[Closed] McApline chasing Twitter users - the future of Twitter?

He'll have a job suing all those people. How is going to prove slander/libel? Actually, which is it for Twitter?

If it is recorded it is libel. If it is spoken it is slander.

Twitter is recorded, therefore libel.

I've said this before, but the media is irrelevant. People should be accountable, or not, regardless of whether they're commenting on Twitter, on TV, in the Guardian letters page, or with a loudhailer in the town centre.

I don't really get why this 'ooh, it's on the internet' reaction should make a fig of difference. Similarly, I don't see how it's got anything to do with 'the future of Twitter', any more than we'd be talking about shutting down FM radio because someone said something inappropriate on a phone-in.

Whether or not you're a huge fan is also irrelevant. Don't like it? Don't use it. It's not mandatory.

I seem to recall mcalpine comments on this very forum too.

As an aside,

When did it become illegal to be stupid? There's been a few high-profile cases of common sense failure lately; the "Twitter joke trail" farce, the 'racism' cries at Frankie Boyle, the shitheel having a pop at Tom Daly, the halfwit on Facebook making inappropriate comments about April Jones. Probably others.

In the latter two cases at least, we're looking at seriously unpleasant / disturbed people, but did they really merit suspended jail sentences? Ah, wait, I forgot, [i]it's on the Internet.[/i]

I seem to recall mcalpine comments on this very forum too.

I'm suprised they're still here

Personally, I hope he manages to sue a few of the twitter posters

How many people did Armstrong manage to sue for libel whilst lying through his teeth? How many retractions got published by people who had been telling the truth? Anglo-saxon libel laws usually mean the richest player wins when there is doubt over the accuracy of accusations. That'll be McAlpine then regardless of what the truth is.

[quote=anonymouse ]I seem to recall mcalpine comments on this very forum too.

Q. "Who is being accused"
A. "Lord McAlpine"

Is not slander or libel.

Q. "Does anyone know who had sex with kids?"
A. "Lord McAlpine"

Could be slander or libel.

He might go after the more high profile twitterers eg George Monbiot. Anyone stupid enough to libel someone, deserves to get sued.

Edukator - Member
How many people did Armstrong manage to sue for libel whilst lying through his teeth? How many retractions got published by people who had been telling the truth? Anglo-saxon libel laws usually mean the richest player wins when there is doubt over the accuracy of accusations. That'll be McAlpine then regardless of what the truth is.

Armstrong won his liabel cases as he could prove the accusations were false (there was no evidence otherwise untill USADA reported).

You post reads to me like you think the rich should be found guilty regardless of the truth and you're dissapointed he's innocent, which doesn't make any sense.

Q. "Who is being accused"
A. "Lord McAlpine"

Is not slander or libel.

Unfortunately, putting my hack hat on, it arguably is defamation. There's something called 'jigsaw identification', where two differently slanted stories in two publications don't individually make a defamatory statement against an identified person, but taken together, they do this.

Crude example: 'The doper, a well-known tdf winner' in one paper, and 'the doper, a professional cyclist from northern England..' in another.

In theory, both papers could get done for libel.

So by identifying the subject of the Newsnight story, the twitter users are completing jigsaw identification by linking him to the allegations.

My own view is that while scaring the shite out of Sally Bercow and Monbiot isn't necessarily a bad thing, the main reason he's doing it is to convince the BBC that he's serious in going after them.

He might go after the more high profile twitterers eg George Monbiot. Anyone stupid enough to libel someone, deserves to get sued.

Monbiot retracted the message, and issued a full public apology. Given that the claims were already in the public domain, what loss has McAlpine suffered as a result of Monbiot's actions?

There was a great interview with his lawyer on World at One earlier.

Libel is libel, they look like they're going for Sally Bercow/George Monbieot (sp?) initially but they've got the lot.

Seem to be taking the line 'apologise now and it'll be cheaper for you'.

great series of tweets by @JackofKent today explaining ins and outs of libel law and twitter for those that need to know. Been storified by someone too.

The problem with libel law in some countries is that it's the media doing their job of reporting rather than the person accusing that gets done for libel. I don't think you should be liable for prosection for reporting what others say, only for making a false accusation yourself.

