John Ward May 24, 2013 Uncategorized

Slog vindicated as Court rules Sally Bercow McAlpine tweet was libellous

A victory for the dissemblers

As The Slog predicted a week ago, well-known admirer of media manipulators and Lord Machiavelli, Alfie McAlpswine (not of Wrexham and Chester in any way whatsoever) has won his libel ‘case’ against Sally Wifeof-Berk, oh what a terrible result.

There are many who deserve thanks for this outcome, but in particular I should like make especial mention of the amateur-night performance of the BBC in naming the wrong branch of the McAlpine building dynasty, and Carter F**k for allegedly completely mishandling what should’ve been an open and shut case…or so I have been told by experts, but beyond that I couldn’t possibly comment.

I should like to take this opportunity once again of unreservedly confirming my long-stated view that Lord Alf is not a paedophile, but that his second cousin Jimmy McAlpine most assuredly was a child-buggering bastard of great infamy.

There will now be long pause in any reporting of anything to do with Lord McScalpine by the spineless molluscs working for the mainstream media.

Earlier: Four go mad in Europe

48Comments

Add yours

1

Zoompad on May 27, 2013 at 9:32 am

No, they’re all friends, all three of them.

LikeLike
2

Zoompad on May 27, 2013 at 9:30 am

They are acting exactly like the Secret Family Courts. Charles 1st tried to pull off the same stunt, the people of the time didn’t exatly admire him for it.

LikeLike
3

Loverat on May 25, 2013 at 7:52 am

Interesting link there. Perhaps not the best choice of judge in the circumstances. Also, I guess it does not promote confidence if you then go on to ignore previous legal precendents and contradict previous decisions.

LikeLike
4

Dav Guy on May 25, 2013 at 7:09 am

connections:

http://7493021a.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/who-is-chris-tugendhat/

LikeLike
5

bobchewie on May 25, 2013 at 5:32 am

Tried to post before ‘method not allowed’ It kept saying page not found. Mcsalpine collected fart works by convicted artist graham ovendum who painted pictures of underage naked girls lord mac relatives were child molesters . Bercow and lord mac were monday club members

LikeLike
6

bobchewie on May 25, 2013 at 4:59 am

Never understood this one as John bercow was a member of the monday club as was mcalpine. Is this just a personal spat between them ?

LikeLike
7

Hieronimusb on May 24, 2013 at 10:42 pm

The one word subtext which runs through this case is ‘speculation’. Bercow speculated, McAlpine speculated, one might almost say prospected, on this and the judge speculated about their speculations when he should have just expectorated. Dear old Peter Cook would have torn them all to shreds.

LikeLike
8

bert on May 24, 2013 at 10:41 pm

The media dont like my comments.So here goes why doesn’t he sue the Ira for blowing up his house?.

LikeLike
9

crossofchangeorg on May 24, 2013 at 9:24 pm

Reblogged this on Sheva's Cross of Change Blog.

LikeLike
10

Hieronimusb on May 24, 2013 at 8:45 pm

I have read the judgement in its entirety and am staggered by the more than somewhat acrobatic and selective nature of Mr Justice Hugendtwat’s logic from which he adduced his conclusions. This action was never capable of being anything more than two bald people fighting over a comb, and His Honour demeans both himself and the law by not vigorously recognising this. In the overall context of the state of public knowledge relating to these matters at the time, to single out and elevate a piece of tawdry gossip to such an extent is risible; to infer that the words complained of could only be read as meaning ‘that the Claimant was a paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care’ (para 90), is both jaundiced and partial. They were, quite obviously, nothing more than frivolously rhetorical innuendo and it would take far more than Rubber Improvements Ltd to bounce them any higher; a pyrrhic victory for humbug over common sense. No mention whatsoever, oh no, of the real issue here: the scandalous failure of the judiciary, amongst others, to tackle vile and predatory crimes against those who are quite unable to defend themselves. It is largely this universal sense of injustice, after all, which generates the degree of public interest and outrage in the first place; another weapon of mass distraction fired from the hip of hubris.

