Bit late with this but the estimable Dave Osler is being sued for libel. Having been threatened with libel lawyers myself once upon a time I have an idea how Dave must be feeling. Let’s hope for the right outcome.
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic, your e-mail address is never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The URL to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.chickyog.net/2008/12/05/stand-up-for-dave-osler/trackback/
I’ve got no time for this woman and her lawsuits or anyone else who uses our ludicrous libel laws for anything but the most serious defamation, but I’m finding it difficult to be fully sympathetic in this case.
I didn’t see any of the original posts and I’m not sure of the context in which they were published but I do question why some bloggers felt the need to mention, in some detail, this woman’s actions from 33 years ago? Was it really that important? Or was it just a bit of tribal mudslinging? Seems to me if a tabloid had dredged up a previous conviction (later overturned) of a very minor Labour party member and published it with no obvious public interest involved quite a few of those now supporting Hilton et al would be (rightly) outraged.
Having said all that, it’s a storm in a teacup and will go absolutely nowhere. It’s just hassle. And no, I’m not prepared to line the pockets of Hilton’s libel lawyers, thank you very much.
And no, I’m not prepared to line the pockets of Hilton’s libel lawyers, thank you very much.
Oh, there’s no question of any sympathy for that disgusting specimen.
So, how about Maria Gatland’s resignation?
So, how about Maria Gatland’s resignation?
Funny old world, ain’t it?
A case in point, surely? She felt compelled to resign because of revelations about her past even though her resignation served no public good. (On the other hand the top guy in the Provos gets a cabinet post in NI
The point I make is ‘what are the motives behind these revelations and how, if at all, is the public interest served’. It’s a very simple test that most of us can grasp and understand perfectly well. I’m afraid, in many cases it ends up as nothing but good old fashioned shit stirring. Not very edifying.
I thought the Gatland business was fairly shabby, not least because what-were-you-doing-all-those-years-ago is not a clever game for the left to be playing. I looked up the guy who blew her cover, by the way: he was candidate for the Communist Party. Does he really want to play tit-for-tat?
Re: Dave Osler, he has my sympathy but I should say that I stopped posting on his site after he decided it was all right for a notorious Harry’s Place troll to post lies about me. His comments boxes in particular are a snakepit: a bit more attention to quality control might have gone a long way.
Another case of the British libel laws being stupid, perhaps – although the only descriptions I’ve read of this case come from people sympathetic to the defendants, and I’m still not sure what the full facts are. However, the fact that Private Eye, of all publications, has settled out of court would tend to suggest that there may well have been a libel – that publication has very experienced lawyers when it comes to this sort of thing…
I also can’t help being reminded of another recent incident, amply summed up by Paulie…
“Her youthful mistakes have no bearing on the case in point. Her repentance and redress for those mistakes it total and she deserves to be chaired through the streets of Croydon for her courage rather than to be hounded out of elected office.” Absolutely! Well said, Paulie.
Any idea which edition of the Eye contained their apparent libel?
I think Will does a good job of explaining by Dave and Alex (no matter what you think of him) deserve support here:
http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com/2008/12/04/bloggers-face-libel-action/
On Maria Gatland, I’m sorry to bang on about this, but for me it’s the way that an *elected* representative was subject to personal bullying with a view to making her change a policy makes this (with all due respect to bloggers) a significantly worst case than Dave & Alex’s travails.
I think that it’s something of a sickness that our political culture doesn’t regard this as being similar to jury-tampering. Playing the ball and not the man is to be expected in the wider cut-and-thrust of public debate, but there comes a point at which it debases on of the most fundamental aspects of a democratic constitution – and the Maria Gatland example illustrates this with unusual clarity.
It’s quite telling as well that low-level politicians would not be able to look anywhere for the kind of solidarity that Dave and Alex will rightly get because they are well embedded in the blogosphere.
The apparent libel appeared in: May 2007 PE 1184
The apology appeared in: Private Eye, No. 1220, October 3-16, 2008
View the apology here: HERE
View whole page HERE
I don’t believe any settlement other than this ‘apology’ was ever made, but I can’t be certain.
Playing the ball and not the man is to be expected in the wider cut-and-thrust of public debate
I think you may have that the wrong way around.
Eye for detail as ever