In Mc Alpine's case I think there is only one person he should be able to sue:

[url= http://www.****/news/article-2231212/Steven-Messham-Astonishing-story-BBC-DIDNT-tell-troubled-star-witness.html ]The unreliable witness[/url]

Edit: should Mr Messham have the right to sue me for calling him an unreliable witness when I'm simply reporting what others have said about him?

ransos,

Monbiot retracted the message, and issued a full public apology. Given that the claims were already in the public domain, what loss has McAlpine suffered as a result of Monbiot's actions?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20299551

It is not a defence for an individual to say that he was simply repeating a statement by someone else. Just because something is out there does not make it OK to repeat.

The courts consider each tweet to be a libel, and the more often it is repeated, the more damage it can do and the more libel actions it may provoke.

Furthermore, when it comes to proving the truth of the allegation, it is insufficient to point to the fact that somebody has been accurately quoted - the publisher has to prove the substance of the allegation.

In other words, if I were to make an allegation about my boss that is retweeted by my friend - my friend must be able to prove the allegation, not just simply that I had said it.

No idea how correct that is, bu these are the source:
[i]Niri Shan and Lorna Caddy are media lawyers for London-based law firm Taylor Wessing.[/i]

Monbiot retracted the message, and issued a full public apology. Given that the claims were already in the public domain, what loss has McAlpine suffered as a result of Monbiot's actions?

If I was McAlpine, my argument would be that as Monbiot is an established and reputable figure (leader writer for the Guardian), his word carries substantial weight as readers would assume his statements were well researched and therefore accurate. Hence his tweet would have a more significant affect on McAlpine's reputation than just any old tory hating bigot, who can't wait to put one in to them.

EDIT: I'd be bricking myself if I was GM, this could cost him a huge sum.

In much the same way that there are threads on here bemoaning poor use of the written word, so the access to communication that being online has provided has massively left people behind in their understanding of what one can and cannot say.

Years ago, few people had a voice. Defamation was largely held in very public court and the slurs tended to be widely "known" (think Wilde v Queensbury). Now, social media encourages a "here today, gone tomorrow" approach to expressing one's thoughts. The trouble is that an idle thought that would never have seen the light of day is now casually committed to writing and posterity without a thought.

Yes, our defamation laws hugely favour those who are better financially equipped to take on the risk of the proceedings. And, yes, I think the laws are pretty good (in spite of the obvious failing of the defendant having to prove his "innocence"). But people are stupid, and now they're living out their stupidity for all of us to see.

There is no real benefit to McAlpine suing any of those who defamed him on Twitter (or wherever), as the hassle of the actions would be significant, and the damages awarded against each person probably not worth the aggravation. But going after those who do have a voice - Monbiot and Bercow, for example - may help make other people think twice.

And the BBC, much as I love them, deserve a proper bollocking for their part in this. Along with that dickhead Schofield, who too could find himself having to explain his actions from the wrong side of the witness box.

In short: just because someone has given you the means of communication, doesn't mean you should use it without thought for the consequence.

Still on the bright side, if GM is bancrupted and made homeless, perhaps the Guardian will find someone else and have a bit of variety in their articles. There's only so many 'Tesco is the devil and responsible for all evils on the planet' articles you can read before you stop buying the paper. (Not that I like Tesco, I just want a bit of variety in my papers).

No idea how correct that is, bu these are the source:
Niri Shan and Lorna Caddy are media lawyers for London-based law firm Taylor Wessing.

I've never been all that about Taylor Wessing, but I think we can trust their commentary here - a law student couldn't get this wrong!

Monbiot retracted the message, and issued a full public apology. Given that the claims were already in the public domain, what loss has McAlpine suffered as a result of Monbiot's actions?

[b][i]If you are claiming for libel, you do not need to show that you have suffered any loss as damage is presumed.[/b][/i]

I'll be laughing my balls off if George Monbiot get's what's coming to him.

I'll be laughing my balls off if George Monbiot get's what's coming to him.

The ultimate irony is he moved to Machynlleth to escape Tesco et al and now they're opening a huge one just down the road from him.

When Emma Riley accused Armstrong of doping he already had a positive for cortisone when she had been his masseuse, and yet the court found her guilty of libel. Rich famous man versus poor woman. Even when courts find very wealthy people guilty of libel the fine is a tiny fraction of their wealth. Poor people such Riley lose most if not all their wealth.

