I think she's married to Sir Ian Nugee QC so she will be well advised (Thornberry). If Flint's comments are held defamatory, Flint will have to prove the comments are not defamatory as I think it works the other way round in defamation where the defence has to prove that something deemed slanderous/libellous is actually not so.
Poker, it all seems very messy! If it does get to court then I predict a Thornberry win given it sounds like hearsay from Flint. Put it this way, Thornberry's got more chance of winning this than the leadership.
I think she's married to Sir Ian Nugee QC so she will be well advised (Thornberry). If Flint's comments are held defamatory, Flint will have to prove the comments are not defamatory as I think it works the other way round in defamation where the defe
Flint didn’t appear too confident today. I believe Flint, but guess everything depends whether or not the other MP corroborates her claims. He or she might be reluctant to get involved... and with good reason.
I agree, sir.Flint didn’t appear too confident today. I believe Flint, but guess everything depends whether or not the other MP corroborates her claims. He or she might be reluctant to get involved... and with good reason.
I know what you mean Poker but that is no basis for a defence. Norman Tebbitt tried it in a case against someone who had on more than one occasion written messages on local authority stationery supporting CND. His argument was struck out because the instances were unrelated.
I know what you mean Poker but that is no basis for a defence. Norman Tebbitt tried it in a case against someone who had on more than one occasion written messages on local authority stationery supporting CND. His argument was struck out because the
If the quote was on , Who wants to be a millionaire, and the audience were left with a 50-50 of Thorn and Flint. 95% would pick Thorn, the other 5% would guess.
If the quote was on , Who wants to be a millionaire,and the audience were left with a 50-50 of Thorn and Flint.95% would pick Thorn, the other 5% would guess.
Thornberry seems very ill advised to pursue this. What she is accused of saying amounts to little. All she had to do was deny she said it, and it would have been forgotten by now.
If this goes to court it can only harm her, because she loses even if she wins with all her past history coming out in court and published in the papers the next day.
And if she loses she be at the very least a laughing stock.
Thornberry seems very ill advised to pursue this.What she is accused of saying amounts to little.All she had to do was deny she said it, and it would have been forgotten by now.If this goes to court it can only harm her, because she loses even if she
I'm with Flint all the way. Summat imo she would deffo think and more than likely say, as has already been mentioned, the St George flag incident. Typical over-reaction. Can't be seen saying such things unless caught bang to rights.
I'm with Flint all the way. Summat imo she would deffo think and more than likely say, as has already been mentioned, the St George flag incident. Typical over-reaction. Can't be seen saying such things unless caught bang to rights.
An extremely childish spat between two former colleagues. Thornberry ought to have been more sympathetic and understanding (to ignore) the comment by Flint given the latter's predicament at the election; a legal route is an immature way to deal with this unfortunate event.
One party needs to lower their ego a smidgeon for a solution.
An extremely childish spat between two former colleagues. Thornberry ought to have been more sympathetic and understanding (to ignore) the comment by Flint given the latter's predicament at the election; a legal route is an immature way to deal with