Michelle ! Mone !

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.

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?

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?”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/06/met-investigating-tory-peer-michelle-mone-over-racist-message

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: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.

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 MemberAny 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’?

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

chrismac +1

They have nothing other than selfish intentions here.

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 twatter 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/

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 twatter 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…

In comparison, PPE Medpro prices were very competitive at £4.88 per gown rather than £11.95.

It saved the taxpayer tens of millions. https://t.co/Z5w91oPl68

— Lady Michelle Mone (@MichelleMone) December 22, 2023

Why did the government build up 5 years supply of PPE instead of 4 months as planned? pic.twitter.com/UQxvrMJEaa

— Lady Michelle Mone (@MichelleMone) December 22, 2023

“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.

She really is deluded.

C’mon be fair to mone, the entire **** Tory party along with their client journalists are **** deluded.

So dense she has her own gravitational field

You do get the sense that it is to the benefit of certain, more conventional Tory donors that the focus of our anger is directed entirely at some rather vulgar Scottish bra-lady.

So while she’s obviously a scumbag, hopefully she will take a few of the others down with her.

Who is advising them on PR? They are genuinely still arguing this one and constantly pulling it back to the public eye.

Michelle Mone’s husband says couple being ‘hung out to dry’ by ministers https://t.co/3jSEl1T0Dt

— Guardian news (@guardiannews) January 1, 2024

The "truth" this statement misses: Barrowman lied about his connection to PPE Medpro. The company and its directors probably committed a criminal offence in not disclosing that Barrowman controlled it. Barrowman plausibly committed an offence himself. https://t.co/KBOJNL9jEa

— Dan Neidle (@DanNeidle) January 1, 2024

@matt_outandabout I suspect it doesn’t matter who’s advising them, as they’ll know better.

A fair point.
Let’s hope they keep hanging themselves and the politicians who enabled this behaviour…

Who is advising them on PR?

Probably the same people Harry & Meghan use!

Another example that money, definitively, does not bring with it either common sense or wisdom.

😃

Assets controlled by former Tory peer Michelle Mone and her husband Doug Barrowman have been frozen under a court order obtained by the Crown Prosecution Service.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68087776.amp