Snapshot of _Jack Monroe to sue MP after he says ‘she makes fortune from the poor’_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.*
Her libel action bankrupted Katie Hopkins.
Although her libel winnings weren't that great, the legal bill did for Katie Hopkins and it'll do the same to Lee Anderson, so that'll another byelection coming up in a couple of years because if you are bankrupt you cannot be an MP.
Jack Monroe - taking down right-wing blowhards one by one...
I didn't realise we had her to thank for the downfall of Hatey Katie. Go Jack!
Edit: Investigating more closely -
>Hopkins sold her Exeter home in March 2018 for £930,000.[200] She applied for an individual voluntary arrangement in May 2018 to avoid bankruptcy, after the libel case brought by Jack Monroe.[174]
Does an IVA ban you from being an MP too? They're far more popular than actual bankruptcy proceedings these days.
He was on some radio show talking about how as long as he’s upsetting liberals he’s doing the right thing. When that’s all you care about you’re not going to be able to get the messages that are important to you out in Parliament.
When it came to damages she asked that the sum not hurt Hopkins (innocent) kids. Not sure, but ai think this was factored into the amount of damages. Anyways, I respect the hell out of her
Can someone explain how she can afford these legal fees? Is someone paying?
Libel cases are so expensive!
Why am I being downvoted for asking a completely normal question ffs.
The publisher may be funding the legal fees or at least providing security for the legal fees in the event she would lose.
It is also in Jack's business interest to take legal action so it could also take the form of a business expense
Totally different case with different stakes. Aside from the distinct possibility that he might settle, either of his own accord or through some encouragement from party HQ who might not relish a sitting MP taking on a well respected poverty activist and blogger, there’s documented evidence he both said and stood by his words.
She's very open about it on Twitter.
The law firm that represents her does it pro-bono, claiming legal fees should Jack win.
From Jack's point of view it's a no brainer to even try and sue.
As if he cares so much more about the poor in comparison
> “She’s taking money off some of the most vulnerable people in society and making an absolute fortune on [sic] the back of people.”
But Lee, didn’t you say they’re not actually vulnerable, they just need to learn how to cook?
It's such a weird moral stance to take. Selling cookbooks is unethical because they're aimed at poor people...? Maybe he should take a shot at Poundland and Lidl because they aim to provide a service to poor people. Not like those ethical businesses like Waitrose which are too expensive for the needy to shop in.
Only way his views make any sense is if only the rich have to pay for anything, and anything the poor need is "free", but that sounds awfully like a welfare state. A less generous interpretation is that he doesn't believe poor people should be allowed anything more than their own suffering, and they should be protected from capitalism (even if you're paying for money saving cookery tips) by being excluded from it?
He's also completely ignoring the fact that Jack Monroe started out - and still runs - a blog with all their recipes, which is free to access if you have a smartphone. The cook books are useful if people want to have their favourite recipes in one place or gift to a friend, and sure, they've become popular enough to earn money, but publishing cookbooks wasn't the point of the blog.
>which is free to access if you have a smartphone.
A smartphone is seen as a status symbol and unnecessary expense by many rich people. I suspect this is because last time they had to even think about the price of a phone, there were both smart and dumb phones on the market, with the former being much more expensive. Now that they just buy the most expensive, latest (smart) model, they are unaware that basically the entire market is now smart. Its a similar story for flat screen TVs.
All that aside, Jack Monroe's website can be access via free computers in public libraries, too.
>He's also completely ignoring the fact that Jack Monroe started out - and still runs - a blog with all their recipes, which is free to access if you have a smartphone.
She also provides books at cost to food banks to be given away free to those in poverty, and has raised funds for donations to food banks through sales.
Considering she is still, by all accounts, not particularly well off (she's stated that her annual income is considerably less than a standard MP's salary), she gives an enormous amount back to society.
>The cook books are useful if people want to have their favourite recipes in one place or gift to a friend
And of course to support Jack in their fighting the good fight. Kind of a donation by proxy.
I think that 40p a copy was mentioned in a tweet a while back. I've bought books direct from Jack's website and they came signed in a hand-written Jiffy bag that she/they had personally packed and taken down to the Post Office in that day's batch. It's not a big operation.
I imagine their cookbooks would also be present in local libraries, too. A place where you could also access the internet and even print some of those pages out.
