Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
24 May 13
11:36
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Apr 06
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/24/sally-bercow-tweet-libelled-lord-mcalpine
Sally Bercow has lost her libel battle with Lord McAlpine over a tweet that falsely linked him with an allegation of child sexual abuse.
The high court ruled on Friday that her tweet – "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*", after BBC2 Newsnight allegations about a high-profile Tory politician – would have been understood to mean the former Tory chairman was a paedophile.
Bercow, who was not in court for the ruling, always denied her tweet was defamatory of McAlpine but on Friday said: "I very much regret my tweet." She has now agreed to settle with McAlpine, six months after her tweet at the height of the mass Twitter libel. Bercow's husband, John, is Commons Speaker.
Britain's most senior libel judge, Mr Justice Tugendhat, said in his judgment that her tweet meant "in its natural and ordinary defamatory meaning that the claimant was a paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care.
"If I were wrong about that, I would find that the tweet bore an innuendo meaning to the same effect."
The ruling ends a six-month legal saga which caused McAlpine "considerable unnecessary pain and suffering", his lawyer, Andrew Reid, said outside court.
Bercow said: "To say I'm surprised and disappointed by this is an understatement. However, I will accept the ruling as the end of the matter. I remain sorry for the distress I have caused Lord McAlpine and I repeat my apologies. I have accepted an earlier offer his lawyers made to settle this matter.
"Today's ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users. Things can be held to be seriously defamatory, even when you do not intent them to be defamatory and do not make any express accusation. On this, I have learned my own lesson the hard way."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/24/sally-bercow-tweet-libelled-lord-mcalpine
Sally Bercow has lost her libel battle with Lord McAlpine over a tweet that falsely linked him with an allegation of child sexual abuse.
The high court ruled on Friday that her tweet – "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*", after BBC2 Newsnight allegations about a high-profile Tory politician – would have been understood to mean the former Tory chairman was a paedophile.
Bercow, who was not in court for the ruling, always denied her tweet was defamatory of McAlpine but on Friday said: "I very much regret my tweet." She has now agreed to settle with McAlpine, six months after her tweet at the height of the mass Twitter libel. Bercow's husband, John, is Commons Speaker.
Britain's most senior libel judge, Mr Justice Tugendhat, said in his judgment that her tweet meant "in its natural and ordinary defamatory meaning that the claimant was a paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care.
"If I were wrong about that, I would find that the tweet bore an innuendo meaning to the same effect."
The ruling ends a six-month legal saga which caused McAlpine "considerable unnecessary pain and suffering", his lawyer, Andrew Reid, said outside court.
Bercow said: "To say I'm surprised and disappointed by this is an understatement. However, I will accept the ruling as the end of the matter. I remain sorry for the distress I have caused Lord McAlpine and I repeat my apologies. I have accepted an earlier offer his lawyers made to settle this matter.
"Today's ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users. Things can be held to be seriously defamatory, even when you do not intent them to be defamatory and do not make any express accusation. On this, I have learned my own lesson the hard way."
Show More
She is very lucky that he has allowed her to accept a previous offer when he could have really stuck the knife. Silly woman. Hope she learns her lesson.
Ive been waiting to see how this one developed.
The ruling is disgusting imo.
The law says you can be found guilty on the basis of other's interpretation, irrespective of what you ACTUALLY said
The ruling is disgusting imo.
The law says you can be found guilty on the basis of other's interpretation, irrespective of what you ACTUALLY said
thats like saying you are being found guilty of either wht you think or of what you didn't do/say
take a bow legal profession
take a bow legal profession
*not 'the law' says, that should have read 'this ruling'
Are you for real dustybin?
Firstly, the meaning of her tweet was more than clear, and secondly, why are you posting a tweet like that if not for others to interpret it in the manner intended?
The judge has correctly applied the law.
Firstly, the meaning of her tweet was more than clear, and secondly, why are you posting a tweet like that if not for others to interpret it in the manner intended?
The judge has correctly applied the law.
In this particular case there would be nothing wrong in finding an innocent(which in any case she ain`t) guilty.
In fact it would be quite nice if the judge had said i`m not sure but in your case...guilty!
In fact it would be quite nice if the judge had said i`m not sure but in your case...guilty!
so had they argued that his name had been 'trending'
what then?
what then?
this should have been clean cut, was what was actually said (not interpreted to mean) defamatory?
yes or no
thats how law is supposed to be isnt it?
yes or no
thats how law is supposed to be isnt it?
dusty...not in this case, normal service can now be resumed
She knew what she was saying and worse was using the slimiest tactic available in sly innuendo. Judge was right and I hope that she and her fellow tediocrats will now slope off to oblivion.