LikeLike
11

Loverat on May 24, 2013 at 8:22 pm

MickC

My contributions here have all been based on the merits of the case and hard facts. All I have been concerned with is demonstrating that the case should have dismissed, on the understanding that the allegations have not been proved to be true. The hard facts are that the judge made a complete pigs ear of the case. As far as I am concerned previous legal precendent (which has been posted here) has been completely ignored – either because of the way the judge has directed the case – or for some other unknown reason.

O.K – I will turn this around then to see if I can get any sense or consistency from you. Given that some libel defendants in Smith V ADVFN made some allegations about the claimant which the judge described as defamatory, why did he dismiss that case as an abuse of process? In that case why did he say that the totality of the publications and over-compensation are highly relevant when the claimant in that case only received 20K in out of court settlements. Meanwhile McAlpine trousers £310,000K and this is not even mentioned.

How did 30 unrepresented defendants, some who made arguably serious accusations comprehensively win their case in the above, yet a top libel firm in the UK is comprehensively beaten over a throw-away remark which is unimportant in the overall scheme of what happened?

You have to admit. Something aint right.

LikeLike
12

MickC on May 24, 2013 at 7:59 pm

For heavens sake, judges can’t just decide as they please. Sally had heavyweight legal rep!
Do you think they wouldn’t jump on any impropriety of that type?

LikeLike
13

MickC on May 24, 2013 at 7:52 pm

Well, irritating or not, the judge was right in everything he has said, and the judgment is bang on the money (so to speak).
Obviously you and many others don’t like it, but the best way to proceed in that case is to prove that what was said is true.
But, of course, that hasn’t been done has it? Despite all the blog comments, no-one has e-mailed any evidence whatsoever to the Slog, or indeed anyone else-because we surely would have heard about it. Sally’s defence team would have been happy to receive anything-but no, not a word!
The Guardian would have had orgasms for some slim bit of evidence-but no, nothing! Nada, zilch, zero!
No-one has any evidence that it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, or quacks like a duck-so, in law it isn’t a duck. In fact if someone tried to sell anything as a duck which had none of those characteristics-nobody would buy, would they? So guess what-it isn’t a duck!

LikeLike
14

Bishop Brightly on May 24, 2013 at 6:38 pm

Mike c if you seriously think that him being the brother of someone who rubbed shoulders with the very people under threat from accusations right now, Brittan, Clarke, bottomely and mcalpine is irrelevant then I truly question your motivations.

LikeLike
15

Lines on the ability to be a top-four EU felon and a f**kwit at one and the same time. | The Slog. 3-D bollocks deconstruction on May 24, 2013 at 6:06 pm

[…] ← Slog vindicated as Court rules Sally Bercow McAlpine tweet was libellous May 24, 2013 · 6:06 pm ↓ Jump to Comments […]

LikeLike
16

Loverat on May 24, 2013 at 6:04 pm

Full Stop

I really could not say but this might be an explanation.

In Smith V ADVFN there were about 30 unrepresented defendants who knew little about libel. The judge basically made all the points for them in the judgement. His judgement included all the defences and all aspects of what you would expect to be considered in a libel case. I always see it as a judgement that has something relevant for all.

In today’s judgement there was a hint towards the end by the judge that it is wholly up to the defence team to raise the most appropriate defences and if these were not raised they would not be addressed. The problem I think was that because the meaning hearing was separated from all the other important factors this was just what was focused on. All the over-compensation and wider context arguments did not get a look in.

If McAlpine has already recieved more in settlements than a court would award it follows that the case against SB is an abuse of process (i.e he cannot achieve further vindication) The other thing is Sally Bercow made an offer (undisclosed) but I do not think the judge even considered that at all. Quite unbelievable and a return to the old days of libel.

This judgement and whole case is a complete pigs ear. I really would be interested to hear from any legal qualified folks who might comment on my thoughts about the case management. (Law Society Gazette subscribers need not apply)

LikeLike
17

dee on May 24, 2013 at 6:01 pm

She deserves what ever she gets, I really don’t care what that is!

LikeLike
18

Full stop on May 24, 2013 at 5:45 pm

@ Loverat

Thanks for this, I had in fact looked at this aspect before when (perhaps by you) it was raised.

Therefore, if this is accepted as guidance, what has motivated the contrast? I speculate.

