details of how the misunderstanding arose

and the details from that book that was promoted in austrailia

Still be very surprised if this makes court.

But it would be great fun - I'm guessing Bercow thinks she can afford the 50k if it goes against her, or perhaps the judge would award lesser damages. She will probably be supported by free speech groups. I guess her personal risk is if they do her for costs as well?

his costs would be over 100k if she loses, on top of any award, and her own costs

but imo she wont lose, and , imo, he will know that, and will settle for an undisclosed amount apology,

I'll go against the prevailing view here and say I still think it likely that his case will succeed if it can be shown that her reference to him and what was going on is established. You don't have to leave a trail of breadcrumbs or be as explicit as people are assuming to lose such a case.

i dont think he will go to court against anyone, not just her

still, he does have that option

Not sure about this really, legally. Morally, well she's made herself look a thoughtless  idiot, but I think we knew that anyway.

one thing for sure,if she does have to pay up her old mans expenses claims on soft furnishings etc will go through the roof.

Christ I just read her posts, she really is a prize **** isn't she? I actually despise her more than those who directly passed on the (false) allegation. They at least (presumably) believed it, and will pay the price, she must have doubted it (hence the language) but publicised it anyway. What a truly dreadful woman.

Didn't she close her twitter account for a couple of days? She may think this is punishment enough.

have you read

The New Machiavelli: The art of politics in business.

???

CH....you still would though....wouldn't you...?

Very interesting that our Sal is refusing to settle.I think she's on a winner as McA is bound to have a locker full of past misdeeds which he wouldn't want disclosed in court.Nobody gets to his age without having something to hide.I'm quite a bit younger than him and have led a pretty boring life however have got some skeletons i wouldn't want to be aired in public.

cooey posy, remember me?

Why is he not suing David Icke, who has made direct allegations and has invited McAlpine to sue him rather than people who have not made direct allegations?

He wouldn't be trying to frighten people to pay up in the way the BBC and ITV did would he?

You don't mess with the Icke.

ridiculous to sue over this - alledgedly - does he need the dough? good luck to the defendant.

He doesn't nees the dough, true, but I don't think that you want people implying that you are a nonce - unless you defend these sorts of claims some dirt sticks

Icke didn't name him. He said he was going to name him, which I can't really see is much different from naming him, then wussed out.

718 i agree. just not sure she said enough to defame him. there was some mild suggestion but no real implication and surely not implicit enough for a court. but who knows

Icke named him in a book published in 1998 and many times since on his website.

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/75061-what-david-icke-wrote-about-conservative-party-treasurer-lord-alistair-mcalpine-in-the-biggest-secret-in-1998-and-the-time-limit-on-legal-action-against-the-book-is-long-past

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/75509-lord-mcalpine-speaks-of-horrendous-shock-of-bbc-child-sex-allegations-when-they-didnt-name-him

http://www.davidicke.com/articles/child-abuse-mainmenu-74/75593-hey-tweeters...

Totally agree JB24; read the icke article a few weeks ago and though he might be considered a loonytune by many, surely a man of macalpine's stature wouldn't allow this to be said in a public forum without response, which apparently is the case. As much as i detest Bercow, i think she might be raising a few of icke's issues in her defence..... well looking forward to this develop if the detail goes public though i doubt it.

Yeah he wasn't a famous paedophile though, was he? And suing Icke would have the Streisand effect. Much wiser to ignore it, like he and everyone else did. When serious media started taking an interest, I can't see how he had any choice.

In my view he should be suing Icke and not Bercow as Icke has gone much, much further. I find it very curious that he seems to be focusing on apparently easier targets.

That's generally what people prefer to do! An easy win against a big name gets the point across more effectively. Has anyone ever bothered suing Icke?

He expected Bercow to roll over and pay up without the need to take it to court, whereas he knows Icke will tell him to feck off.

Probably not the strongest legal defense.