British and American libel laws make it very hard to report the truth.

I don't really get why this 'ooh, it's on the internet' reaction should make a fig of difference. Similarly, I don't see how it's got anything to do with 'the future of Twitter', any more than we'd be talking about shutting down FM radio because someone said something inappropriate on a phone-in.

Whether or not you're a huge fan is also irrelevant. Don't like it? Don't use it. It's not mandatory.

Though I disagree with

When did it become illegal to be stupid? There's been a few high-profile cases of common sense failure lately; the "Twitter joke trail" farce, the 'racism' cries at Frankie Boyle, the shitheel having a pop at Tom Daly, the halfwit on Facebook making inappropriate comments about April Jones. Probably others.

The ultimate irony is he moved to Machynlleth to escape Tesco et al and now they're opening a huge one just down the road from him.

Yeah doesn't he also live in a giant big **** off barn conversion despite divorcing (possibly, before Monbiot sues me), he's had two children so managed to pollute the planet more than someone who's had none and who commutes everyday in a Lamborghini Countach.....and because he live's in the country he has to drive to get anywhere? Wouldn't the green thing to do.... would be to live in a modern apartment in London, have no car at all and only have one child?

[quote=bwaarp ] Wouldn't the green thing to have done would be to live in a modern apartment in London, have no car at all and only have one child?
Surely the greenest thing to have done would be to top himself at an early age and donate his body to a woodland cemetery.

If you take it to your extreme level it would be to die and convert your body to food

No on who eats and breathes can be carbon neutral
Its seems daft to expect super high standards or else they are a hypocrit

FWIW stopping eating meat is the easiest thing to do to reduce your personal carbon footprint with it being split in thirds between food, transport and housing[energy usage] - you mention only one of these

Surely the greenest thing to have done would be to top himself at an early age and donate his body to a woodland cemetery.

I'll suggest that to him, next time I'm in Mach. 'Hey George, we had a chat on an internet forum about you and twitter and the general consensus was that the [s]decent[/s] [b]carbon neutral[/b] thing to do would be to top yourself and donate your body to a woodland cemetery. So, wadya think?'

Certainly be cheaper than getting sued by McAlpine.....

Monbiot retracted the message, and issued a full public apology. Given that the claims were already in the public domain, what loss has McAlpine suffered as a result of Monbiot's actions?

Given that Monbiot is a high(er) profile tweeter, with a lot of followers who are likely to re-tweet his stuff, McAlpine's lawyers may argue that his libel is more serious than say, if I had tweeted it, in the same way that the Daily Mail is likely to be more influential and widely-read than a parish magazine.

As others have said, you don't have to demonstrate actual damage - just that the publication is a libel.

Falsely labelling (or helping label, in this case) someone as a child abuser is in the worst category of libels, so the potential damages may make it worth going after twitter users, even if their individual contribution to that libel is pretty small.

FWIW stopping eating meat is the easiest thing to do to reduce your personal carbon footprint with it being split in thirds between food, transport and housing[energy usage] - you mention only one of these

Who's that addressed to.

Any actually...the GREENEST diet....is the one that can be produced most locally....for example....a lot of North Wales land is not suitable for arable farming...it's greener for those locals to eat some meat than it is to import more fruit, veg and wheat.

I think Stanford did a large study that showed a small portion of meat during the week is the greenest diet. I like to point this out to green vegan hippies that I meet when riding in North Wales.

I suspect Tesco will be the real winners here, to see the biggest thorn in their side hoisted by his own petard!

I suspect Tesco will be the real winners here, to see the biggest thorn in their side hoisted by his own petard!

His personality that leant itself to picking fights and sticking it "to da man" got the better of him. He couldn't resist mouthing off about the Tory establishment in this case and it turned round and buggered him in the arse...metaphorically speaking before anyone sues me

In your glee to rubbish a journalist, spare a thought for the truth yet again being buried.

it turned round and buggered him in the arse

Technically and metaphorically that is yet to come, hopefully through the courts as it will be highly entertaining, unless you are the one being rogered.....

It appears Lord McAlpine is seeking, at least, an apology from Twitter users who linked his name to recent events -

Given that mcalpine says he doesn't have a tv or Internet or get newspapers I doubt it was his idea to track down twitterists. There's a 'specialist company' doing so on his behalf and I suspect it's more likely that they approached him than vise versa. So I think what we're really seeing is a product launch using mcalpines case for PR.

