Bercow lost

[Xenia]

Not a good decision for free speech.....extends innuendo a bit far in my view so I suppose she might appeal.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/1342.html

Alibaba you've made arguably libellous comments about Sally Bercow there.

Do you see how easy it is? And do you have the money to defend them?

I thought libel was when you write something that isn't true!

Surely anyone who has a twitter account is attention seeking - isn't that is the point of it, for people to follow you and care about your opinion?

Blueberry, I've always been uncomfortable with the idea of Simon Singh as an innocent victim of oppressive libel laws. The laws of defamation in the UK are desperately in need of reform. But the Simon Singh case is not a great example. I read his original story. As a mere hack who has had some training in libel, I was taken aback that the Guardian had allowed it through, and wondered what on earth their subs were thinking - it was clearly actionable (as in, the subject could well reach for their lawyers - NOT as in 'proven libel').

The original story could have been written perfectly well without the dodgy elements. The Guardian could have edited it to remove the dodgy elements. They chose not to. They knew, or should have known, that they were running a risk.

There are far better examples of authors of articles in peer-reviewed journals being harassed by the lawyers of drug companies for daring to talk about medical evidence. THAT is wrong, and that is a prime example of the ridiculous state of defamation - although I'm hazy on what happened with the defamation bill, must look it up. Simon Singh - not so much, it will always be defamation to call people liars.

Glad she got done. Perhaps it will get others to think twice before they imply something about someone when they cannot know what the facts are. The internet is not some parallel universe where people cannot be damaged or hurt by mischief makers.

I thought libel was when you write something that isn't true!

karma no. And being attention-seeking isn't libellous.

I've read the judgement. Thanks for linking.

I think the judgement is right. It's not about free speech.

If someone posts:

"I've got a real problem. I've spilt fairy liquid all over the floor.'

and I reply:

"Add some water and let your children play in the bubbles? Helpful"

I'm acknowledging that my reply is very unhelpful; it's irony.

If Bercow were genuinely asking innocently, she would simply have written 'why is x trending?'.

By writing 'innocent face' she is pointing out that in fact she's got a knowledge of the situation and is highlighting it.

Anyone who says otherwise is probably facing a lawsuit and trying to get out of the situation which was caused by their impulsive decision to spread gossip.

Her husband must be thoroughly shown up with her

They are being reformed.
Defamation Act 2013.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013

Irrespective of my feelings about Bercow (which are irrelevant) I was disappointed with this judgement.

I think it is a poor and worrying judgement from the well-known judge Tugendhat.

limited, I'm confused. Libel is making a written statement about someone, which is untrue and which causes damage to that person's reputation, is it not?

xenia I thought being a lawyer meant you argued the point. Not just linked and ran away.

Is this your area of expertise?

I agreed with the judgement and thought she'd been poorly advised to attempt to defend her tweet.

But it's possible I'm influenced by the fact I can't stand her.

I was just letting people know it had been decided. That was all.

limitedperiodonly, lawyers argue a point when they are paid to do so. Why does it matter what area Xenia specialises in, or whether she argues the point .

A question mark would have been helpful there

Worrying judgement.

The DI forums have a lot to say about it.

The FT today says that after she lost (the damages were to be settled at a later trial) she agreed an amount of damages in a confidential settlement (which is fairly normal) but that that amount was less than the amount she had agreed to settle at before the trial. The Mc A team had not accepted her earlier offer which is why it went to a trial. So I wonder what costs are paid to McA by Bercow (or her insurers - I think she had insurance against losing) which are likely to be many many times the sum she is paying.

My tweets are never personal so I'm okay.

The Times says more

" Mrs Bercow has now agreed to an offer of settlement made by Lord McAlpine in January, thought to be in the region of £15,000 which will go to a children?s charity.

As a result of declining the offer in January, she now also faces substantial legal costs of nearly £100,000 although most of this is covered by legal expenses insurance, taken out under her ?no win no fee? deal with Carter Ruck, solicitors.

There will now be another another hearing so that she can make a public apology with Lord McAlpine present. "

So the loser is Carter Ruck who do not get their fees paid. Bercow probably loses very little financially as she is insured (except perhaps the £15,000 which goes to charity and a bit of costs) and her public profile is presumably increased by the case.

xenia you started off saying it wasn't a good decision for free speech. It's got nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with not having lies told about you.

Whatever I think about McAlpine, he is entitled not to be libelled, especially in such a gross way.

Luckily for him, he has the money to remedy it. Most people don't, and it's ordinary people who are the ones most commonly libelled or damaged by careless or malicious reports in newspapers, or someone who fancies putting something they heard on the internet.

Most newspapers jump up and down about freedom of speech and the evils of Leveson not because they want to spend lots of money on public interest investigations, but because they want to be able to either deliberately or accidently tell lies about people and have no comeback.

Looked at that way, it makes you wonder who's got most freedom.

I can't see how Tugendhat could have interpreted that "innocent face" any differently but it's up to Bercow to appeal if she feels able.

As it stands the decision is quite helpful to fans of free speech. It appears that if you ask a straight question and leave the cockiness out of it, you may be all right.

This decision seems unfair for a very oblique comment. Many people on MN have posted worse, even though they might try and couch their words in a ""name begins with A" sort of code - which is completely transparent.

She's only been hauled over the coals becasue she is a public figure. As someone posted further up, what about all the tweets she was referring to? Why didn't they get prosecuted?

Whether or not we like Sally Bercow is completely irrelevant. Surely no-one's saying that only people we like should be treated fairly by the justice system?

Personally I'd rather see some snotty little school girl who's posted "X is a skanky ho' on her Facebook page prosecuted for libel, because that's a far more widespread problem, which causes endless suffering withour redress for the victim.

But of course, the libel law is only available to the wealthy.

Wrong decision I agree. Have seen much worse on twitter with no recourse

It's not about 'fair'. It's about right and wrong.

Also, a high profile person saying something carries more weight than a 'nobody' doing so. SB has 860 followers, so that means that 860 saw what she had written (if I understand twitter correctly).

'innocent face' is an ironic statement - a tongue in cheek indication that someone is not asking the question from a position of ignorance as the initial question indicates.

She clearly aimed to bring attention to Lord McAlpine, so that other people investigated what was trending on twitter, rather than stating it herself.

She was foolish to do so and she was called on it. Rightly.

You're absolutely right to say whether we like Bercow is irrelevant. But my impression of her has influenced whether I believed her defence which, because of who she is, I didn't.

My sympathies lie with an old, and apparently very sick man, who was accused of the worst of crimes. It doesn't damage our freedom of speech to punish her for this IMO.