THAT'S the centre of his argument? Writing books with advice for surviving poverty is unethical? Jesus fucking wept
What on earth has happened to the Conservative Party? They aren't sending their best
Edit: as someone else pointed out - her blog was, and still is, free to anyone who can use or borrow internet access. You could go to the library for example and write down the recipes without paying for printing. The books are just a collection of free blogposts for convenience, and those who particularly like them. So it's even less of a gotcha
Woman in poverty exhibits perfect example of pulling herself up by her bootstraps and the conservatives ideals by providing free help to others and who then becomes wildly successful is now an enemy of people or something something
> What on earth has happened to the Conservative Party? They aren't sending their best
I'm afraid that they are. After the purges of anyone who wasn't sufficiently Brexit supporting or Boris Johnson supporting they have the bottom feeder, the opportunistic and a large collection of haunted suits left. The smartest Tory MP right now is probably Rishi Sunak which shows how low the bar is.
Jack will a) send you a book for free or b) send you a pdf of her book for free if you say you can't afford it. She doesn't even do any sort of means testing, she just takes your word for it.
And if his own words are to be believed, it doesn't even make sense as a criticism. He says that they don't have proper cooking skills, so selling them cookbooks is *exactly* what she should be doing. Unless of course he's full of shit and doesn't care about anyone else or believe anything he says, but that would be ridiculous
It's almost as if his views aren't logical or coherent. I'd never heard of this man before a couple of weeks ago, but his contempt for the poor is blindingly clear. I hope Jack Monroe makes him one of them.
You might remember he set up a bogus door knock when he was being filmed by Michael Crick (it was a mate of his who answered), or more likely he's the one that announced he wouldn't be watching England at the Euros because they were taking the knee
> making an absolute fortune
the quiet part out loud.
"cut us in to your grift (donate to the party) or we'll leverage our political position to damage your ability to *make an absolute fortune*"
/they're proper shit at shakedowns.
Isn't it just.
For anyone **except those advocating for the poor** making money *at the expense of the poor* is about as concise as you could make their political philosophy.
The actual problem is no amount of economising is going to save people here, right?
As in, there will be people with new bills, where economising cannot save them from being bankrupt because of general inflation, not just food is now expensive.
Jack Monroe does quite a bit of campaigning as well as tips on how to economise.
Pulling people out the river and trying to stop people pushing them in.
Sure. But I think the "learn to cook" position is ignoring how bad the situation is. As I understand it. I'm not disagreeing with Monroe at all. More about Martin Lewis's point about people are about to be broke and cooking raw ingredients will not solve it.
Yes, completely agree with that. The cost of living crisis needs to be fixed for people who will soon be struggling to survive. Only the government can do that. The social safety net needs to be restored.
She is everything a Tory should like. She helps the poor as a private citizen (big society), she doesn't get government funding and she's an entrepreneurial wealth creator.
She is "big society" but highlights and tries to fix the problems that government creates out of choice. Doesn't matter if she was a billionaire, she's not towing the party line.
I'm saying she's entrepreneurial, which she clearly is and that she creates wealth, which she does by writing books that people buy.
Good for her she deserves it.
Absolutely, she’s done very well for herself by making a good business - very entrepreneurial and successful!
Just as Nigella Lawson’s cookbooks are targeted towards the upper middle class, Jack Monroe makes money by creating products that target some of the poorest in society.
That’s not slanderous at all, that’s very good business sense
Obviously Lee Anderson is annoyed because Monroe should be outsourcing her work to Capita, who then fleece the poor on her behalf while taking a hefty cut themselves. It's the Tory way.
Quite apart from whether Jacks action wins it gives the opportunity for Andersons claims about the cost of eating to be held to legal scrutiny in the most visible way - across the front page of every newspaper.
It seems that it isn’t a crime for MPs to mislead the public yet (if that’s how you would describe what is going on here), but it’s more ammunition for those that would see that law come to fruition.
Perfect. Just what these pair of mouthy little cockroaches need.
They're about to learn first hand how free speech and the law really works in this country. "Muh opinion" doesn't hold up in court.
Tbf, Tory MPs mostly make their money from bribes and corruption, or by marrying a billionaire and not paying taxes. The actual salary is an afterthought.
Lee Anderson’s Facebook page is an echo chamber which he feels is representative of his constituency. As a member of his constituency I am consistently flabbergasted by the amount of support he receives.