In your glee to rubbish a journalist, spare a thought for the truth yet again being buried.

What truth?

I'm not sure Monbiot actually made a defamatory statement though did he? He said:

“I looked up Lord #McAlpine on t’internet. It says the strangest things.”

“I can confirm that Lord #McAlpine was Conservative Party Treasurer when Mrs Thatcher was prime minister”

“Historical fact of the week: Lord #McAlpine was a well-known treasurer of the Conservative Party during the Thatcher era."

Those statements are all perfectly accurate, nor do they technically acuse anyone of anything. He was clearly intending to make people aware of the rumours, but is that enough for defamation?

Ctrl-F search "innuendo"

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/defamation-elements-of-a-claim.html

It seem's it's still POTENTIALLY libel (before Monbiot sues me ).....

Well, he could have argued that quite strongly....if he hadn't posted this a day or two later as part of his grovel.

"The tweets I sent which hinted – as I assumed to be the case – that Lord McAlpine was the person the child abuse victim Steve Messham was talking about were so idiotic that, looking back on them today, I cannot believe that I wrote them."

I suppose he could now argue that the actual tweet was so poorly written that it did not convey that intention, but he's on pretty dodgy ground.

Bwaarp-- Alfred James McAlpine-- easy to mix them up if you're not careful, cousin to the Tory Grandee, boss of the Civil engineering firm, now deceased......

In your glee to rubbish a journalist, spare a thought for the truth yet again being buried.

No one is rubbishing him (although in my opinion, I think he writes dull, tedious articles). He has completely owned up to his gaff:

I have helped to malign an innocent man.

By George Monbiot, published on monbiot.com, 10th November 2012

I have done a few stupid things in my life, but nothing as stupid as this. The tweets I sent which hinted – as I assumed to be the case – that Lord McAlpine was the person the child abuse victim Steve Messham was talking about were so idiotic that, looking back on them today, I cannot believe that I wrote them.

But I did, and they are unforgiveable. I helped to stoke an atmosphere of febrile innuendo around an innocent man, and I am desperately sorry for the harm I have done him. I have set out, throughout my adult life, to try to do good; instead I have now played a part in inflicting a terrible hurt upon someone who had done none of the harm of which he was wrongly accused. I apologise abjectly and unreservedly to Lord McAlpine.

What follows is in no sense an attempt to excuse the tweets I wrote, but simply to try to explain them.

I knew that Steve Messham had been treated appallingly, and I believed that the terrible things done to him had been compounded by a denial of recognition and a denial of the recourse to the law which was his due. When I saw his interview on Newsnight I was very upset. I trusted his account unquestioningly. I was horrified by what he said, and by the fact that the identity of the man he was talking about appeared to have been kept secret for so long.

I felt a powerful compulsion to do what I have done throughout my career: to help the voiceless be heard. But in this case I did so without any of the care I usually take when assessing and reporting an issue. I allowed myself to be carried away by a sense of moral outrage. As a result, far from addressing an awful injustice, I contributed to one.

I have acted in an unprofessional, thoughtless and cruel manner, and I am sorry beyond words.

However, he may yet have to pay for his self confessed stupidity.

I don't read the Guardian, so have never read anything by Monbiot, but at least he had the courage to properly admit that he'd made an unforgivable error of judgement and was ashamed for having done so.
I don't imagine Sally Berkow having the self-awareness to do likewise.
Vile woman that she is.

I think Stanford did a large study that showed a small portion of meat during the week is the greenest diet. I like to point this out to green vegan hippies that I meet when riding in North Wales

Green vegans well i always suspected it was not a healthy diet but really it does this to them

What happens if Monbiot is taken to court and found innocent of libel? Can he then accuse McAlpine of libel because McAlpine accused him of something that he was innocent of?

I just hope that in among all the various suing and apologising there is some effort to find out who the real abuser was.

What does a green vegan cyclist look like / are they stand out-- like robert millar ?

I don't read the Guardian, so have never read anything by Monbiot, but at least he had the courage to properly admit that he'd made an unforgivable error of judgement and was ashamed for having done so.

True, but the cynic in me can't help but wonder how much of this came from him thinking 'oh f***, I'm going to lose my house for this...'.

