Libellous Tweets

Admin Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:37 pm

Well, there you have it. There was some discourse on the forums a couple or so weeks back on this subject. Just how careful we all have to be will be ably illustrated by Lord McAlpine's legal team over the coming weeks and months as thousand of people are expected to have to pay damages in respect of careless tweets, emails, newspaper articles, social networking sites etc.

I have been horrified at some of the stuff that I have seen floating around the internet. Do people seriously think that sending out a few scurrilous tweets to Facebook 'friends' is akin to chatting confidentially to a few mates over a coffee? Obviously they do.

There is plenty wrong with our defamation laws in the UK but there is even more wrong with people tweeting and retweeting false and damaging information about named individuals whether it be on radio, TV or t'internet. Ripples on a pond.

Personally, I hope Lord McA cleans up but more fervently, I hope that people will be far more careful what they write in future.

Don't think that pressing the 'delete' button's gonna save you ass either. It isn't.

There will be quite a lot of people in high and low places who will have every reason to be quaking in their boots over the coming weeks; the Speaker's wife, Sally Bercow, amongst them. Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne are likely to be kept very busy.

Hopefully the biggest casualty of all will be the future of 'Trial by Twitter'.

By the way, it is a loing-established principle in English Law that the dead cannot sue for libel. However, there are notable exceptions. For instance, when the reputatiuon of the deceased is so badly and falsely damaged that it affects the value of his/her estate, it has been possible for the legatees to sue for damages on occasion.

Let's be careful out there people!

UP THE DALE Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:00 pm

The real victim of the saga, the rape victim Steve Masham ( ?) got had some terrible things said about him by a certain paper of the establishment, but unlike wealthy Lords cannot afford to sue anyone. I know it's terrible what was said about Lord Mc, but at least he can get some compensation for being wronged. Shows the law is still on the side of the wealth in this kind of situation.

Hinch Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:08 pm

So, when potentially libelling someone, best get your facts right and make sure you have deep pockets.

The wealthy are no less entiled to redress than anyone else although it is impossible to obtain if you are poor. You won't get Legal Aid on a libel case or a no-win, no-fee.

I hope that Sue Grabbit & Runne exhert some compassion in Steve Masham's case. Lord McA's comments about it were very generous given the circumstances.

johnb Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:08 pm

One point to consider;

During the research stage of this affair, Steve Measham identified someone in a photograph as the man who abused him at a children's home in Wrexham. He was told who this was. It was only when showed another picture (or pictures) that he could say the man he accused (with the Harrods card, Rolls Royce, etc.) was NOT Lord MacAlpine.

Who WAS this mystery man? This is probably far more important an issue than extracting damages from stupid tweeters.

Charly Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:14 pm

UP THE DALE wrote: I know it's terrible what was said about Lord Mc, but at least he can get some compensation for being wronged. Shows the law is still on the side of the wealth in this kind of situation.

He's settled for £185K

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mcalpine-nears-deal-bbc-false-abuse-claim-164052769--finance.html

UP THE DALE Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:17 pm

Indeed John, it's the POLICE who told him that it was Lord Mc. The person apparently was a dead ringer of Lord Mc, who is no longer alive.

I agree Hinch that the wealthy are entitled to be able to get justice for being wronged in this way, just a shame there is no recourse for us working poor to get justice for libel.

UP THE DALE Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:24 pm

Charly wrote:
UP THE DALE wrote: I know it's terrible what was said about Lord Mc, but at least he can get some compensation for being wronged. Shows the law is still on the side of the wealth in this kind of situation.

He's settled for £185K

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mcalpine-nears-deal-bbc-false-abuse-claim-164052769--finance.html

Wonder if he will do a really good decent thing and donate the money to charity-Children in Need perhaps? Sure he doesn't need the money, and he has been shown to be innocent of that particular crime.

Dalelad Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:05 am

I can't criticise Lord Mc at all here UTD. He was incorrectly accused of an awful crime and has been compensated. The decent thing would have been for the 'facts' to have been checked properly before transmission. I know it's easier for the rich to get justice, but that's hardly his fault. Would be nice for him to donate it to charity but then again, if he doesn't, I can't criticise him for that either. Being rich isn't a crime after all.

Hinch Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:02 am

Exactly DL.

Wealthy or not, Lord McA has been clearly devastated by these false allegations and the only redress in law is financial compensation. Why the hell should he take UTD's advice and hand it to charity?