LikeLike
19

Loverat on May 24, 2013 at 5:37 pm

MickC

What are you on about? The first hearing was to decide whether there would be one hearing to hear it all or two separate ones. The judge decided two against the wishes of the defence team. Are you deliberately pretending not to understand the points? Or are you just not reading what is being posted. I only ask because you were knitpicking about everything the other day. Very irritating.

LikeLike
20

Loverat on May 24, 2013 at 5:27 pm

Full Stop

If you have look at a case called Smith V ADVFN (multiple defendant internet libel case) the judge deals with many comments which were verbal abuse and trivia. However a few were judged to be defamatory but the judge more or less ruled that the case was an abuse of process and not worth pursuing. Some were allegations of criminality.

The judge also made observations about the danger of over-compensation and claimants demanding money off defendants on a case by case basis (as McAlpine has with his £310,000)

All that has been ignored in this judgement. Therefore either the judgement in Smith V ADVFN is completely wrong. Or Mcalpine V Bercow is completely wrong. The same judge involved in both cases. One case involved a libel litigant on legal aid – the other was McAlpine.

Personally I believe the Smith V ADVFN decision was correct overall but it begs the question why the judge did not follow the same guidance here.

I note lots of folks on Twitter now making comparisions to the two cases and commenting about the inconsistencies.

LikeLike
21

MickC on May 24, 2013 at 5:25 pm

Of course there had to be a seperate hearing on meaning! That had nothing to do with the damages-they are seperate points!
As it turns out, the damages were agreed, it seems- so it doesn’t look like there was much fight over that does it?
Once the defence had lost on meaning, which they were always going to, they were right not to waste further time on damages.

LikeLike
22

Ex-Liverpool Docker on May 24, 2013 at 5:18 pm

Thanks for the link Andy, really interesting read.

LikeLike
23

MickC on May 24, 2013 at 5:16 pm

They are brothers, so what?
You really think a High Court judge is going to endanger his career by giving a dodgy judgment to help out someone who may have had some vague acquaintance with his elder brother?
The judgment looks good to me-what I don’t get is why Sally defended. Grandstanding, I should think-after all no such thing as bad publicity when you want to stay in the public eye.

LikeLike
24

Full stop on May 24, 2013 at 5:09 pm

“As I say, a departure from the previous legal guidance. Batten down your hatches folks!”

As a determined neutral observer on this whole topic, it is this aspect which interests most. If you are right about this departure what has encouraged it and is it a result of an infight within ‘The Establishment’, motivated by the nub of my query as above?

LikeLike
25

Loverat on May 24, 2013 at 4:59 pm

Sorry JW – obviously your sources are first class. I must admit had it been anyone else besides solicitors overheard in city bars predicting this result I might have paid more notice.

Anyway it is shocking judgement which departs from previous common sense decisions. Obviously I was foolish to think that judges follow their own guidelines.

This all started going wrong when the judge ordered separate hearings – one for meaning and damages. That ensured that there was an over emphasis on meaning and nothing at all on the wider context and over-compensation which has been discussed here.

It seems to me that the litigation was effectively put into a strait jacket from the start and meant good arguments were never heard or considered. Probably the judge was responsible but maybe the defence should also be asking questions of their performance earlier on. It seems that unlike certain other cases, the judge was not prepared to step in and make or consider arguments which were not presented or developed. Libel, a rich man’s law? You have got to wonder after this.

By the way one very worrying thing about this is that it sends out a message (which blatantly condradicts previous legal guidance) that in multiple libel defendant cases Lord McAlpine and other libel claimants can set their own damage level and pursue all individuals for huge sums without the court intervening. As I say, a departure from the previous legal guidance. Batten down your hatches folks!

LikeLike
26

Mike on May 24, 2013 at 4:58 pm

Reply to MickC

Michael Tugendhat was the judge. Family maybe?

LikeLike
27

Full stop on May 24, 2013 at 4:55 pm

Let us leave aside for the moment whether either party involved deserved to have won (and yes I have read the Judgement) and ask why the action was taken in the first place.

Was it because of the distress caused to McA? Was it because even though his innocence had clearly been trumpeted across the media and he had already received large sums in compensation, his hurt required more justice? Was it because natural justice demanded it?

