I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are simply expressing an opinion.
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time there, as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
On 10/01/2025 09:20, Brian wrote:
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time
there,
as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than
yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
See also this analysis of the legal position. The letter from her
solicitors is "glorious but seemingly hopeless" and badly written.
She really has made a fool of herself.
https://davidallengreen.com/2025/01/a-close-look-at-trusss-legal-threat- to-starmer-a-glorious-but-seemingly-hopeless-cease-and-desist-letter/
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are simply expressing an opinion.
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time there, as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
On 09/01/2025 14:10, Jethro_uk wrote:
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
No, it's an oxymoron. Basically, slander = spoken and libel = written.
As far as I can see the letter which you referenced below mentions only "defamatory statements".
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I wonder if Starmer will consider a reply along the lines of that used
in Arkell vs Pressdram.
On 09/01/2025 14:10, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No, it's an oxymoron. Basically, slander = spoken and libel = written.
As far as I can see the letter which you referenced below mentions only "defamatory statements".
[quoted text muted]
I wonder if Starmer will consider a reply along the lines of that used
in Arkell vs Pressdram.
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
[quoted text muted]I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
On 10/01/2025 09:44, The Todal wrote:
On 10/01/2025 09:20, Brian wrote:
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world >>>> that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the >>>> economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel >>>> (is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any >>>> precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
<https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w > >>>>
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are >>> simply expressing an opinion.
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time
there,
as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than
yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
See also this analysis of the legal position. The letter from her
solicitors is "glorious but seemingly hopeless" and badly written.
She really has made a fool of herself.
https://davidallengreen.com/2025/01/a-close-look-at-trusss-legal-threat-
to-starmer-a-glorious-but-seemingly-hopeless-cease-and-desist-letter/
As a general point, defamation law is a highly specialist subject and it
is best to consult a law firm with that expertise, rather than one that
deals with general dispute resolution cases.
Best not to quote the name of the firm or the names of its lawyers here.
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
On 10/01/2025 08:22, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/01/2025 14:10, Jethro_uk wrote:
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
No, it's an oxymoron. Basically, slander = spoken and libel = written.
As far as I can see the letter which you referenced below mentions
only "defamatory statements".
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I wonder if Starmer will consider a reply along the lines of that used
in Arkell vs Pressdram.
Can't Starmer simply claim Parliamentary Privilege?
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 08:22:05 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/01/2025 14:10, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No, it's an oxymoron. Basically, slander = spoken and libel = written.
As far as I can see the letter which you referenced below mentions only
"defamatory statements".
[quoted text muted]
I wonder if Starmer will consider a reply along the lines of that used
in Arkell vs Pressdram.
Is there any onus on Starmer to reply ? Would ignoring the letter look
bad when it comes to court ?
On 10 Jan 2025 at 09:52:25 GMT, "The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 09:44, The Todal wrote:
On 10/01/2025 09:20, Brian wrote:
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world >>>>> that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the >>>>> economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel >>>>> (is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the >>>>> court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any >>>>> precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ? >>>>>
Link to the full letter.
<https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w > >>>>>
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are >>>> simply expressing an opinion.
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time
there,
as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than >>>> yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
See also this analysis of the legal position. The letter from her
solicitors is "glorious but seemingly hopeless" and badly written.
She really has made a fool of herself.
https://davidallengreen.com/2025/01/a-close-look-at-trusss-legal-threat- >>> to-starmer-a-glorious-but-seemingly-hopeless-cease-and-desist-letter/
As a general point, defamation law is a highly specialist subject and it
is best to consult a law firm with that expertise, rather than one that
deals with general dispute resolution cases.
Best not to quote the name of the firm or the names of its lawyers here.
If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim unlikely to succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors professionally obliged to implement their wishes?
Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
Perhaps the problem with the C&D letter issued on behalf of Ms Truss is
that it could be demonstrated that the economy is now in a worse state than under her leadership, and if she had ‘crashed the economy’ then the current
incumbents have done worse, and are slinging mud in order to deflect attention away from their woes.
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time there, >> as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than
yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
Le 09/01/2025 à 14:10, Jethro_uk a écrit :
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Aren't MPs and PM's protected from accusations of defamation and slander?