The amount he got from the BBC was far, far less than he could have got in court. The people in the wrong here are those who did not check their facts or those who think it fair game to retweet their vile stuff on Twitter.

Were the roles reversed and it was Lord McA who had made false allegations about Mr Measham, UTD would have taken a far different stance.

Rich, Tory sod or not, Lord McA has suffered a grievous wrong and should be entitled to take legal redress.

There is some vile stuff circulating on social networking sites and it needs to stop.

Mud sticks and accusing someone of these sort of offences can destroy lives and reputations. Remember our own 'well-known paedophile, Stefan Kizco'? A different type of case I know but his life was destroyed and led to his early death. Other people falsely accused have been attacked, killed and their houses burned to the ground. Their wives and children have also suffered horribly.

If anyone should be donating to charity here, it should certainly not be the bloody victim but those who were responsible for destroying an innocent man's reputation.

cyfrifia Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:14 am

I appreciate what you say there about how misinformation causes a lot of damage, Hinch, but with media technology developing as it is, it's difficult to see how misinformation can be stopped, the law is a slow and blunt instrument by comparison with t'internet, mobile phones and so on.

The 'official' news we hear has always been biased and selective, the twittersphere, where I do not venture, must be full of . . . . twitter.

Perhaps a practical way forward is to include 'media literacy' as a school subject, to educate people not to believe everything they see and read in the media, trouble is, what can you believe? Anyone who has been involved in what becomes a news story will know that once a story gets into the media, it becomes distorted.

Hinch Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:36 am

How very dare you Cylfrifia. As a member of one of the world's most deeply respected professions, I resent your vile inferences about media distortion! Very Happy

One of the issues with reportage is of course that when you cover a story, you speak to people with different standpoints, the accused, the victim, the police, witnesses etc. All have their own axe to grind. You try to present the 'facts' but these are multi-faceted plus the media organisation itself may have a particular line or style.

I think reading anything, you need to be aware of this and be able to read between the lines.

A long, long time ago, I was sent on an assignment to cover Belfast at a particularly hot time. Despite being an avid reader of newspapers and followed the TV & radio news, I was totally unprepared for the realities of life there.

The big lesson I learned there at age 21 was never totally believe everything you see and hear and recogise that even as a supposedly uninvolved and impartial observer, your very presence brings a level of subjectivity to the issue.

UP THE DALE Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:12 pm

Dalelad wrote:I can't criticise Lord Mc at all here UTD. He was incorrectly accused of an awful crime and has been compensated. The decent thing would have been for the 'facts' to have been checked properly before transmission. I know it's easier for the rich to get justice, but that's hardly his fault. Would be nice for him to donate it to charity but then again, if he doesn't, I can't criticise him for that either. Being rich isn't a crime after all.

Where is my criticism of Lord Mc? I merely wondered as it's Children in need day if he would be donating his compensation to them. It's the police who told the victim of the rapes the wrong identity of the monster who attacked him. I merely stated a FACT about being able to get justice and used the example of the victim himself who will probably not be able to access justice after being savaged by an newspaper. I have not suggested it is a crime for being rich. I have also said it is terrible how he was wrongly accused of being involved in this particular crime.

UP THE DALE Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:39 pm

Hinch wrote:Exactly DL.

Wealthy or not, Lord McA has been clearly devastated by these false allegations and the only redress in law is financial compensation. Why the hell should he take UTD's advice and hand it to charity?

The amount he got from the BBC was far, far less than he could have got in court. The people in the wrong here are those who did not check their facts or those who think it fair game to retweet their vile stuff on Twitter.

Were the roles reversed and it was Lord McA who had made false allegations about Mr Measham, UTD would have taken a far different stance.

Rich, Tory sod or not, Lord McA has suffered a grievous wrong and should be entitled to take legal redress.

There is some vile stuff circulating on social networking sites and it needs to stop.

Mud sticks and accusing someone of these sort of offences can destroy lives and reputations. Remember our own 'well-known paedophile, Stefan Kizco'? A different type of case I know but his life was destroyed and led to his early death. Other people falsely accused have been attacked, killed and their houses burned to the ground. Their wives and children have also suffered horribly.

If anyone should be donating to charity here, it should certainly not be the bloody victim but those who were responsible for destroying an innocent man's reputation.

Yes I know all of that. I did NOT suggest he SHOULD donate his compensation, I was wondering IF he would be donating his money to Children in Need as it's today.

If he had gone to court it may have taken a very long time and who knows if he would would have seen justice in this particular case. The BBC have very quickly done the honourable thing and compensated him.