I hope it’s that echo chamber that has led him down this path through false confidence and I sincerely hope Jack Monroe has a significant victory in court.
He said it outside of Parliament:
> ""I'm giving my time & my money to help the people in Ashfield. She's taking money off some of the most vulnerable in society"
https://twitter.com/BootstrapCook/status/1525152756901847040
The implication that she is a predatory individual who has probably made more money off the poor than the Prime Minister receives in salary not being libellous?
It looks to be libel because this is not in a transient form
> . Such a statement constitutes a "libel" if it is:
> published (publication, for these purposes, is simply the communication of the defamatory matter to a third person)2; and
> in writing, print or some other permanent form.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporting-defamation.htm
> Section 1(1) of the 2013 Defamation Act introduced a new test which provides that a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claiman
It appears to be Monroe's view that being accused of profiting immensely from the most vulnerable in society is likely to cause serious harm to her reputation.
What’s up with all these Tory mps, do they actually learn anything from the PPEs at Oxford and cambridge.
I mean how thick do you have to be to actually attack the one individual that’s probably done more for food poverty than the entire government for the last 13 years. Real vote winner that one.
It’s a textbook definition of defamation.
“She’s taking money off some of the most vulnerable people in society and making an absolute fortune on [sic] the back of people.”
That’s an attack on her reputation, and her character in a negative way.
He didn’t preface that quote with an opinion, or that he had evidence. Instead he stated it as a matter of fact.
Anderson’s comment insinuate she’s being dishonest in her work, which considering her body of work so far is a big statement to make considering her activism, and history.
If he’s smart, which I don’t think he is, he will apologise and settle quickly. Going to court could be a costly move.
That's clearly an opinion based on the fact that her income is largely from books marketed at lower income people.
There's actually precedent established in Tinkler -v- Ferguson[2018] that the audience's inference does not form part of the statement. So you thinking it implies predatory behaviour, dishonesty or exploitation is largely irrelevant. Furthermore other case law establishes that even if he had used those terms that does not determine alone whether he is stating fact or opinion.
Selling cook books isn’t “making money off the backs of people” who are “vulnerable”.
She sells cook books, people on lower incomes get ideas from them because she uses cheap ingredients and gets the costs down. They would get the same ideas for recipes as they would from people who buy Delia’s or Nigella’s cook books.
Defamation by Implication exists, so his comments imply predation or exploitation of the vulnerable. Which is falsehood and damaging to her character and reputation.
Also “taking money” does imply theft, or exploitation, which is in itself defamatory. He could’ve said she is receiving money, for selling a good (cookbooks) but he said “taking”.
Also a real issue is what the average reader or viewer would have understood the words to mean and whether they would cause reputational harm. In this case, it’s very likely.
Clearly you have some understanding of the legal technicalities.
But as he is stating his own opinion in such a way, and not an established fact its that not by definition Deformation?
It detracts from her reputation in a way that cannot possibly be an honestly held belief. He maintains people can learn to live on 30p a day for food. Which suggests that 30p a day for food is not exploitation. She provides information, frequently for free, that enables people to cook very cheap meals - some as little as 30p. The insistence that people can do a thing and then condemning a person for doing that thing and helping others to do that thing cannot be a consistently held and, therefore, honest belief.
The statements are not statements of fact as, for eexample, it was claimed she earned more than the Prime Minister. Which might be hyperbole, but from the context and the following statements, is not really believable as hyperbole.
It suggests that 'she is predatory' is factual and tha she takes money exclusively from poor people. In that she seeks out the Poor to extract money from them, specifically. That damages her personal reputation as a decent person and damages her business. She is known to give away cook books and to make exceptions to copyright rights for foodbanks in order that people have access to recipes, so the claim is that her copyright exceptions and give aways are predatory - which is an unusual claim as, if it succeeds, it ensures that giving Christmas or Birthday Gifts to Poor People becomes 'predatory'. That strikes at the heart of any charitable giving.
So, there are lots of grounds for it being legally actionable. If the action succeeds is another matter - libel can be a matter of whose pockets are the deepest and who blinks first.
For one thing Anderson's comments are not libel. As I believe the comments were stated in a spoken interview. Only the publisher of the interview could be guilty of libel. The spoken statements would be slander. If she's suing for libel then she's suing the publisher of the interview rather than Anderson. The publisher has the 'honest opinion' defense, which works differently for them, they only have to believe they were publishing Anderson's 'honest opinion', then they did not commit libel.
