Forum menu
£60m profit and he still looks like a Jakey in a Primark suit…
Nice to know we paid for the refit for them
Has anyone posted the Led by Donkeys video, where they found and renamed her yacht for her?
Seems that the press are now digging. More than ever.
https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1737172048324235583?t=vBpRAVR_bXENGTnp_yjMkw&s=19
subsequently reported by novara media that she paid 50k to make this go away. what a lovely 'lady'
Lady M (the yacht) as opposed to Lady M (the disgraced peer, serial liar and pandemic profiteer) has been up for sale since last year. <br /><br />
Almost like they realised the game was up for a while, that they had underestimated the journos pursuing them and that the optics of owning a MASSIVE YACHT were not going to play well in the end game.
Thrilled to see the legal gravy train ploughs on unabated despite it coming off the tracks two stations back down the line. (McKie below was one of Mone’s attack dogs first time around)
Contacted for comment this week, McKie did not respond directly but instead instructed his own lawyer to reply on his behalf. The lawyer said McKie could not comment on “what he was or was not told” without breaching his duty of confidentiality to his client.
The lawyer had to hire a lawyer to say he was really sorry? Pinky promise, sorry? 😆
If she did Poops me old mucker, I'd be very surprised if she didn't bang on about your caring nature and amusing way with words, plus your inability to be quite as good as Danny MaCaskill on two wheels whilst still enjoying yourself to the max.
PLEASE REMEMBER
This is not a normal state of affairs. We can overcome this. Things will get better.
I truly believe this.
Don't accept.
^^ I really hope I’m never in a position that requires Hyde to write about me!
I dunno. I mean if we take this case there are two key factors.
1)sixty million in the bank
2)a complete lack of conscience about that coming from profiteering during a pandemic.
Since b is required for a I am not sure an newspaper article would be overly concerning. Its more the NCA which would concern me.
Honestly this seems completely blown out of proportion.
Yes, she stole from the taxpayers (us).
But probably the government would have just spent the money on something completely stupid, like shipping foreigners to far off African countries, or building a railway line to Manchester, or something equally pointless.
Far better to spend it on a giant in-your-face yacht, which will remind us of the benefits of hard work and fraud.
I think she's saved us from having Rishi and Suella spend our money and should be congratulated, not hounded.
A good point, well made.
Loved the Marina Hyde article
But look, let’s just get into technical terms for a second: Michelle is 5ft 9in of pure chaos, and watching Rishi Sunak whinnying feebly about “taking all these things incredibly seriously” tees up the spectacle of the prime minister and a number of other drippy male politicians further incensing this Category 5 “force of nature”, who will lash out all the way down on her well-earned fall from grace. Is that as good as taxpayers getting their money back? No. But I’ll watch.
I suspect she’s not going to go down alone and take the rap for this bunch of corrupt shysters. She’ll be taking them all with her. I bet Rishi is bricking it about what she’s going to come out with
We've all a ringside seat on this one. Gove now being dragged in. Many more journalists digging dirt on pair of them, and I bet there's a few lawyer and police meetings happening over all sorts. The more Mone and Barrowman feel heat, the more they are lashing out.
I'll put the kettle on. Anyone got some biccies?
I noticed on the news they were trying to get an answer from gove when he was getting into a range Rover. His face soured quite quickly as he turned away
My question is how could you tell that Gove’s face soured ? Normal expression surely ? 😉
Mone was always going to be the one thrown under a bus - staggers me that the Tories couldn’t see that she’d turn. Rats in a bag the lot of them. Good riddance.
Michelle Mone Class Warrior, who saw that coming? She's been operating deep undercover, bent on taking them all down.
mrlebowski
Free Member
Mone was always going to be the one thrown under a bus – staggers me that the Tories couldn’t see that she’d turn.
Tories looking beyond the end of their own noses is a skill yet to be aquired
Mone was always going to be the one thrown under a bus
They managed to do it to themselves pretty comprehensively on Kunnesberg's show. I mean did they really think by saying that they were only responding patriotically to requests for help with PPE, but simultaneously going to great lengths to hide the company doing it through any number of off-shore shell companies and putting the whole thing in another person's name, and then lying about it; that anyone would just nod along and say "Who wouldn't do that?"
Idiots.
Michelle Mone Class Warrior, who saw that coming?
If you've been following her activity as a critical race theorist and anti-racist, it's no surprise at all:
“Since when did calling out a man on his actions after a manslaughter and his entitled white privilege constitute racism?”
that would make you wonder if you really should be doing the thing?
Well quite. Like naming a boat "The Lady M" and then claiming that you've nothing to do with it as "It's my husbands boat" I mean, criminal masterminds, they ain't.
What's that saying about the dildo of consequence?
Let's hope this succeeds, as reading many twottter comments it's a first action to prove the law/case and it will be followed by every newspaper who she and Barrowman have (falsely) used lawyers to stop them printing truth.
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/why-were-suing-michelle-mone/
MoreCashThanDash
Full Member
If you feel the need to hide something for fear of press intrusion upsetting your kids, surely that would make you wonder if you really should be doing the thing?
Ha! Well said. 👍
Get in:
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/newspaper-sue-michelle-mone-legal-161149336.html
Hope this is the first of many to sue the bullying couple. They abused their wealth to try and silence people and now need to pay for their actions.
Any thoughts on why they sold the Belgravia gaff and Lady-M is on the market? Is it to squirrel away liquid assets to the IoM, to claim 'all the money's gone', PR advice about flaunting ill-gotten-gains or in preparation for 'it's a fair cop, you can have the money money back if we don't do bird'?
Get in:<br />
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/newspaper-sue-michelle-mone-legal-161149336.html
/p>Hope this is the first of many to sue the bullying couple. They abused their wealth to try and silence people and now need to pay for their actions.