In what way would have I took a different stance-you don't know that? Mr Measham has already been wronged by the press, but probably won't be able to seek redress.

I agree, and at no time have I said otherwise. Good for him he's in a position to get justice.

I agree. Maybe as an investigative journalist you can search the web and bring to Lord Mc's attention all what is being said about him. Vile stuff is also being said about the rape victims. Many of the alleged victims of Smith and Savile are being accused of being money grabbers, attention seekers, cowards, liars etc.

I agree muds sticks. Kizco was another victim of our MP at the time.

Already said I was wondering if he would be donating his compensation. Many celebrities etc have given compensation to charity when they successfully sued newspapers ect. Are you suggesting more that BBC donate money on top of what they have already paid out? I think 20 odd million ponds raised for Children in Need through the BBC, is a decent enough BBC contribution.

Hinch Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:03 pm

I am a jobbing local reporter NOT an investigative journalist UTD. You credit me with far too much ability. Journalists go to college and study their craft at degree level. I am a humble scribbler.

The BBC have done the honourable thing? The BBC has acted extremely DIShonourably throughout. They got out of this by paying a fraction of what it would have cost them had it been tried in open court. Am not saying it is an insignificant sum but in libel terms it is not a large payout.

As for 'wondering' if he would donate part of his money to a BBC charity... have you been sniffing something?

As for how I know you would have taken a different stance had the roles been reversed? Well, by the general tenor of your posts going back years. As you have admitted, you very much see things in class terms. N'owt wrong with that but it does add a tinge to your outlook on life... as, indded, it does mine.

Now had Lord McA been a dolphin instead of a wealthy Tory peer, I am sure you would find him more worthy of your sympathy. Smile

Dalelad Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:27 pm

Wonder if he will do a really good decent thing and donate the money to charity-Children in Need perhaps

By saying that the 'decent thing' would be to donate the money to charity, UTD, are you not implicitly criticising him if he doesn't?
He is a victim in all of this.

UP THE DALE Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:38 pm

Hinch wrote:I am a jobbing local reporter NOT an investigative journalist UTD. You credit me with far too much ability. Journalists go to college and study their craft at degree level. I am a humble scribbler.

The BBC have done the honourable thing? The BBC has acted extremely DIShonourably throughout. They got out of this by paying a fraction of what it would have cost them had it been tried in open court. Am not saying it is an insignificant sum but in libel terms it is not a large payout.

As for 'wondering' if he would donate part of his money to a BBC charity... have you been sniffing something?

As for how I know you would have taken a different stance had the roles been reversed? Well, by the general tenor of your posts going back years. As you have admitted, you very much see things in class terms. N'owt wrong with that but it does add a tinge to your outlook on life... as, indded, it does mine.

Now had Lord McA been a dolphin instead of a wealthy Tory peer, I am sure you would find him more worthy of your sympathy.

I know-should really have added a smile when I said that.

Compared to others, they acted honourably, in the sense that as soon as they realised their mistake with Lord Mc they apologised, and did their best to quickly come to an agreement with him. If it had gone to court it might have been a long time for him to get his justice, and MAYBE he might not have won in court.

He could have donated to any charity, used Children in need as an example.

I honestly don't see how my stance on this as been wrong. I will feel sorry for anybody wrongly accused of such a crime. I do have a problem with the fact that if it had been Mr Measham accused wrongly, that he would not have been able to get the justice that Lord Mc has been able to. And I will say people like him-politicians, have done nothing to make it possible for the likes of us to sue for libel.

You are probably right. Smile

Mind you, he is not facing being murdered or spending the rest of his life in a small tank as a prisoner for committing no crime at all.

UP THE DALE Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:49 pm

Dalelad wrote:
Wonder if he will do a really good decent thing and donate the money to charity-Children in Need perhaps

By saying that the 'decent thing' would be to donate the money to charity, UTD, are you not implicitly criticising him if he doesn't?
He is a victim in all of this.

I said, " do a really good decent thing", NOT do the decent thing. I was not implying DL. Made the point it would be a very decent thing to do if he did donate the money to charity, like many in his position after winning compensation for being libelled have done.

Prudence Tempered Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:50 pm

Hinch wrote:There is some vile stuff circulating on social networking sites and it needs to stop. Mud sticks and accusing someone of these sort of offences can destroy lives and reputations.

I think your ship has sailed on that matter.

teamplayer2 Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:53 am

By saying that the 'decent thing' would be to donate the money to charity.