BillyBunnsLane • May 24, 2013 12:15 PM BST
She knew what she was saying and worse was using the slimiest tactic available in sly innuendo. Judge was right and I hope that she and her fellow tediocrats will now slope off to oblivion.
You are suggesting the law basis its ruling on mind reading then?
So his name is trending, what then?
She knew what she was saying and worse was using the slimiest tactic available in sly innuendo. Judge was right and I hope that she and her fellow tediocrats will now slope off to oblivion.
You are suggesting the law basis its ruling on mind reading then?
So his name is trending, what then?
In the absence of a "Just fking grow up" ruling, this will do perfectly. Grammatical pedantry is no defence *(apart from on here).
it is Ken, the whole legal system is based on it ffs
If we dont simplify it then the lawyers will continue to parasite on every trade they can over nonsense
If we dont simplify it then the lawyers will continue to parasite on every trade they can over nonsense
.
http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/lord-mcalpine-nothing-disappears-from-the-web/
http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/lord-mcalpine-nothing-disappears-from-the-web/
I agree with Dusty on this one. You can't have rulings based on what the judge thinks you might have intended to imply.
Bang goes making a libellious statement, followed by 'allegedly' as the fig-leaf!
We better stay off "Arsenal Chit-Chat" roger imo if that is the case.
Defamation has always included 'reading between the lines' so, as much as I generally frown on Tugendhat J, he is maintaining the law in this respect.
I have seen you know more than most on these legal issues orioles so am interested in what you make of this.
Could you tell me what would have happened had the defence simply argued the statement was a question on the fact of the guys name which was actually trending at the time?
Could you tell me what would have happened had the defence simply argued the statement was a question on the fact of the guys name which was actually trending at the time?
What's really a tad annoying is that the police and the judiciary have to spend so much time dealing with what silly people put on trivial twitter, whilst the elderly are terrified in their own homes and ordinary folk are frightened to go out at night.
She didn't do that though, dusty, she qualified the statement. Don't get me wrong, this is at the limits of the principle IMHO, but an accusation that serious cannot be qualified like that.
Incidentally, the addition of 'allegedly' is not as formidable a bulwark as hignfy would have you believe!
Incidentally, the addition of 'allegedly' is not as formidable a bulwark as hignfy would have you believe!
Odious woman gets just desserts shock! Move along, nothing to see here.
but as a matter of fact he isnt maintaining the law is he?
He's simply assuming on the singular statement.
I havent seen what or how she is supposed to have qualified the statement, but if that occurred then it would have been on those statements she would have been judged, not on the one that she was seemingly found guilty of.
Cooperman, it isnt actually about who said it
He's simply assuming on the singular statement.
I havent seen what or how she is supposed to have qualified the statement, but if that occurred then it would have been on those statements she would have been judged, not on the one that she was seemingly found guilty of.
Cooperman, it isnt actually about who said it
seems an odd way to settle the dispute when a jury may decide the case
and ex tory ministers might not fare so well in their eyes...
i guess the damages must be less than 10k
and ex tory ministers might not fare so well in their eyes...
i guess the damages must be less than 10k
Law correctly applied here imo also. If she had written 'Lord McAlpine is definitely NOT a **** (innocent face)' instead then imo the message would still have been clear, although it would still have would also have relied on a judge's interpretation of the meaning of the comment if it were to come to court.
plenty of egos in law courts imo
replace the lot and get some algorithms in
get accurate rulings then
replace the lot and get some algorithms in
get accurate rulings then
So, if a TV News broadcast, for example, had drawn attention to the Twitter trending re: his Lordship via a "Top Ten Trending" feature, and one of the presenters routinely asked "Why is he trending?", would they have been equally culpable?
As much as I have a distaste for her antics, I have to say I think she's been extremely unfortunate with this outcome.
As much as I have a distaste for her antics, I have to say I think she's been extremely unfortunate with this outcome.
May I just steer this debate towards the inevitable - I would 
alun, if a news report had asked 'Why is he trending?', wanting to know why he was trending...that would be a bit odd, but not libelous.
That was not the case here though, she KNEW why he was trending, and her tweet contributed to a false and malicious claim being spread still further.
Which is why she lost?
That was not the case here though, she KNEW why he was trending, and her tweet contributed to a false and malicious claim being spread still further.
Which is why she lost?
Her Tweet surely asks the very same question that my fictional news broadcaster asks?
Thruppence ha'penny damages and not a farthing more with any luck.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539