Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Sally Berkow
Found guilty.
That's all i have at the moment........
That's all i have at the moment........
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sqad. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
> I wouldn't agree it's an allegation of guilt. As jtp says, It's more an allegation that he was the person being gossiped about on Twitter.
I'd agree if Bercow was a mere "celeb" who might have no more idea than the next person about what Lord McAlpine did or did not get up to in his private life.
As a Labour parliamentary candidate and the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons, though, it might be reasonably assumed that she had access to information that the general public and gossip originators did not have, and her use of "innocent face" meant she was passing this "insider" info on. That was why her tweet was defamatory, IMO.
I'd agree if Bercow was a mere "celeb" who might have no more idea than the next person about what Lord McAlpine did or did not get up to in his private life.
As a Labour parliamentary candidate and the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons, though, it might be reasonably assumed that she had access to information that the general public and gossip originators did not have, and her use of "innocent face" meant she was passing this "insider" info on. That was why her tweet was defamatory, IMO.
If she had said just about anything else about him she may have got off...but, because of the the nature of the particular crime and the fact that under the current climate, there is/was every chance "of no smoke without fire" she never stood a chance.
she accepted a deal that had already been offered to her, only now she'll have to pay a lot more in court costs etc I imagine.
she accepted a deal that had already been offered to her, only now she'll have to pay a lot more in court costs etc I imagine.
I sometimes think that Tugendhat J is the reason libel law is for reform. He has found that the tweet is libellous in itself and, in the alternative, that it carries a plain innuendo that is libellous !
Of course, it would be libellous to tweet "My friend says Lord Macalpine is a paedophile. I think she's right". Let us suppose that her tweet "Why is Lord Macalpine trending ?*innocent face* gets an answer "Because he has been said to be a paedophile" [Which the answer she expects, in her false naive terms] In what way is any of that libellous? Nobody has asserted that the allegation is true. Nor is there any innuendo that it is true i.e. that is not plainly asserted but is meant to be read as if it had been.
But the judge didn't need any answer to be furnished. He ruled on the original question
Of course, it would be libellous to tweet "My friend says Lord Macalpine is a paedophile. I think she's right". Let us suppose that her tweet "Why is Lord Macalpine trending ?*innocent face* gets an answer "Because he has been said to be a paedophile" [Which the answer she expects, in her false naive terms] In what way is any of that libellous? Nobody has asserted that the allegation is true. Nor is there any innuendo that it is true i.e. that is not plainly asserted but is meant to be read as if it had been.
But the judge didn't need any answer to be furnished. He ruled on the original question
Not merely an idiot, in general terms, but , scandal of scandals, not familiar with the byzantine thinking in our defamation law, whereby the burden of proof is put on the defendant , unlike in any other branch of tort. It is extremely rare for a defendant to run the defence of truth,"justification", even though, by any normal standards of evidence and procedure that defence would be perfecty tenable; hence the old saying "the bigger the truth, the bigger the libel".
Whole chapters in books on defamation law are confined to discussing the types of innuendo that may be pleaded: I defy any non-lawyer to understand any of it, and the defamation itself is exclusively the domain of specialist firms of lawyers who do nothing else but grapple with its complexities. That innuendo was found in Mrs Bercow's tweet defies all logic but the logic of the libel lawyer and of the judge, who himself is a specialist libel judge.
Whole chapters in books on defamation law are confined to discussing the types of innuendo that may be pleaded: I defy any non-lawyer to understand any of it, and the defamation itself is exclusively the domain of specialist firms of lawyers who do nothing else but grapple with its complexities. That innuendo was found in Mrs Bercow's tweet defies all logic but the logic of the libel lawyer and of the judge, who himself is a specialist libel judge.
Its worth remembering why Lord McAlpine name come up in the first place.
Last year a man was interviewed, at length, on Newsnight if I recall rightly, concerning his abuse when a child in care in North Wales. He made a complaint to the Police at the time and was interviewed accordingly. The Police showed him a photo of the man that he was accusing and asked him to confirm that the photo was indeed him. He confirmed it was and then the Police told him that the photo was of McAlpine.
The difficulty was that a McAlpine had abused him but not the one who became known later as Lord McAlpine, but a relative of his that had a big sort-stately home near St Asaph. So this boy, now man, has believed all these years that he was abused by the wrong person.
He realised his mistake last year and has apologised to Lord McAlpine. His mistake was caused by the Police at the time misleading him.
So, I am not defending Sally Bercow but she made the same mistake as almost everybody else did in this affair.
It has to be said that if the Police and the Local Authority has investigated the appalling abuse that went on during the 70's in North Wales PROPERLY, this would have been sorted out a long time ago. Instead they cocked up the Enquiry big time and its only now that the truth is coming out.
Last year a man was interviewed, at length, on Newsnight if I recall rightly, concerning his abuse when a child in care in North Wales. He made a complaint to the Police at the time and was interviewed accordingly. The Police showed him a photo of the man that he was accusing and asked him to confirm that the photo was indeed him. He confirmed it was and then the Police told him that the photo was of McAlpine.
The difficulty was that a McAlpine had abused him but not the one who became known later as Lord McAlpine, but a relative of his that had a big sort-stately home near St Asaph. So this boy, now man, has believed all these years that he was abused by the wrong person.
He realised his mistake last year and has apologised to Lord McAlpine. His mistake was caused by the Police at the time misleading him.
So, I am not defending Sally Bercow but she made the same mistake as almost everybody else did in this affair.
It has to be said that if the Police and the Local Authority has investigated the appalling abuse that went on during the 70's in North Wales PROPERLY, this would have been sorted out a long time ago. Instead they cocked up the Enquiry big time and its only now that the truth is coming out.
Strangest innuendo ? A businessman sued his bank because, in giving a credit reference, it said of him "He is good in the sum named". What's wrong with that? The bank was only saying what he needed, that is an assurance that he could certainly be trusted to have the sum he wanted. But, he argued, the sentence suggested that he was good for that sum and no more. They could have said "He is extremely credit worthy and the sum named is very well within his capacity" or some such. Result? Substantial damages.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News9 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.