You would think he has a cast-iron case against Icke but instead he chooses to target Bercow who has not even said anything libellous, imo.

So you think his case against someone who hasn't said something libelous is easy and that a man whose defense would consist of 'feck off' would be hard?

No, I think he has a cast-iron case against Icke and a very difficult case against Bercow as I don't believe she has libelled him.

The reason he targeted Bercow was that he expected her to pay up and he wouldn't have to take the matter to court, whereas Icke would not pay up and he would have to drag the matter through the courts, and my view is that he doesn't really want to do that or he would be suing Icke who has libelled him if the allegations are not true.

Why would you expect an innocent person to pay up and a guilty one not to? Again, has ANYONE ever bothered suing Icke? He's a notorious nutjob, who nobody of importance listens to, why trouble yourself with him? If a tramp in the street called you a diddler you wouldn't walk up to him and remonstrate, you wouldn't take him to court, you'd just ignore him.

It is quite simple but you seem to have trouble understanding. Icke has made serious allegations and has stated he will see McAlpine in court if he demands any money from him, try reading the links from his website that I have posted.

Whether you or anyone else considers Icke to be a nutter is irrelevant, as is whether anyone has or hasn't previously sued Icke. If the allegations are untrue then he has a cast-iron case against Icke, who I believe is quite a wealthy man so it would be worth pursuing the matter through the courts, unlike with the tramp in your analogy.

He thought Bercow would roll over and pay up like the BBC, but she seems to have more balls than most would have expected.

Don't underestimate the power of icke - he's possibly worth more than mcalpine with a huge following and that's probably the difference - also he cares not a jot about his reputation as it is already apparently shot to pieces to the masses. I think he raises some incredibly pertinent points which all remain unanswered and the fact he's not already in jail for his 'outrageous' theories involving top politicians is incredible. The Skylark magazine article in respect of mcalpine should be read; remember the 'recent allegations were 'so outrageous' to mcalpine after this appeared in the 90s. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-e7CLmmhaPr8/UKNl2JcTxTI/AAAAAAAAAAY/uqMIX0ItVx8/s1600/mcalpine_1.jpg
I know what i think

There's a difference between simple and simplistic. Your point is the same as originally made. My response is the same, why bother suing a clown? He's making no personal profit from it, Icke did NOT name him as he had promised to do, why try to discredit someone people think is an idiot anyway, especially after he's backed off. He's just not worth anyone's time.

Icke HAS named him many times, read the links from his website I have posted rather than continue to spout nonsense as we are going round and round in circles.

Icke has many followers all over the world who believe his theories, certainly more than Sally Bercow, who has not even libelled him, imo.

Then why did he not fulfill his promise? I've no intention of looking at that website. Icke is either an idiot who believes every rumour, and a moral failure who attempts to spread them without thought, or  slightly less stupid, and slightly more wicked **** who profits from people more stupid than him, by spreading stuff he suspects might not be true.

Either way, it's pleasing nobody bothers with him.

David Icke ‏@davidicke                                 19 Nov
I hear that Lord McAlpine is the man that Steve Messham named in an unbroadcast part of his interview with the BBC. #McAlpine


The above is a tweet from Twitter on 19 November. Go and take a look for yourself. I find it's always best to do your research and get your facts straight before getting involved in a debate.

I also heard that. I didn't repost it in an attempt to make money or attract people to a ridiculous website where I make money from the simple-minded.

And just look at the language. Years back he's accusing someone of being a paedo, now he's passing them blame on to someone else. Why would anyone with any common sense or morality listen to such a cowardly cretin?

David Icke                                  7 Nov
‏@davidicke
I will be "naming" Lord McAlpine on my website today - and unlike the BBC's Newsnight i will not bottle it!

Yep. And he didn't.

That was kind of my point.

Read the website ffs and stop digging yourself a bigger hole. He has a cast-iron case against Icke. In his position, I would be taking Icke to the cleaners.

Nah, but I agree, Icke's a discredited fool. Glad we can agree on that at least.