I just hope that in among all the various suing and apologising there is some effort to find out who the real abuser was.

There's no money in finding out the truth, 'always follow the money' (as they said on The Wire).

The thing is, I think borderline libellous claims and organized coercion are how many people from any pressure group operate, I think that this way of thinking has got the better of him. I've always thought those involved in groups such as the anti-abortion movement, green or animal rights movements, or the EDL etc have a rather childish way of thinking. But hey, those are just my slightly random thoughts out loud...

always follow the money' (as they said on The Wire).

Quoting Deep Throat

I don't imagine Sally Berkow having the self-awareness to do likewise.

You are quite right there:

When the truth emerged, Bercow’s apology was hardly steeped in contrition: “Final on McAlpine: am VERY sorry for inadvertently fanning flames. But I tweet as me, forgetting that to some of u I am Mrs bloody Speaker”. It is not easy to fathom what she’s on about, but that sounds like the response of a naughty schoolgirl caught telling a whopper.

From the Telegraph

“Final on McAlpine: am VERY sorry for inadvertently fanning flames. But I tweet as me, forgetting that to some of u I am Mrs bloody Speaker”.

She sounds a lot like Andrew Mitchell, above the law and all that.

Buh Bye Sally Bercow

[img] [/img]

Ahhh the irony of public witch hunts...

Monbiot has become a self-parody in the Guardian these days - his articles used to be grounded whilst asking spiky questions, it seem he is now seeing himself as some sort of lightning rod to test endless conspiracy theories put together with the logic of the truly one-eyed. Unfortunately, as he's become more one-dimensional, I think he's started to believe his own public and sees himself as some sort of marauding crusader. Maybe this will convince him to wind his neck in a bit and get back some perspective.

On Twitter, the accusation is written and broadcast - the two defining characteristics of libel I believe. He's overstepped the mark this time and deserves whatever he gets.

Sally Bercow is a grandstander - never happier than when flouncing in the public eye trying to be noticed - again, she is probably cacking it right now and rightly so.

The base issue for all of this is so serious that it really isn't the place for people who should know better to go firing from the hip - the resulting backlash against what might be perceived as a witchhunt gives the potentially guilty parties a glimmer of hope that they might be able to fight off accurate allegations.

The thought of those kids (now adults) in those homes, completely defenceless against sick perverts makes me want to cry - it should also make people not want to trivialise the issues by posting unsubstantiated crap on Twitter in the vain hope of seeming like some kind of avenging angel.

Sally Bercow is a grandstander - never happier than when flouncing in the public eye trying to be noticed - again, she is probably cacking it right now and rightly so.

Judging from her recent tweets, I think she just thinks it will all just blow over. Hopefully it will cost her a good six figure sum, which might get her to shut up for once and all.

McAlpine's lawyer is playing a blinder - throroughly recommend both interviews on World at One Today. They have settled with the BBC at £185K because "we are conscious that the license feepayers end up paying it. I imagine he will not be so forgiving with ITV in view of their private ownership.

The lawyer read out Monbiot's personal apology on WATO to McAlpine so I think he will probably go lightly on him but I expect him to go after Bercow because she was been so flippant about it and I think his aim is to teach such people their lesson.

Keir Starmer, Head of DPP, in the context of prosecuting Twitter utterances did suggest number of followers should be taken into account.

Judging from her recent tweets, I think she just thinks it will all just blow over. Hopefully it will cost her a good six figure sum, which might get her to shut up for once and all.

We can but hope...............

It's all too serious for this - all this hand-wringing that is going on at the beeb, all this pissing around on Twitter and the resulting ruckus is deflecting attention from the real issue.

Vulnerable kids being subjected to abuse by sickos (often using mplied threats of violence) - find out what really happened, prosecute the guilty, name them and lock them up.

Make sure it never happens again (or find out if it still going on somewhere right now and stop it).

Vulnerable kids being subjected to abuse by sickos (often using mplied threats of violence) - find out what really happened, prosecute the guilty, name them and lock them up.

Make sure it never happens again (or find out if it still going on somewhere right now and stop it).

Child abuse has been going on for generations and will continue to do so, so there isn't a 'defined' end in sight, it's a continual process of tracking down the offenders and dealing with them.

Yes this is just a side show, but a very entertaining one!

agree Dannyh, but this is how the waters get muddied --check out The Slog, a blog that seems very interesting...