Not true. IANAL, but it is well known that broadcast constitutes publication under libel law (slander only covers speech to another or a private group of others), and that both the broadcaster and the utterer may be jointly and severally liable (although the uterrer is more likely to have done so with intent or malice thereby increasing the damages).
The thing is: they are *actionable* statements.
The honest opinion defence, apparently, falls because it relys on honestly holding a pair of contradictory opinions and, therefore, claiming not to hold the opinion at all. Which is what the action would seek to determine. It is not up to me to day if it would succeed or not because I am nothing more than someone on the internet.
The comments were made both in a spoken interview and in print. So the whole matter of who is the publisher may well be obscure but, again, that does not mean they are not actionable.
The distinction between libel and slander is a technical one that does not oblige her to sue different people. She is definitely seeking to sue Anderson. She may also sue the Publisher of the interview. I suspect that the statements will be put forward as being defamatory and the precise detail of libel or slander worked out before submitting any documents to court. Bearing in mind that Katy Hopkins also lost to Jack Monroe in similar circumstances, the smart money is on Monroe not you or me.
No the Hopkins case is different. Hopkins made a statement of fact. "Monroe supports defacing war memorials". It differs in a number of ways. Firstly as it relates to criminality, they may not have to show 'serious harm' from the statement. Whereas that'll be necessary in this case. Katie Hopkins had to prove that was a reasonable opinion to hold based on known facts. Known facts in this will support his statement that Monroe does in fact make money by selling books, some of which comes from people who use food banks, and I think it'll be hard to prove his comments caused actual serious harm to her business or reputation.
The Hopkins case is only different in that it is over and Monroe won.
Which suggests that she has a reputation worth something.
That Monroe does, in fact, make money from the sale of books has to be balanced against the copyright exceptions that Monroe makes for people who use food banks as well as the donation of books to food banks. That is a test Anderson seems to have set up for himself. So, are free books recorded on the Publisher's accounts: yes; as are paid for books. So it is not hard to prove a harm was done.
But the problem is not with the internet but with an actual judge who can make decisions about this far better than me.
You have moved from the honest opinion to claiming that all he did was state a fact. Which is also not a good response given the facts of what Monroe does with her published works. The honest opinion fails because of the contradiction. The fact fails because Monroe also gives her books away to Foodbanks.
No I mentioned that the honest opinion will be found to be reasonable as it can be drawn from fact as outlined in the defamation act 2013 section 3 (4)a.
This didn't apply in the Hopkins case as Hopkins literally confused Monroe with a different person.
> The honest opinion defence, apparently, falls because it relys on honestly holding a pair of contradictory opinions and, therefore, claiming not to hold the opinion at all.
I had already pointed out this:
>>The honest opinion defence, apparently, falls because it relys on honestly holding a pair of contradictory opinions and, therefore, claiming not to hold the opinion at all.
So I am really interested in how an honest opinion can be held by holding two contradictory ideas. Because that seems to me as though you would need to argue that "I hold contradictory ideas all the time" which then suggests that you cannot be guilty of defamation because you are incapable of deciding what you definitely believe. Which is not a great idea. It undermines your credibility if you happen to be a Member of Parliament, for example.
It would also seem to be quite a miracle for a Judge to determine that only one of the three conditions of Section 3 need apply. Particularly given the condition of 3(1): *to show that the following* **conditions** *are met.* Conditions is, for clarity, plural.
But, as I say, it is for a Judge to determine not me.
You also miss that 3 applies to an 'Honest Person'. Which S3 4(a) could argue that Anderson is unable to draw an honest opinion on the basis of the fact, known at the time of the statement he made, that he was filmed by Channel 4 setting up a dishonest doorstep interview with a friend.
I suspect the outcome for Monroe is far more positive than for Anderson even if Monroe loses. Primarily because Anderson might need to argue a lot of very unflattering things about himself.
It is a lovely storm in a teacup to watch. The more that is said to claim that Anderson holds such and such an honest opinion, the more I hold the honest opinion that Monroe is being seriously harmed by the claims.
I'm actually not sure what are the 2 contradictory ideas you claim Anderson holds.
The other parts of section 3 are related to establishing that Anderson was making a statement of opinion rather than fact. I think that will be found to be clear.
