http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9743114/Sally-Bercow-facing-50000-High-Court-battle-over-Lord-McAlpine-tweet.htmlQuote:
Sally Bercow is being sued for £50,000 by Lord McAlpine after he formally issued proceedings over an allegedly libellous tweet.
Or Chris Spivey.......
These sites are shall we say 'way out of this world' but it remains puzzling as to why they are immune from legal action.
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/75061-what-david-icke-wrote-about-conservative-party-treasurer-lord-alistair-mcalpine-in-the-biggest-secret-in-1998-and-the-time-limit-on-legal-action-against-the-book-is-long-past
Quote:
'Another famous paedophile ... in Britain is Lord McAlpine, the former treasurer of Heath’s Conservative Party, and executive of the McAlpine Construction empire. He also followed the late Jimmy Goldsmith as head of the Referendum Party in Britain which was created to hijack the groups opposing the European Union and lead them to glorious failure.
http://www.ccs-rochford.co.uk/spivey/?p=7228Quote:
So, Lord McAlpine is in line to receive £185,000 in recompense from the BBC for naming him as a paedophile… Although the BBC never actually named him. Put another way, the BBC are giving £185,000 of your money to a predatory paedophile even though they don’t have too… I will give you a moment to let that sink in.
Bercow's tweet is a simple yes or no libel matter once the direct meaning of the wording has been established.
Of course were a case to be brought against Ikce or Spivey then they would be entitled to call witnesses to establish the material they published was indeed true.
Login
FAQ
Search