Blooming heck UTD the poor man cannot win. First he is accused of a crime he has not done, then you have a go if he does not donate money to charity.

It was reported in the media he is not a well man at the moment on top of being accused of things he had not done. Also shattered by the accusation and what it has done to him and finding it hard enough to clear his name. This will have an impact on him and his family for years to come.

So come on UTD leave the man alone and let him get over it and hope the authorities investigating all this get the real guilty culprits who are involved in the sex crimes against young people.

UP THE DALE Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:41 pm

Another who has not what I said originally properly and subsequent posts by me. I did NOT say he should donate to a charity, I said " Wonder if he will do a really good decent thing and donate the money to charity-Children in Need perhaps " That is NOT suggesting he should it is wondering IF he would do what would be a good decent thing to do.

So I have NOT had a go at him. Wish some of you lot would learn to bloody well read posts FULLY before slagging me and others off. Of course I could have just responded like a brat with a "whatever" answer, but I like to do the decent thing and explain my self.

No he's not a well man at the moment, none of which is the fault of mine, and many people are not well including some of the real victims who were raped. No sympathy from you to them.

Leave the man alone? I haven't done anything to him. Yes lets hope they find the real culprits off all the investigations including any people that looked very similar to him. Almost as though the man whose photograph shown to to the rape victim by the North Wales police, could have been a relative.

Hinch Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:49 pm

Of course, you wouldn't be 'wondering' if he would donate it to charity unless he was a wealthy man.

I think that is the point that I, TP & DL are making. It is a complete side-issue of course. Best to leave class and perceived wealth out of it as it is not relevant.

He is a man wronged who is seeking legal redress. In his interviews, he seems to be far more interested in seeking to clear his name and get admissions of wrongdoing that building up his pension fund.

You do make one good and valid point however and that is that the law should be accessible to all; not just the well-heeled.

UP THE DALE Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:12 pm

That is fair enough. It would give him the upper moral ground even more- an innocent (of that particular crime) man who gets justice but then does a very honourable thing and gives the money to charity. It would make many think what a jolly nice man he is.

If that's what you think fair enough. What DL and TP think you can't know unless you have been speaking to them about it. I don't think TP has an idea what he thinks, he's just following on fro DL and yourself to have a go at me. It is RELEVANT re his wealth, as only a well off person could possibly afford to give the money back to charity. Yest the whole Lord Mc/BBC thing is a side issue, the real issue is what happened/is happening to the rape/sexual abuse victims in Wales, Rochdale and elsewhere.

I agree he has been wronged, already said that countless number of times. He has made it clear as far as I am concerned he wants to get others to pay for their crime of libelling them, so I will disagree with you on that one. He has already cleared his name as far as the majority are concerned.

That's MY main point of this, Lord Mc can and rightly so, sue for libel. When ordinary people are libelled they can't sue. The law is NOT equal.

Hinch Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:30 pm

Have had more than my fair share of run-ins with TP. DL tends to be more measured. However, do you really think TP is 'having a go'? To me, he just sounds to be expressing an opinion that is different to yours.

In reality of course, We are 4 bald men fighting over a comb. It is a complete side-issue whether or not Lord McA donates anything to charity. It matters not a jot if we think he is a 'jolly nice man' or not. At his age I'm sure he tends not to worry about guff like that.

Yes, there should be equality of access to the law but in the case of libel, as the cases are so expensive, I can't see anyone wanting to extend Legal Aid to cover defamation cases.

Even our own legal protection that we get with our Trade Union membership specifically excludes actions for libel and slander.

Can you imagine it, every time there was a slanging match on the nearest estate and someone called the other 'a filthy, pox-ridden old tart', the injured party would be running to Sue, Grabbit and Runne to fill in her Legal Aid form!

The law definitely needs revision in this area and I am a member of the Libel Reform Society.

UP THE DALE Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:54 pm

Never know with TP.

Like I have said, Lord Mc and the BBC etc are the side issue, and the establishment are very happy with the fact the BBC made the mistake and allowed this diversion from the sex crimes that occurred.

The rest re libel etc I agree with. We will be never be a equal society whilst the law, is the law of the establishment, and those same laws will end up protecting the majority of establishment figures involved with sex crimes, like it has done for centuries.

teamplayer2 Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:09 pm

I was expressing an opinion UTD. Looks like you are the one not taking in what Hinch and other people are saying but there you go my friend.

Sponsored content

Libellous Tweets

Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets

Re: Libellous Tweets