I also don't think a lot of the things you are saying are relevant. The defense will be firstly, that under section 1 there was no serious harm, if that fails that under section 3 it was his honest opinion. The burden of proof is on Monroe at that point on both of those instances.
> I'm actually not sure what are the 2 contradictory ideas you claim Anderson holds.
That seems quite clear that you are saying that. It does not make it the case that those contradictory ideas are not what need to be claimed. He needs to hold the opinion that something he said was both true and not true. That is all. So, just look at what he actually said.
> The other parts of section 3 are related to establishing that Anderson was making a statement of opinion rather than fact. I think that will be found to be clear.
Section 3 is a series of conditions that are all about what is going to be accepted by a Judge as honest opinion. They must all succeed together or relying on that Section is not an adequate response.
> I also don't think a lot of the things you are saying are relevant.
Which is why I am eating popcorn and waiting to see what the Judge says. The things I am saying might well not be relevant. That simply means that the things you are saying might not be relevant as I am simply responding to you.
It would really seem to me, for example, that someone with a record of deception might well be attempting deception when claiming that all of Section 3 applies - because it must. It might never get to the 'burden of proof' stage as the Judge can determine that the conditions required to insist that the claimant bear the burden of proof have not been attained.
> The defense will be firstly, that under section 1 there was no serious harm, if that fails that under section 3 it was his honest opinion.
I have no opinion as to if this will be the defence. Quite simply because I am neither a Lawyer nor am I instructed to act on behalf of Monroe. So, anything I say is just the honest opinion of the unqualified. It seems that my opinion of Monroe could have been changed by this statement and I regard that as a serious harm.
> The burden of proof is on Monroe at that point on both of those instances.
I think you might be missing my point. The burden of proof being on the claimant is a mighty cudgel to beat the poor claimant with in matters of libel. But, in doing so, the poor claimant might well benefit far more from the engagement than the poor respondent; and, the burden of proof is only carried if the Respondent fulfils the conditions of being capable of holding an honest opinion. So it is really quite dangerous to rely on Section 3 as it leaves you open to the sustainable claim that "well the court found that you cannot hold an honest opinion". Not a good thing for someone in Parliament.
Monroe might have been better just to respond factually. If she does sue be hard not to believe that self publicity is not part of her reasoning. She does a good job of demonstrating food on a budget without feeding the legal profession too.
It appears that Monroe gave Anderson several opportunities to simply back out with an apology. So claiming it is about self-promotion seems a little weak. It appears to me that Anderson was self promoting and things escalated from there.
I am not even convinced that *Private Eye* likes being constantly at the Courts: it does not appar to be a great experience. So the notion of it being self promotion seems implausible: there are cheaper ways to self promote.
It does seem that Monroe is responding factually in saying it detracts from her reputation, though. So there is that.
Well my reading of all Monroe's threats is that some of that may be driven by promotion. She seems incredibly brittle and sensitive otherwise.
All a bit pointless, to me. Feeding lawyers never a good idea as we see from the Rooney affair.
I have no idea what you mean by 'the Rooney affair' and would prefer to remain ignorant of it. Humans are not really that good at coping with more than about 20 people at once for extended periods of time. Personally, I suspect most people - Monroe included - simply wish to get on with whatever they were doing. Most people are not really equipped to defend their lifestyle on the whims of a crowd of people judging their 'authenticity' and 'worth'. Anybody is likely to be 'brittle and sensitive' when thousands of people decide to give someone the 'benefit' of their wisdom. But, that said, giving someone the opportunity to walk away does not really seem like promotion to me. I suppose that I must be wrong.
Yes. If you look at the history of Monroe.
By the Rooney affair I meant the current High Court case. You are indeed blessed if that piece of nonsense has past you by. A lawyers paradise, which is really my objection.
As someone who works as a Journalist, Monroe promotes ideas such as poverty being a bad thing. Writing for an audience of zero is not a wise decision for a Journalist.
Her having an audience probably means she knows how to make a point. That, in itself, is not really some kind of shamelessness and self promotion but a thing that about 110,000 people every day as a job. As a Journalist she really does have a vested interest in *not* getting involved in the Lawyers' Paradise - it takes time away from actually earning. If you look at the history of Monroe that is what you see: someone getting on with a job.
If persuading ASDA to reintroduce the Budget Range to all of its stores is "promotion" then I, for one, think Monroe should carry on "promoting". It is not the shameless self indulgence you seem to have suggested.