I know that "elected officials" in Italy have absolute immunity from prosecution from slander and defamation charges. Is there anything
similar in UK?
On 10/01/2025 11:05, Spike wrote:
Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world >>>> that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the >>>> economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel >>>> (is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any >>>> precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are >>> simply expressing an opinion.
Perhaps the problem with the C&D letter issued on behalf of Ms Truss is
that it could be demonstrated that the economy is now in a worse state than >> under her leadership, and if she had ‘crashed the economy’ then the current
incumbents have done worse, and are slinging mud in order to deflect
attention away from their woes.
Why do you say that is a problem?
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time there, >>> as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than
yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
The Todal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 11:05, Spike wrote:
Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world >>>>> that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the >>>>> economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel >>>>> (is that a tautology ?).I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the >>>>> court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any >>>>> precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ? >>>>>
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w > >>>
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are >>>> simply expressing an opinion.
Perhaps the problem with the C&D letter issued on behalf of Ms Truss is
that it could be demonstrated that the economy is now in a worse state than >>> under her leadership, and if she had ‘crashed the economy’ then the current
incumbents have done worse, and are slinging mud in order to deflect
attention away from their woes.
Why do you say that is a problem?
Because it is, for TwoTier.
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time there,
as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than >>>> yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
On 10/01/2025 14:30, Spike wrote:
The Todal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 11:05, Spike wrote:
Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world >>>>>> that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the >>>>>> economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel >>>>>> (is that a tautology ?).I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to >>>>>> comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the >>>>>> court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any >>>>>> precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ? >>>>>>
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w > >>>>
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are >>>>> simply expressing an opinion.
Perhaps the problem with the C&D letter issued on behalf of Ms Truss is >>>> that it could be demonstrated that the economy is now in a worse state than
under her leadership, and if she had ‘crashed the economy’ then the current
incumbents have done worse, and are slinging mud in order to deflect
attention away from their woes.
Why do you say that is a problem?
Because it is, for TwoTier.
But it isn't really, is it? For decades, maybe centuries, it has been
the custom for each political party in the UK to accuse the previous government of wrecking the economy. Whether there is any truth in the allegation is debateable - it often depends on which criteria you apply.
Did Truss actually crash the economy in a manner which is different from anything done by other governments? Most people think so.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/30/liz-truss-uk-economic-crisis
quote
Determined to quickly make her mark, Truss announced a radical new
economic agenda of tax cuts and spending worth tens of billions of
pounds funded by borrowing – the true total of which is still not known.
As the crisis deepened, the vicious increase in yields, which had
already gone up sharply in recent months, was wreaking havoc for pension funds.
Amid fears that panic-selling of bonds would create a self-fulfilling
“doom loop”, and some funds warning they were in effect at risk of becoming insolvent, the Bank rode to the rescue.
On 10/01/2025 14:30, Spike wrote:
The Todal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 11:05, Spike wrote:
Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole
world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing >>>>>> the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous
libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to >>>>>> comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the >>>>>> court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there
is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ? >>>>>>
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/
post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the
economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
Perhaps the problem with the C&D letter issued on behalf of Ms Truss is >>>> that it could be demonstrated that the economy is now in a worse
state than
under her leadership, and if she had ‘crashed the economy’ then the >>>> current
incumbents have done worse, and are slinging mud in order to deflect
attention away from their woes.
Why do you say that is a problem?
Because it is, for TwoTier.
But it isn't really, is it? For decades, maybe centuries, it has been
the custom for each political party in the UK to accuse the previous government of wrecking the economy. Whether there is any truth in the allegation is debateable - it often depends on which criteria you apply.
Did Truss actually crash the economy in a manner which is different from anything done by other governments? Most people think so.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/30/liz-truss-uk-economic-
crisis
quote
Determined to quickly make her mark, Truss announced a radical new
economic agenda of tax cuts and spending worth tens of billions of
pounds funded by borrowing – the true total of which is still not known.
The move, which appeared to also violate public spending curbs, tore
apart the orthodoxy established by the three Conservative prime
ministers who went before her during 12 years in power that tried to emphasise fiscal prudence.