It seems to be a lot of unsubstantiated rumours to me - especially on that blog, in fact there seems to be a rather interesting take on this affair relating to Welsh care homes by a prominent historian - "The Secret of Bryn Estyn: The Making of a Modern Witch Hunt"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Secret-Bryn-Estyn-Making/dp/0951592246

Nominated for an Orwell prize and I've never heard of it! Here's a review on Amazon

The Secret of Bryn Estyn, first published in 2005, is an indictment of the British press, judiciary, police and the chattering classes. The story represented the projection of the mythical into the public arena in the form of a moral panic. The story became a national scandal, paraded through the press whose peddling of pap was in itself a scandal of horrendous proportions. Fired by "superstitious secularism" - devised and subsequently discredited in North America - it found apologists such as the Marxist journalist Bea Campbell who proclaimed the existence of Satanic cults infiltrating whole communities. The damage done to the victims of such "crusading" journalism (snatched from loving homes by intellectually limited and professionally myopic social workers) was incalculable.

According to first reports Bryn Estyn was a network of evil - a paedophile ring whose members included a senior North Wales police officer and other public figures. Over a period of ten years thousands were accused and hundreds arrested using the now discredited system of police trawling which reversed the age old principle of innocent until proved guilty. As Webster made clear some allegations were made almost by police invitation. In many cases the motivation for the allegations was to make money. The alleged paedophile ring never existed. Just two men were convicted.

In 1999 the BBC broadcast a programme entitled A Place of Safety in which several former residents of Bryn Estyn made allegations against staff members. Yet all the accusers had left the institution before the accused staff members had joined and had never met them. At least five of the seven complainants had previously made allegations which had been proved to be manifestly false, yet their new allegations were uncritically accepted at face value.

Webster's complaint was that journalists, who should have pursued the truth, simply regurgitated falsehoods by neglecting their primary investigative duty. Facts were no longer sacred, opinion became "truth" and the journalists and false accusers received public awards which some, to their shame, have never acknowledged were bought at the expense of public trust and personal integrity. The recent case of alleged child abuse on Jersey shows the lesson has still not been learned and, meanwhile, the innocent remain in jail.

Webster never denied that some abuse took place. Indeed, he was relentless in his pursuit of the truth, identifying flaws in the police and public case against care workers, which transformed many baseless accusations into prosecutions by means of tactics worthy of a police state, in which the rules of normal justice were abandoned in order to "get a result". False allegations were effectively encouraged and believed by those who had the intelligence to know better but lacked the capacity to use it. The real result was systematic injustice. It was a modern day witch hunt which the subsequent Waterhouse Enquiry, which Webster regards as a "judicial disaster", failed to recognise, still less discover the truth which Webster so painstakingly uncovered.

I disagree with Webster's correlation of moral panic with the "continuing reverence for the idea of evil" which he considers is "not only unreal" but "part of a fantasy of righteousness which has been encouraged by the Judaeo-Christian tradition over a period of centuries." Using this analysis he suggests that "we disown and deny our own sexual and satanic impulses and attribute them to others" then licence ourselves to indulge such fantasies with ferocious condemnation of the supposed evil conspiracy.

In the case of Bryn Estyn was not the idea of evil which created the moral panic but the inability of human beings (individually and collectively) to identify or recognise objective reality. This failure was not motivated by the concept of evil but by personal pride, jealousy, untruths, lack of professional detatchment, vanity and willful myopia. The capacity of human beings to place themselves at the centre of a mythical world of their own creation is not necessarily tied up with the concept of evil. Yet such disagreement pales into insignificance against the damage done to society during this irrational affair.

We should never forget that facts remain sacred, opinion comes at a cost. In a free society people need to use their intellect to distinguish between one and the other. The real Secret of Bryn Estyn (ruthlessly exposed by Webster's brilliant and enduring work) was that on this occasion they did not. Everyone should read this book to make sure it never happens again. Unquestionably five stars for this investigative classic. Buy it, read it. Your trust of those in authority will never be the same again

Gonna have to buy this one just to see a different take on the matter.

Make of it what you will but this whole saga smacks of mob justice. I tell you what, accidently getting caught up in an affair like this has put me right off ever doing a public service type job eg teaching.

