Laurence Fox libel trial

[newnamethanks]

Laurence Fox has been sued for libel by two people he described as paedophiles in a twitter spat. They described LF as racist. Trial began today, suing and counter-suing. Mr Fox arrived with his - written thus (daily mail) in single quotes - 'girlfriend'. Odd description.

Thank you. Just came back to correct that. Even better.🍷to recipients.

awesome.

Frankly, it was more entertaining than anything I've ever seen him acting in.

Great result, I hope he just goes away and shuts up now.

Surely it doesn’t take that much effort to not go on Twitter and call people you don’t agree with pedos. I mean, when he does it, it never ends well for him.

Unlike KH, Lozza has a doting sugar daddy to fund his jolly high jinks.

Thank you for the update.

This is excellent news.
I completely enjoyed the Judges comments:

"By calling Mr Blake and Mr Seymour paedophiles, Mr Fox subjected them to a wholly undeserved public ordeal. It was a gross, groundless and indefensible libel, with distressing and harmful real-world consequences for them.”

"They have been forced to fight a libel claim all the way through to trial with every single conceivable point being taken against them … They have done so under the sustained hailstorm of Mr Fox’s exercise of his rights of amplified free speech, and if they, or at any rate Mr Seymour, have sometimes tried to make their own voices heard above the din and exercise their own rights to free speech, that has been an occasion of further hailstones.”

"Mr Blake and Mr Seymour are legally entitled not to have Mr Fox repeat the same or similar allegations as the one he made – namely, that they are paedophiles … He has no right whatever to do so and his track record of public utterances persuades me that this discipline is necessary and proportionate.”

Additionally LF counter sued because he was called a racist - he lost that one as well.

O lovely judge, perfectly put. Thanks for posting it.

I particularly enjoyed the part in a different part that describes him as having ‘an unfastidiousness about objective factuality.’

I missed that bit.

It's such a great burn. 😀

He tweeted he’s going to appeal. Idiot.

Appeal? Oh well, it's not his money he's burning but that of the equally delightful Mr Hoskins. In which case, burn it up Lozza, you was robbed. Take it all the wayto the ECHR, oh, hang on . . .

I thought the bank of Hoskins had closed.

I’m all for Laurence appealing. It’s not often you get a chance for a decent laugh these days.

Although I do think he needs an intervention of some sorts.

Oh good news then, I didn't know that. I wonder who's paying for him now? Good luck with the GoFundMe Lozza.

The whole thing is a waste of court time. It should have been thrown out and they should all have been told that if they want to hurl insults at each other then they must accept the consequences. Our courts have a massive backlog of cases that actually need to be heard. Vexatious litigation shouldn’t be tolerated.

CormorantStrikesBack · 26/04/2024 17:53

He tweeted he’s going to appeal. Idiot.

Oh dear, I hope it's not too costly for him.

Good. I hope he wins.

Really? You hope he gets told it's OK to call people paedophiles who aren't paedophiles?

I hope he sends you the bill.

He's going to need to seek leave to appeal and then find a point of law the judge got wrong.

Hoping this adds even more to his legal bill.

Difficult to see how exactly he wins. I mean the tweets where he called them paedophiles knowing that they weren’t exist.

The only way for him to win is to prove they were paedophiles which is going to be difficult since they aren’t.

Isn't he a bit late for that? There's a 21 day time limit starting from the original decision.

On what legal basis do you think that's possible?

He would have to prove unequivocally they are peadophiles and that he knew it to be true.

So how could he win?

Do you have to pay a deposit to run for the London Assembly? Will he lose another one if so or will he get it back?