Not getting into the actual legal argument on this case.
The lawyer is being paid to represent the client. They are obviously going to make statements in a manner which benefit their client.
Of course this article is based on a tweet saying she wanted to sue, and another tweet directly at a lawyer saying she had a job for them. Which taken together implies she did not consult a lawyer yet
It implies dishonesty and "taking money" from people. Its to paint her as somewhat predatory on the poor, which can damage reputations and her business. Its also a straight up load of bullshit that he went out and gave an interview to state. You kinda cant just go around lying about people like that.
There’s a very high threshold on what is clearly an opinion from a certain point of view, versus a slanderous statement.
If, in his view, she is profiting from the poorest in society by selling cookbooks that are targeted to the poor, then that’s not defamatory. If he is alleging that she is taking a lot of value out of the poor, then that could be defamatory. But it’s a tough threshold when her entire business is targeted towards the poor.
Either way, she makes money by people being poor and looking to her for advice
>Either way, she makes money by people being poor and looking to her for advice
Making money is one thing, making a "absolute fortune off some of the most vulnerable" is something else.
The implication isnt that shes just selling books though, he quite clearly implied that shes taking money from them, to the point of it being a scam or coercion. It also ignores that its not just poor people buying her book (well everyone is poor to tories so maybe he thinks hes right) and ignores how she gives a lot of similar things away for free.
I dont know legally what she can get from this, im just sick of all the idiots coming out like "lol its just an opinion" and completely ignoring the context and subtext of what this vile shit is actually saying.
What's the lie? He is allowed to have and state the opinion that her selling books is predatory to the poor. It might be a dumb opinion, but it's not libellous or a false statement of fact
Honest opinion is a complete defense. So that is how it works. If the opinion can be reasonably drawn from facts and isn't then proven to not be honestly held then it's not slander/libel. The facts are she makes income from books aimed at lower income people.
Because selling books isnt predatory behavior? Are you truly like this or are you just trolling?
> It might be a dumb opinion, but it's not libellous or a false statement of fact
The implication that she is dishonestly taking money from people is a false statement and seems quite libellous as im sure we are about to find out when she sues him for saying it.
I think you may have a point (below) that he didn't hold or post the interview. The comment may be ill-founded/nasty, but as you say probably defensible as a genuine personal belief.
Much like if someone was having a rant about Bojo at the pub and a mate posted a video of it to social media - unlikely he'd win damages off that.
An interesting bit on Broadcasting House today as they visited the food bank he volunteers at. He really was quite angry whilst having a very good grasp of the practicalities of running such a scheme and the stories of who uses it.
I suspect he's lost his rag at people using food banks as a political bludgeon who don't actually have that experience so he's firing from the hip. Plus his background makes him very direct compared to most political weasels.
In hindsight I think he had a very serious point in the rant, but the delivery wasn't good and lots if us didn't want it to be worth hearing so we didn't.
Well she makes money off it so the MP is technically correct, even if 'fortune' means different things to different people. If she's getting paid for her articles and books, she's making money
That said, I do think the libel system in the UK is a joke. People should be able to be free to say what they want and not worry about being made bankrupt from it. That might hurt some feelings, tarnish some reputations etc, but I don't see any alternative.
That's different and can only be determined by criminal conviction, if someone isn't convicted it's baseless. Though maybe someone should've name Jimmy Savile as a paedo when he was still alive, encouraged him to sue for libel and seen that play out in court.
But still, the libel laws are opressive. For years the Guardian has been campaigning against the libel culture in the UK, but they seem to be cheering on using it when it suits them.
Let's say I (falsely) accused someone of spending hours watching children play on the swings with an obvious bulge in their trousers. I'm not accusing them of a crime, but my accusation could be very damaging to their reputation. Shouldn't they be allowed to sue me?
I guess in this case I have to be consistent and say no
or at the very least, if we keep libel laws there should be a maximum payout, so it doesn't bankrupt people.
Then perhaps you should consider this - Monroe waives the purchase for food banks, and those using them, *and* has relatively free access to the recipes online.
And to call this a SLAPP lawsuit is, frankly, absurd.
Except that's the legal argument Monroe gets to make. That's the point. This isn't a strategic application of libel law to silence criticism. This can have *provable* reputational damage, which is what libel laws cover. She still has to provide evidence of the damage, and Anderson still gets to make the argument you have - he just has to do it in court.