Truss’s drive for growth proved too radical for traders. The pound was
sent spiralling to reach its lowest value against the US dollar, an embarrassing intervention from the central bank – the Bank of England – was made to avoid a raid on pension funds, and rebukes from foreign observers, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), were swift.
Government bonds, known as gilts, had also seen a sell-off. And markets
were predicting a sharp increase in interest rates, as the Bank of
England stepped in to offset the inflationary impact of the plans.By
Tuesday, almost 300 mortgage deals had been taken off the market as
lenders reassessed the outlook for rates. Estate agents were reporting
house purchase chains collapsing, as lenders and buyers pulled out.
As the crisis deepened, the vicious increase in yields, which had
already gone up sharply in recent months, was wreaking havoc for pension funds.
Amid fears that panic-selling of bonds would create a self-fulfilling
“doom loop”, and some funds warning they were in effect at risk of becoming insolvent, the Bank rode to the rescue.
On 10/01/2025 12:35, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
I know that "elected officials" in Italy have absolute immunity from
prosecution from slander and defamation charges. Is there anything
similar in UK?
Really? That's rather appalling.
Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
Perhaps the problem with the C&D letter issued on behalf of Ms Truss is
that it could be demonstrated that the economy is now in a worse state than under her leadership, and if she had ‘crashed the economy’ then the current
incumbents have done worse, and are slinging mud in order to deflect attention away from their woes.
Le 09/01/2025 à 14:10, Jethro_uk a écrit :
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Aren't MPs and PM's protected from accusations of defamation and slander?
I know that "elected officials" in Italy have absolute immunity from prosecution from slander and defamation charges. Is there anything
similar in UK?
On 10/01/2025 12:35, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Le 09/01/2025 à 14:10, Jethro_uk a écrit :
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Aren't MPs and PM's protected from accusations of defamation and slander?
No.
I know that "elected officials" in Italy have absolute immunity from
prosecution from slander and defamation charges. Is there anything
similar in UK?
Really? That's rather appalling.
To pick one random example, Jeremy Corbyn whilst an MP and Labour Party leader was sued for defamation by Richard Millett.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/1848.html
quotes
This is a claim for defamation arising out of a statement ("the
Statement") made by the Defendant, The Right Honourable Jeremy Corbyn MP ("Mr. Corbyn") during an interview on the Andrew Marr Show ("the
Programme") on 23 September 2018. The Programme was thereafter made
available on BBC iPlayer and can still be viewed on that platform.
At the time the Statement was made Mr. Corbyn was the leader of the
Labour Party and led the Opposition.
By this claim, issued on 10 June 2020, Mr. Millett alleges that the
words spoken by Mr. Corbyn in the Programme (as underlined above) were defamatory of him and their publication caused and is likely to cause
serious harm to his reputation.
Mr. Millett was being accused of abusive behaviour in relation to a
public speaker on a controversial topic. This is an accusation of a type
of conduct which is contrary to the values of a modern democracy where freedom of speech is a cherished value. ..... To summarise my rulings on
the preliminary issues, I find that the words complained of referred to
Mr. Millett; that they bore a meaning defamatory of Mr. Millett as
identified above; and I find that the allegations were factual.
If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim
unlikely to succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors >>professionally obliged to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a
client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to be >dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse to act
if they wish.
Can't Starmer simply claim Parliamentary Privilege?
In message <[email protected]>, at 14:08:40 on Fri, 10
Jan 2025, The Todal <[email protected]> remarked:
If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim
unlikely to succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors
professionally obliged to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a
client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to be
dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse to act
if they wish.
If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a substantial
(could be six-figure) sum in advance.
On 11/01/2025 08:57, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <[email protected]>, at 14:08:40 on Fri, 10
Jan 2025, The Todal <[email protected]> remarked:
�If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim
unlikely to� succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors
professionally obliged� to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a
client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to be
dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse to act
if they wish.
If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a substantial
(could be six-figure) sum in advance.
I wonder how much she would actually get awarded if it went to court. A >nominal �1?