Lots of accusations, very little hard evidence in court so far - I will make up my mind about people once they have gone to court and had a fair trial, not before then.

They are judgement calls and , as this forum shows, what one person assumes to be funny others dont. I suppose we could debate whether offence is given or taken again [ please god no]

bwaarp - Member

FWIW stopping eating meat is the easiest thing to do to reduce your personal carbon footprint with it being split in thirds between food, transport and housing[energy usage] - you mention only one of these

Who's that addressed to.

Any actually...the GREENEST diet....is the one that can be produced most locally....for example....a lot of North Wales land is not suitable for arable farming...it's greener for those locals to eat some meat than it is to import more fruit, veg and wheat.

I think Stanford did a large study that showed a small portion of meat during the week is the greenest diet. I like to point this out to green vegan hippies that I meet when riding in North Wales.
Posted 3 hours ago # Report-Post

Spot on, my sister is a very hard line Eco type and supports that view point. Its all about provenance & locality

as per the crux of my post, why is 'being offensive' suddenly illegal? Christ, if 'not being funny' is a crime I'm screwed.

I am not sure some of these comments are even meant to be funny - get a reaction definitely but funny - Nah

Abuse != offence.

Nice article here on Spiked

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/6161

Is this current saga just a rerun of the conspiracy theories that were running around back then?

This triggered the largest child abuse investigation in Britain, which used a novel method of police investigation: trawling former residents of care homes for retrospective allegations. This method means that, instead of acting upon allegations of abuse made spontaneously by individuals, the police contacted those who were resident at the care home at the time of the alleged abuse.

The trawling method resulted in allegations from 650 witnesses, who accused 365 people of abusing them at homes throughout North Wales. When only six prosecutions followed, with only two new convictions for sexual abuse, the police and the authorities were accused of mounting a cover-up, with police officers said to belong to the very paedophile ring they were supposed to be investigating.

The story became a national scandal. A senior police officer, publicly accused of raping adolescent boys at Bryn Estyn, sued two national newspapers, a magazine and a television company for libel and won. However, rumours of a cover-up persisted; and in 1996 the then Tory government set up the largest Tribunal of Inquiry in British history, under Sir Ronald Waterhouse. In February 2000, the Tribunal made damning findings of extensive abuse in North Wales – although it did not find evidence of a police cover-up. By then, the police trawling operation which had begun there had spread to the whole of Britain. Police forces collected allegations against 5,000 former care workers and teachers, and hundreds were arrested.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GtB65IADRjIC&pg=PA624&lpg=PA624&dq=police+trawling+psychology&source=bl&ots=82e7JZHbCJ&sig=je5ga6mum4xG4eKuNLiJKlEvL4g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hXGlUOm8PM6S0QWFs4GACA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=trawling&f=false

This is and interesting subject, bugger I want to study Psychology now as well as Biology and Statistics. To many interesting subjects, to little time! I wonder if this same argument about police trawling and false confessions can also be made with false accusations, I must read more!

'being offensive' suddenly illegal?

I think the issue is with Twitter (or social networks more broadly) as the vehicle for an offensive remark, its a bit of an unusual channel for communication in the sense that its vibrates between being a private network (a bit like a group email) a public space ( bit like a website) and direct one-to-one conversation . So if you make an offensive comment about someone its sort of talking behind someones back, publishing the comment publicly and shouting it in their face all at the same time. Because the connection with the target of an offensive comment can be very direct you could say in some cases offensive tweets have more in common with putting hate mail through someones letterbox or spray-painting threats on their house.

I don't think 'being offensive' has suddenly become illegal. But legally and culturally we're having to feel our way as to what people are doing when they broadcast in this manner and what the responsibilities and consequences are. We haven't been in a position to broadcast so thoughtlessly before.

Child abuse has been going on for generations and will continue to do so, so there isn't a 'defined' end in sight, it's a continual process of tracking down the offenders and dealing with them.

Yes this is just a side show, but a very entertaining one!

I'd say those are two comments that don't sit very nicely together. I wouldn't describe any of this as 'entertaining' as the root cause of all this is child abuse - something that is beyond the pale.

Fair enough - you can't just have a year-long witchhunt, then leave it for a decade before another wave breaks and then pick up the mantle again.