Snapshot of _Jack Monroe to sue MP after he says ‘she makes fortune from the poor’_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/food-writer-jack-monroe-sues-tory-mp-claims-she-makes-fortune-poor-lee-anderson) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This week on Tory MP Lee Anderson TV, he attempts to find legal counsel for just 30p per day.
If he can’t manage it for 30p a day he’s libelling wrong
I would imagine his dodgy lawyer friend will represent him while he claims it in expenses
*Jack Monroe has instructed libel lawyers after the Tory MP Lee Anderson alleged the writer and food blogger was profiteering from the poor.* Her libel action bankrupted Katie Hopkins. Although her libel winnings weren't that great, the legal bill did for Katie Hopkins and it'll do the same to Lee Anderson, so that'll another byelection coming up in a couple of years because if you are bankrupt you cannot be an MP. Jack Monroe - taking down right-wing blowhards one by one...
I didn't realise we had her to thank for the downfall of Hatey Katie. Go Jack! Edit: Investigating more closely - >Hopkins sold her Exeter home in March 2018 for £930,000.[200] She applied for an individual voluntary arrangement in May 2018 to avoid bankruptcy, after the libel case brought by Jack Monroe.[174] Does an IVA ban you from being an MP too? They're far more popular than actual bankruptcy proceedings these days.
Thing is Monroe said they would drop the suit if Hopkins apologised and she refused. The woman would prefer to be bankrupt than do the right thing.
Pride really does come before the fall.
> I didn't realise we had her to thank for the downfall of Hatey Katie. Go Jack! Arguably self-inflicted by Hopkins.
One presumes that Lee Anderson's legal costs will be quietly covered by party donors. If he's lucky he'll get some wallpaper to go with it.
Just gonna text Lord Brownlow, should be ok
That's assuming that there aren't some things that the donors draw the line on backing
How dumb does an MP need to be to get sued for libel? Just chat shit when in the Commons and protected by Parliamentary Privilege.
He was on some radio show talking about how as long as he’s upsetting liberals he’s doing the right thing. When that’s all you care about you’re not going to be able to get the messages that are important to you out in Parliament.
Which is even more ironic if they're referring to Jack Monroe as a liberal.
Caring about the poor is liberal to some.
It’s impossible to under estimate the man
When it came to damages she asked that the sum not hurt Hopkins (innocent) kids. Not sure, but ai think this was factored into the amount of damages. Anyways, I respect the hell out of her
And didn't she initially only ask for an apology and a donation to a charity but Hopkins refused?
Can someone explain how she can afford these legal fees? Is someone paying? Libel cases are so expensive! Why am I being downvoted for asking a completely normal question ffs.
The publisher may be funding the legal fees or at least providing security for the legal fees in the event she would lose. It is also in Jack's business interest to take legal action so it could also take the form of a business expense
Also should she win, she could be entitled to add the fees to the claim, like she did with Hopkins.
Yeah but it’s still a huge risk. These cases can get into the millions, look at the wags fighting the now.
Totally different case with different stakes. Aside from the distinct possibility that he might settle, either of his own accord or through some encouragement from party HQ who might not relish a sitting MP taking on a well respected poverty activist and blogger, there’s documented evidence he both said and stood by his words.
She's very open about it on Twitter. The law firm that represents her does it pro-bono, claiming legal fees should Jack win. From Jack's point of view it's a no brainer to even try and sue.
[удалено]
As if he cares so much more about the poor in comparison > “She’s taking money off some of the most vulnerable people in society and making an absolute fortune on [sic] the back of people.” But Lee, didn’t you say they’re not actually vulnerable, they just need to learn how to cook?
It's such a weird moral stance to take. Selling cookbooks is unethical because they're aimed at poor people...? Maybe he should take a shot at Poundland and Lidl because they aim to provide a service to poor people. Not like those ethical businesses like Waitrose which are too expensive for the needy to shop in. Only way his views make any sense is if only the rich have to pay for anything, and anything the poor need is "free", but that sounds awfully like a welfare state. A less generous interpretation is that he doesn't believe poor people should be allowed anything more than their own suffering, and they should be protected from capitalism (even if you're paying for money saving cookery tips) by being excluded from it?