On 11/01/2025 08:57, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <[email protected]>, at 14:08:40 on Fri, 10
Jan 2025, The Todal <[email protected]> remarked:
�If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim >>>>unlikely to� succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors >>>>professionally obliged� to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a >>>client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to be >>>dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse to
act if they wish.
If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a
substantial (could be six-figure) sum in advance.
I wonder how much she would actually get awarded if it went to court. A >nominal �1?
In message <vlvm59$11rc6$[email protected]>, at 06:06:33 on Sun, 12 Jan
2025, David <[email protected]> remarked:
On 11/01/2025 08:57, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <[email protected]>, at 14:08:40 on Fri, 10
Jan 2025, The Todal <[email protected]> remarked:
If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim
unlikely to succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors
professionally obliged to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a
client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to
be dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse
to act if they wish.
If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a
substantial (could be six-figure) sum in advance.
I wonder how much she would actually get awarded if it went to court.
A nominal £1?
And no costs? That's what the lawyers are worried about, and hence want theirs prepaid.
On 12/01/2025 14:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vlvm59$11rc6$[email protected]>, at 06:06:33 on Sun, 12 Jan
2025, David <[email protected]> remarked:
On 11/01/2025 08:57, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <[email protected]>, at 14:08:40 on Fri, 10
Jan 2025, The Todal <[email protected]> remarked:
If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim
unlikely to succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors >>>>>> professionally obliged to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a
client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to
be dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse
to act if they wish.
If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a
substantial (could be six-figure) sum in advance.
I wonder how much she would actually get awarded if it went to court.
A nominal £1?
And no costs? That's what the lawyers are worried about, and hence want
theirs prepaid.
No costs.
Or perhaps a nice twist would be that if the court finds Starmer not guilty/didn't have a case to answer and that she could be ordered to pay Stamer's costs for bringing a vexatious action/wasting the court's time.
On 2025-01-12, David <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/01/2025 14:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vlvm59$11rc6$[email protected]>, at 06:06:33 on Sun, 12 Jan
2025, David <[email protected]> remarked:
On 11/01/2025 08:57, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <[email protected]>, at 14:08:40 on Fri,
10 Jan 2025, The Todal <[email protected]> remarked:
If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim >>>>>>> unlikely to succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors >>>>>>> professionally obliged to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a >>>>>> client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to >>>>>> be dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse >>>>>> to act if they wish.
If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a
substantial (could be six-figure) sum in advance.
I wonder how much she would actually get awarded if it went to court.
A nominal £1?
And no costs? That's what the lawyers are worried about, and hence
want theirs prepaid.
No costs.
Or perhaps a nice twist would be that if the court finds Starmer not
guilty/didn't have a case to answer and that she could be ordered to
pay Stamer's costs for bringing a vexatious action/wasting the court's
time.
That's not a "twist", that's the standard UK procedure - the losing
party usually pays (most of) the costs of the winning party. It doesn't require any finding that the action was vexatious or a waste of time.
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 19:56:04 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-12, David <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/01/2025 14:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vlvm59$11rc6$[email protected]>, at 06:06:33 on Sun, 12 Jan
2025, David <[email protected]> remarked:
On 11/01/2025 08:57, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <[email protected]>, at 14:08:40 on Fri, >>>>>> 10 Jan 2025, The Todal <[email protected]> remarked:
If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim >>>>>>>> unlikely to succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors >>>>>>>> professionally obliged to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a >>>>>>> client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to >>>>>>> be dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse >>>>>>> to act if they wish.
If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a
substantial (could be six-figure) sum in advance.
I wonder how much she would actually get awarded if it went to court. >>>>> A nominal £1?
And no costs? That's what the lawyers are worried about, and hence
want theirs prepaid.
No costs.
Or perhaps a nice twist would be that if the court finds Starmer not
guilty/didn't have a case to answer and that she could be ordered to
pay Stamer's costs for bringing a vexatious action/wasting the court's
time.
That's not a "twist", that's the standard UK procedure - the losing
party usually pays (most of) the costs of the winning party. It doesn't
require any finding that the action was vexatious or a waste of time.
"Usually"
It's not unknown for some judges to make each side pay their own costs.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 35:48:05 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,355 |