I think this story is a little funny. Firstly because you’ll notice that the Daily Mail for the first time describe Sally Bercow’s tweet as “allegedly libellous”.
Not quite so sure of your legal ground now Mr Dacre ?
As I’ve written before, there was nothing libellous about Sally Bercow’s tweet, and Alistair McAlpine is on a hiding to nothing by challenging her.
Secondly, we have to read this in the light that Twitter have refused to hand over details that have been requested by McAlpine’s legal team.
I bet all those that accepted liability and coughed up feel pretty stupid right now!
Still, I do question The Daily Mail’s decision to continue to comment on this issue in such a bias, pro-McAlpine, way. You’d expect The Mail, an ‘independent’ MSM outlet, not to be ‘making the case for the prosecution’. ;-)
Lord McAlpine has accused Sally Bercow, the wife of the Commons Speaker, of adopting a ‘cavalier’ attitude after writing an allegedly libellous tweet linking him to false claims of child sex abuse.
The peer is suing Mrs Bercow for damages of up to £50,000 after she tweeted: ’Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*’, after a botched Newsnight investigation claimed an anonymous Conservative figure had sexually abused boys at a Welsh care home.
Legal papers obtained by The Sunday Times also say Mrs Bercow sought to ‘trivialise’ the matter and ‘added insult to injury’ in later tweets.
i think it might be something to do with what certan journilists and publishers have been up to themselves.
“You might think that but I couldn’t possibly comment.”
hope you enjoyed your day’s rest Gojam (well even another illustrious personage ‘rested’ on the 7th day!). Glad to see you back tho’ :)
I am equally sure that McAlpine has only ‘gone after’ Mrs Bercow quite so aggressively because of WHO she is, rather than WHAT she did. All power to her I say – hope she wins her case……… that may be one in the eye for a certain Lord! But then unless he actually comes back in person to face her in court, how would he know what people think of him, with no Internet connection and no phone installed ! (Although quite how you run a Bed & Breakfast without either of these is beyond me?)
PS. Is it just me or has Twitter gone down ???
Slaggy Cowber knew well berfore her innocent face stunt. what a joke.
Is Sally Bercow a royalist?
If she is its a con job, put up by the establishment to frighten other people from blowing the whistle on aristo pedo’s, threaten them with the law courts.
I believe she has Carter Ruck on her side, not a bad thing
Reblogged this on Oyia Brown.
I know a lot of people that think that man is a nonce. Can you be sued for what you think? I tried to point out that just because McAlpine looks like a nonce, doesn’t mean that he is one, but one of them had heard something from a former detective and believed what they had heard. I explained that everything is hearsay until it goes to court. They laughed about the chances of it going to court though!
Once we all get chipped – don’t laugh, it won’t be long now – you will be fined for just having a thought they don’t like, not that we’ll have any money to pay by then . . .
The Daily Mail are nothing more than a bunch of illiterate legal fools.
As I have said elsewhere before, if the action against Sally Bercow proceeds the only conceivable outcome is that it is dismissed as an abuse of process – whether her contribution was defamatory or not,
The key point here is that her contribution to what happened was tiny and therefore a demand of £50K is ludicrous to say the least. You cannot demand such a huge sum off one individual as if their contibtion was the sole cause. All tweets or posts need to be considered as a whole.
I do not know how many times I am going to have to repeat this before it finally sinks in with the fools in the mainstream media. Obviously those who have settled have been too hasty and either not got legal advice or have been badly advised to settle. The misleading articles in the media have done many a dis-service.
Observations by judges on overcompensation and abuse of process.
Smith V ADVFN
10• At the very least it is possible to conclude, even at this stage, that the strategy of “divide and rule” is inappropriate, as I have explained to Mr Smith this morning and as he is already aware. This is especially so in libel proceedings because, if they are appropriate at all, damages can only be assessed in the round (that is in the context of the overall picture). In particular, any distress and hurt feelings suffered by Mr Smith would have to be compensated by reference to the totality of the publications and not on the artificial basis of the sum total of the impact upon his feelings by one individual publication; otherwise there would, as I think he understands, obviously be a significant risk of overcompensation.
23. If litigation is being used to exert pressure on people to pay money (whether for charity or otherwise) or to apologise without any regard to the overall merits, solely with a view to avoiding spending money without hope of recovery, then the court needs to ensure that its processes are not being abused.
Jameel – Dow Jones
54. Mr Price’s submissions amount, so it seems to us, to asserting that Dow Jones’ failure to challenge English jurisdiction estops them from relying at this stage on arguments that could have been advanced in support of such a challenge. We do not accept this. An abuse of process is of concern not merely to the parties but to the court. It is no longer the role of the court simply to provide a level playing-field and to referee whatever game the parties choose to play upon it. The court is concerned to ensure that judicial and court resources are appropriately and proportionately used in accordance with the requirements of justice. If Dow Jones have caused potential prejudice to the claimant by failing to raise the points now pursued at the proper time, it does not follow that the court must permit this action to continue.