It´s her human right to act like a c***.

Hi Delta...have read loads of your posts and possibly commented on some...am wondering if we discussed Sandown at some point ??

I would give the whole scummy lot the tank treatment.  Time to get rid of the scum at the top!!!

Has Icke got any money ?

Making a fortune is old Icke.

Sells out stadiums worldwide... James Whale was recently talking about him on LBC, sold out wembley.. and it would have sold 4 times over with the demand.

Unreal.

Turquoise is Gold

Icke is worth a few million now.

He has named many many Political figures and McAlpine numerous times. No idea what Clunge is dancing around the issue for. It is in black and white.

Carter-Ruck, the bercows lawyers, are the number one law firm on planet earth with regards to libel cases.... they will be costing a fortune, her legal fees alone if this goes to court will be over 100K min.... lordy lordy me... this is going to be fun.

The high and mighty don't like having their pants pulled down.

No idea what you're talking about Angel. I've been very clear in my opinion. Nobody bothers to sue Icke because nobody of importance cares what he thinks, as he's widely regarded as a gullible nutter who'll believe pretty much anything if it fits in with his warped world view. Can't see how I can put that any clearer, and I can't see how it could be more obvious. To sue him would be to give him the attention he craves but doesn't merit. He's just not worth anybody's time or money.

Thats probably the biggest insult Ickes ever had,behind Silly Bercow in the credibility stakes!

Icke decent keeper in his time

It is a shame ITV caved in when it was clear Schofield's list contained half a dozen names, not just one. Probably they remembered Mrs Thatcher closing Thames after Death On The Rock.

xmoneyx

Moran gets a two year treatment order for 53k expenses fiddle

Treatment for what?

-----------

withdrawal symptoms. she was addicted to free money.

rumour has it she's joined a support group called "the football forum"

Carter-Ruck, the bercows lawyers, are the number one law firm on planet earth with regards to libel cases.... they will be costing a fortune

I am very sceptical that somewhere the UK taxpayer will be funding this outfit. Legal aid, goodwill to an influential client or just offsetting the bill against another contract handed to them by a man of influence ?

How long will this take to come to court? Lord McA did not look too healthy when all this kicked off.

1.01 this never comes to court... the old boy tried it on, hoping bully boy tactics would make em all fold their hand.... the silly bint has done plenty wrong in her time, including that dirty pikey, but she has not libelled the lord imo.

Carter Ruck must also be fully in belief of this.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 6:20PM, Ramruma wrote:

It is a shame ITV caved in when it was clear Schofield's list contained half a dozen names, not just one. Probably they remembered Mrs Thatcher closing Thames after Death On The Rock.

charming

Barzalona surely supplies the final word here^^^

did mcalpine have a cousin that died in the 90s ?

yeah donny, that was the "mix-up" aiui.

between him and a relative ("jimmie") who was, er, 34 years older than him.

easy mistake for PC plod to make. I mean, you know, if you're going to name an extremely powerful politician as a child rapist to a victim, it's not like you'd double check or anything. and the descriptions of a man born in 1908 and one born in 1942 would probably be so similar that no one would spot the mistake.

another fortunate coincidence is the fact that jimmie mcalpine, despite being chairman of sir alfred mcalpine which amongst other things built large chunks of the motorway network, seems to have somehow been completely overlooked by the honours system.

lucky for them really. I mean, they knew nothing about his, er, proclivities but by pure chance never gave him an honour which would have come back to embarrass them.

thanks

so bbc probably deserve to pay him some of our money to compensate him

maybe we should all compensate him as well because our bbc caused mrs bercow to erroneously
tweet his name

McAlpine still after Bercow - looks like it will go to court.

Has 'settled' (if settled can be interpreted as asked to make a donation) with Twitter users with less than 500 followers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9885381/Lord-McAlpine-to-sue-Sally-Bercow-as-he-drops-other-Twitter-claims.html