All the Monbiot-Bercow-BBC self-obsessed crap is just a side issue. If anyone has libelled someone else in matters of such importance, then the injured party should take them to the cleaners - not just financially, but in terms of their reputation. That's what ought to happen if there is a case to answer - it's about time that people like Bercow and Monbiot took some responsibility. Monbiot making some grovelling apology after being caught out is a perfect parody of the type of hypocrisy his so likes to expose in his column. He should be finished.

Bercow is just a self-publicist. There will probably be an autobiography in a couple of years. It should be entitled "the memoirs of someone who was married to someone who nearly mattered and so thought her opinions counted".

Detect crime. Arrest perpetrators. Try them in a court of law. Imprison and punish if found guilty.

No hearsay, no gossip, no 're-tweets' just evidence and due legal process. That's a world I think I want to live in.

footflaps - Member

my argument would be that as Monbiot is an established and reputable figure

Reputable? That'll never stand up in court, Monbiot can just use the Rimmer defence.

fair trial

Mix politics with huge fortunes and a highly emotive subject, and I think that's highly unlikely.

Proof in sex crime often comes down to trusting unreliable witnesses. Check how many jailed US "rapists" were freed when genetic testing proved they were innocent. Then there's the consent issue where "victims" are of age - see the DSK case, or when an underpaid prostitute becomes a rape victim. Go no further than STW relationship threads to see what spurned partners do for revenge.

Fair trial? No chance, whether for the original alleged offences or the libel suits surrounding them.

I see the Guardian is avoiding all mention of this today and Monbiot appears to be in hiding.

The demise of Monbiot - reads something like this:

He started out as a relatively niche journalist - writing articles on what was solid gorund for him - and asking pointed questions in the course of these articles. In short, good journalistic comment (not investigative journalism, but opinion pieces). Fine

Then he starts to expand his topic base by making a series of one-eyed leaps of logic. The problem being that if any one of those leaps turns out to be wrong, the whole construct looks shaky. In this conversion to a sort of evangelical 'alternativeness', he starts to believe his own publicity and his own public (followers if you like).

He then deludes himself that he must have an opinion on everything, and that people want to hear it. He also forgets the reason that he can't do this in his column is editorial correctness.

He then makes a big mistake on Twitter and libels an apparently innocent man.

That's the amateur psychology bit done.

What has he actually now achieved.

He has broken a cardinal rule of journalism in that he has become the story rather than just reporting it. Take the two most famous investigative journalists - Woodward and Berstein. The reason they avoided becoming the story was that they adhered to (and were reined in by) a strict editorial policy. As far as I'm aware they did not give 'off the record' briefings (a la Twitter).

It gets worse.

He has also handed some of the moral high ground to potentially guilty parties - who can now attempt to characterise any pursuit of them as a witch hunt.

Well done, George!

McAlpine can take him to the cleaners for all I care - it's just the legal equivalent of a schoolboy brawl by the school gates.

Monbiot himself has damaged his credibility - although his recent style in the Guardian has eroded that anyway. What if he now needs to break a controversial story - will it be attributed to someone else or perhaps co-authored at the last minute? Or will the Guardian just wask its hands of him?

Now it's time to remember what this is really about.

This seems completely fair to me and it's really only a question of time before someone does take Twitter users to court for slander/lible for big money. This does does raise the question of what the future of Twitter holds.
Personally I'm not a huge fan and would be quite happy if it disappeared into the digital ether.

Why?

Hi Brant.

The answer to your question is because it has ceased to be of any real use now it has become the medium of choice for gobshites.

It feeds the ego of people who think that just because they have an opinion, it must be shared with the entire world, all the time.

It will eventually be regulated to the point where nothing of any substance can be said without fear of legal action because its users are killing the golden goose by filling it with tittle-tattle, trivia and libel.

Then something else will crop up and take its place - conversation, perhaps (or is that too much to hope for?)

People just will not self-regulate en masse - meaning someone will do it for them. As soon as you provoke this and the regulation hits down, you erode the medium.

On the subject of self-regulation. Have you noticed how the comments on here, for example, get more aggressive, more personal and less coherent as an evening wears on? In a lot of cases with social media, it seems that the perceived anonymity combines with lack of inhibition (perhaps fuelled by alcohol) and the ability to 'reach' large numbers of people to make people say things they wouldn't otherwise.

Sorry to break the omerta 😈