Was watching The Rest is Politics on youtube and they were mentioning this stuff, Alastair Campbell is part of the New European and giving some more depth to this whole scandal.
BillMCFull Member<br />Any thoughts on why they sold the Belgravia gaff and Lady-M is on the market? Is it to squirrel away liquid assets to the IoM, to claim ‘all the money’s gone’, PR advice about flaunting ill-gotten-gains or in preparation for ‘it’s a fair cop, you can have the money money back if we don’t do bird’?<br /><br />
Im voting for it all been squirrelled away so they can then claim they don’t have to pay anything as they are broke and hard up.
The Tories must be loving the attention she is getting so the others who profited in the same way can get away without scrutiny. It’s not as if she was the only one upto this in cahoots with the government
I have mixed feelings about the newspaper suing them. Not because I have any sympathy for the lying bar stewards, but because of the legal precedent that could be set and the law of unintended consequence that could be created.
We currently have a system where the super wealthy are often chummy with much of the media, and able to bully the more independent media through the legal system. However much of that media is also able to bully and exploit the general public who don't have access to the legal power of the super wealthy, and I can't help but think that a legal precedent in this case would further strengthen that position.
IMO this needs fixing by legislation, and not just for those who can afford to flex their legal purchasing power.
I have mixed feelings about the newspaper suing them. Not because I have any sympathy for the lying bar stewards, but because of the legal precedent that could be set and the law of unintended consequence that could be created.
My gut feel is you are worrying needlessly - I expect the court will say, if you were 100% sure about the content you posted you didn't need to incur any costs, you simply file the threat in the bin. Had Mone wanted a court to impose an injunction to stop them posting, the burden of proof would have been on Mone, and had she failed she could/would have been liable for the papers costs.
1) what legal precedent do you think it would set?
2) it's a weird conclusion that a newspaper with barely any readers is bullying a dishonest multimillionaire because they want recover the money they spent defending themselves against the dishonest millionaire's dishonesty. If she hadn't dishonestly sicced a bunch of expensive lawyers against the newspaper in an attempt to obfuscate her dishonesty, there would be nothing to sue over. She is not being sued for being unsuccessful in a genuine attempt to protect her legitimate rights.
You have it backwards: only if the rich are punished for their SLAPPs and lies will the media ever have a chance to expose the truth.
It's worth reading the New European's own article on this:
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/why-were-suing-michelle-mone/
Not because I have any sympathy for the lying bar stewards, but because of the legal precedent that could be set and the law of unintended consequence that could be created.
Reading a ****ter thread on this, which clearly has some legal folk on it, the suggestion is that it will be quite a high bar to overcome to win. The newspaper has to demonstrate that Mone and Barrowman deliberately and knowingly acted to create false knowledge and that Mone and Barrowman stood to gain from this course of action.
1) what legal precedent do you think it would set?
The protential precedent is that anytime someone sends a letter to a paper telling them to stop talking shite, that the paper replies saying "we are not talking shite, and will sue you for costs" even if they were indeed talking shite because the media are not known for being the best behaved.
2) it’s a weird conclusion that a newspaper with barely any readers is bullying a dishonest multimillionaire because they want recover the money they spent defending themselves against the dishonest millionaire’s dishonesty. If she hadn’t dishonestly sicced a bunch of expensive lawyers against the newspaper in an attempt to obfuscate her dishonesty, there would be nothing to sue over. She is not being sued for being unsuccessful in a genuine attempt to protect her legitimate rights.
I don't think MSP was suggesting that the power imbalance here was with the paper, rather he was concerned that in some future case Joe Bloggs gets misreported, calls his solictiors and says can you tell them to publish a retraction and either the solicitor or the paper's solicitor says we will counter sue for costs just for you making the threat.
You have it backwards: only if the rich are punished for their SLAPPs and lies will the media ever have a chance to expose the truth.
It’s worth reading the New European’s own article on this:
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/why-were-suing-michelle-mone/
/p>
They might be better putting their effort towards the SRA - there's no way that even the most basic scrutiny that a responsible solicitor could not know they were involved with MedPro, and she's on the bloody boat with her name on it, owned by her hubby!
The protential precedent is that anytime someone sends a letter to a paper telling them to stop talking shite, that the paper replies saying “we are not talking shite, and will sue you for costs” even if they were indeed talking shite because the media are not known for being the best behaved.
...and that is not what The New European wining would mean! This is a parade of horribles based on nothing.
Reading a ****ter thread on this, which clearly has some legal folk on it, the suggestion is that it will be quite a high bar to overcome to win. The newspaper has to demonstrate that Mone and Barrowman deliberately and knowingly acted to create false knowledge and that Mone and Barrowman stood to gain from this course of action.
Pretty sure the reason the New European were raising this was down to the interview providing evidence of this, in their own words, out of their own mouths.
A recent 'News Agents' podcast had a lawyer in talking about his idea for reforming the law to make the 'threat' of suing without evidence or falsely far harder and with criminal repercussions and the ability for those threatened to sue for legal costs.
Seemed quite reasonable.
She is still winding this one up, still calling out others...
https://twitter.com/MichelleMone/status/1738232331255656669?t=tskCG0Mpe3eZoD0sIKgbew&s=19
"The government" - as if that is a group of people entirely remote from Mone herself.
Besides, selling gowns cheaper than the average price isn't a great bargain if they're so shitty they can't be used!
Agreed.
I'm more laughing at her drunk adolescent ranting and returning to the scene of the argument. I'm hoping she keeps it up for entertainment purposes.
I am hoping she does come up with some decent attacks on some of her fellow profiteers.
Nothing better than arseholes having a proper scrap with each other.