Dan Wootton trending on Twitter...

[LookItsMeAgain]

I was wondering why this name has been popping up on my "Trending for you"on Twitter over the past while

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/07/17/gb-news-star-dan-wootton-unmasked-in-cash-for-sexual-images-catfishing-scandal/

Wow is all I can say.

Just wow!

The last set of accounts filed at Companies House for D Wootton indicated assets of 180k plus.

That was in 2022.

Crowd-funding his legal fees….

What a Trump (read: loser) move.

*In a round-robin message, Wotton wrote: "This has been the worst week of my life, but I have to fight these disgusting smears against me. I wouldn't ask for your help unless I was desperately in need."If you can please support this crowd funder. It will go entirely on my legal fees to fight Byline Media, which is on the most sick and twisted campaign to push me over the edge."I know it's a big ask, but please share this on your social media and with many friends as possible. Trust me that this is a campaign to see me cancelled and destroyed – it's chilling. I really do need your help, Please"

One recipient told Byline Times: "I haven't heard from Dan in years. The fact he messaged me - and presumably many like me who he's not got any ongoing relationship with - makes him look both guilty and desperate."

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh.

“Sick, twisted, cancelled, destroyed, chilling, disgusting smears.” All very The Sun. It’s the only language he understands.

Well he is pretty vulnerable because unlike phone hacking which could be connected to work and thus endorsed by an employing media organisation (who would pay fees to avoid corporate liability) even if it was wrong, there's no cover by any organisation you've worked for if you are found to be soliciting sexual content at work for money. At that point you are on your own, there's no one looking after you.

And assets of £180K won’t go far in a libel case.

Isn't that how Bylines funded itself? Is it a Trumpian loser too? 🤔

Are they crowd-finding their legal fees?

*funding

They've used crown funding to fund themselves and pay their costs. So if they were sued, that crowd funding money will have gone towards that.

Then yes - if they’re crowd-finding to pay their legal fees because they’ve made some dumbass mistake that’s got them in trouble with the law, then of course - they’re Trumpian losers, too.

What is weird is this allegation that he paid large sums of money. He must have been well paid by the Sun if this did happen because his accounts don't look like a guy with that sort of money to spare at the time.

Btw I think he's mad if he intends to sue. Unless he can smash this case into next week there is a good chance his career will never recover. It is a very difficult thing to defend yourself against detailed allegations and it will cost him. Even if he wins, there can be an appeal.

Byline presumably have not been frightened off by a few solicitors letters. They would have known they would be sued from the start. The more complex it is, the harder to beat. It's not s smear campaign but it is clever. Should it go to court, Wooten would have to refute all of the claims, each one, and probably many of them are not actionable at all. In fact, they will be useful evidence to build a picture of his alleged behaviour.

Also never underestimate just how savage a judge can be. It won't matter what the politics are in court. A judgment can be career ruining even if you win at libel.

@Anxioys you have absolutely no idea how the legal process works

Firstly the burden of proof is on Byline to show what they said was true. Wootton would not need to call a single witness to “refute the claims” as you put it - though of course he could if he chose to.

Secondly, even a straightforward libel case (which this one would not be) is not cheap. The costs will be very high six figures potentially even seven figures. £165k would not get you very far at all. In this case, I suspect Byline would raise a truth defence and potentially a public interest defence and that Wootton would probably advance both defamation and misuse of private information claims. Both sets of lawyers are going to make a lot of money on this one.

Firstly the burden of proof is on Byline to show what they said was true.
Not totally true. Other forms of defence relevant here are honestly held opinion or in the public interest.

@Anxioys was specifically referring to Wootton needing to refute the claims - ie that he would need to show the claims were untrue.

if you read my post again you will see that I did refer to the public interest defence - onus is also on Byline to show that their report was in the public interest however not on Wootton to demonstrate that it was not.

There is no way that the judge would allow Byline to rely on an honest opinion defence in respect of these articles which make particularised allegations of wrongdoing. So that one is a non starter.

Thanks Katrina, I had missed your post. Useful clarification on what Byline will have to do in court. Maybe Wootton will do well then.

But also, on the fees, what I meant by low fees is that if you clearly defame someone, surely a clear case is where someone retracts very quickly. End of. I agree that the fees on both sides would be significant as it's a complex picture but then there are damages too? Wootton would want those?

Well yes. If the allegations were retracted and damages paid at the very outset then costs would be limited but the claimant cannot force the defendant to do so, therefore needs a decent size fighting fund before they go into this (or a lawyer who will act on a conditional fee basis and some insurance cover in place for liability for other side’s costs).

if Byline lose this, then damages will indeed be chunky - easily into six figures

Thing is, I am sure Byline are aware of that. Presumably their business model takes account of it because bluntly there is not much upside just writing articles where you just don't like someone. I don't hold with conspiracy theories about dark forces either.

I do have a question on this Martin person which seems to absolutely key. If there is a link between Wootton and him, can that issue be gamed?

By that I mean, what if either a) the Met investigate, then any libel case is stayed?

It’s also worth making the point that if Wootton issued proceedings, Byline didn’t come to the table, and Wootton ran out of money and had to discontinue his claim because he couldn’t pay his own legal fees, he would then be liable for all of Byline’s legal costs too. So it would be a high risk strategy to issue without being sure of your funding.

The libel case wouldn’t be stayed pending the outcome of a police investigation - they are two different things entirely.

== There was a guy on Twitter last week saying Dan Wootten had drugged and raped him! Shocking. I have no idea if it's true. He said he reported it to the police a couple of years ago. ==

absolutely crazy isn't it - speaks volumes - some half-wit on Twitter, the font of all that is true and just, making spurious allegations against DW and the poster has no idea if it's true but still says it's shocking.

#GiveMeStrength

I appreciate they are different. But if there was a question of fact such as a link between Branning and Wootton, which is a key concern, would a judge be happy to proceed in that if it was known that the Met police were investigating?

Actually I'm going to answer my own question. Presumably in libel the key issue is immediacy of reputational damage and the argument would be that the claim had to be dealt with quickly.