I of course don’t know, but might it have been because of the fact, not that it involved the wife of The Speaker with the publicity and associated wealth that entails, but that it involved the wife of Speaker Bercow?

Has this detail been addressed and if not isn’t it interesting?

LikeLike
28

MickC on May 24, 2013 at 4:27 pm

No, McAlpine’s legal team just have!

LikeLike
29

MickC on May 24, 2013 at 4:13 pm

What on earth has Christopher Tugendhat got to do with it?

LikeLike
30

Mike on May 24, 2013 at 4:06 pm

The little fella won’t be getting his leg over tonight then.

LikeLike
31

Andy on May 24, 2013 at 3:53 pm

Because she has shamelessly used her position – or rather the position of her husband – as the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons to create a career for herself. She had 60000 followers on Twitter. I suggest that for once you actually read the Judgement and you might actually understand why the Judge has come to this conclusion.

LikeLike
32

Andy on May 24, 2013 at 3:50 pm

Have you bothered to read the Judgement ?

LikeLike
33

MickC on May 24, 2013 at 3:40 pm

He was libelled, he won. The verdict was as plain as a pikestaff from the off-and is entirely correct.
It looks to me as if Sally’s legal team were flying a kite in the hope that McAlpine would back down-bet they took their fees though!

LikeLike
34

Mudplugger on May 24, 2013 at 3:19 pm

I suppose he can now add the Bercow damages to the cash he raised from quietly selling his private collection of Graham Ovenden’s tasteful pictures to bolster his Italian retirement fund. Result.

LikeLike
35

John Ward – Slog Vindicated As Court Rules Sally Bercow McAlpine Tweet Was Libellous – 24 May 2013 | Lucas 2012 Infos on May 24, 2013 at 2:52 pm

[…] http://www.hat4uk.wordpress.com/ link to original article […]

LikeLike
36

Bishop Brightly on May 24, 2013 at 2:07 pm

What exactly did she deserve? And was she treated fairly?
http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/who-is-chris-tugendhat/

LikeLike
37

lampitt on May 24, 2013 at 2:06 pm

Go John. Perhaps he had never met his second cousin,You know what families can be like.

LikeLike
38

gojam on May 24, 2013 at 1:45 pm

Reblogged this on theneedleblog.

LikeLike
39

dee on May 24, 2013 at 1:24 pm

I’m sorry but the woman is a disgrace, she got what she deserved.

LikeLike
40

Tom on May 24, 2013 at 1:17 pm

What a disgrace. All she was doing was drawing attention to the fact his name was being mentioned, not that he was guilty, and how is it that she was singled out when many other people were saying far worse things who McAlpine did not sue?

LikeLike
41

Steve on May 24, 2013 at 1:03 pm

About the paedo cousin there appears no doubt. About the good lord himself – who is of course utterly, totally and beyond all doubt and quibble as innocent as Sally Bercow’s face – I did hear some utterly, totally and beyond all doubt and quibble scurrilously ridiculous rumours, which I am absolutely sure were unfounded, but – alas – all I have to go on is a reason why he was wrongly identified (given by Steve Messham) which beggared belief. So I’m rather hoping, so as to bolster my belief in human nature, that the good lord demonstrates how utterly, totally and beyond all doubt and quibble innocent he is by responding to David Icke.

LikeLike
42

Andy on May 24, 2013 at 12:53 pm

Here is the Judgement.

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

LikeLike
43

Andy on May 24, 2013 at 12:31 pm

I’m glad Lord McAlpine won.

LikeLike
44

Bishop Brightly on May 24, 2013 at 12:24 pm

he escaped with the loot once and now he has done it again. All thanks to his paedo cousin and the desperation of the establishment to continue the cover-up over elm guest house and the later ring involving Sidney Cooke.

Truth will out soon.

LikeLike
45

BigBrownePaul (@TapstallIT) on May 24, 2013 at 12:13 pm

just pissed myself laughing once again…you really do have a knack with words…..

LikeLike
46

Harry on May 24, 2013 at 12:10 pm

* innocent face*

LikeLike
47

bill40 on May 24, 2013 at 12:09 pm

That verdict is a joke, end of.

LikeLike
48

bodge on May 24, 2013 at 12:07 pm

Very well said.

LikeLike