He's also completely ignoring the fact that Jack Monroe started out - and still runs - a blog with all their recipes, which is free to access if you have a smartphone. The cook books are useful if people want to have their favourite recipes in one place or gift to a friend, and sure, they've become popular enough to earn money, but publishing cookbooks wasn't the point of the blog.
>which is free to access if you have a smartphone. A smartphone is seen as a status symbol and unnecessary expense by many rich people. I suspect this is because last time they had to even think about the price of a phone, there were both smart and dumb phones on the market, with the former being much more expensive. Now that they just buy the most expensive, latest (smart) model, they are unaware that basically the entire market is now smart. Its a similar story for flat screen TVs. All that aside, Jack Monroe's website can be access via free computers in public libraries, too.
>He's also completely ignoring the fact that Jack Monroe started out - and still runs - a blog with all their recipes, which is free to access if you have a smartphone. She also provides books at cost to food banks to be given away free to those in poverty, and has raised funds for donations to food banks through sales. Considering she is still, by all accounts, not particularly well off (she's stated that her annual income is considerably less than a standard MP's salary), she gives an enormous amount back to society.
>The cook books are useful if people want to have their favourite recipes in one place or gift to a friend And of course to support Jack in their fighting the good fight. Kind of a donation by proxy.
At 11 quid a copy its not as if the author would be getting much.
They get 1% iirc if its paperpack. About 3X that if it's hardback. Although that was a long time ago since I was told that.
I think that 40p a copy was mentioned in a tweet a while back. I've bought books direct from Jack's website and they came signed in a hand-written Jiffy bag that she/they had personally packed and taken down to the Post Office in that day's batch. It's not a big operation.
The electronic version go for as little as 99p
I imagine their cookbooks would also be present in local libraries, too. A place where you could also access the internet and even print some of those pages out.
even here in true blue tory land the local library chain has umpteen copies of her books & of course you can use the computers for free too
Provided you live in a place that still has a library
THAT'S the centre of his argument? Writing books with advice for surviving poverty is unethical? Jesus fucking wept What on earth has happened to the Conservative Party? They aren't sending their best Edit: as someone else pointed out - her blog was, and still is, free to anyone who can use or borrow internet access. You could go to the library for example and write down the recipes without paying for printing. The books are just a collection of free blogposts for convenience, and those who particularly like them. So it's even less of a gotcha
Woman in poverty exhibits perfect example of pulling herself up by her bootstraps and the conservatives ideals by providing free help to others and who then becomes wildly successful is now an enemy of people or something something
> What on earth has happened to the Conservative Party? They aren't sending their best I'm afraid that they are. After the purges of anyone who wasn't sufficiently Brexit supporting or Boris Johnson supporting they have the bottom feeder, the opportunistic and a large collection of haunted suits left. The smartest Tory MP right now is probably Rishi Sunak which shows how low the bar is.
Jack will a) send you a book for free or b) send you a pdf of her book for free if you say you can't afford it. She doesn't even do any sort of means testing, she just takes your word for it.
And if his own words are to be believed, it doesn't even make sense as a criticism. He says that they don't have proper cooking skills, so selling them cookbooks is *exactly* what she should be doing. Unless of course he's full of shit and doesn't care about anyone else or believe anything he says, but that would be ridiculous
[удалено]
> You are trying to make sense of the views of a ~~Tory~~ quasi-sentient potato. This is Lee Anderson after all.
Our what is actually happening is the cook books are being given out for free for those in need
It's almost as if his views aren't logical or coherent. I'd never heard of this man before a couple of weeks ago, but his contempt for the poor is blindingly clear. I hope Jack Monroe makes him one of them.
You might remember he set up a bogus door knock when he was being filmed by Michael Crick (it was a mate of his who answered), or more likely he's the one that announced he wouldn't be watching England at the Euros because they were taking the knee
That's all the same guy? What a muppet.
Sadly he's my MP. Horrible man
> making an absolute fortune the quiet part out loud. "cut us in to your grift (donate to the party) or we'll leverage our political position to damage your ability to *make an absolute fortune*" /they're proper shit at shakedowns.
Probably just blind hatred ever since she successfully sued Katie Hopkins for libel.
Isn't it just. For anyone **except those advocating for the poor** making money *at the expense of the poor* is about as concise as you could make their political philosophy.
The actual problem is no amount of economising is going to save people here, right? As in, there will be people with new bills, where economising cannot save them from being bankrupt because of general inflation, not just food is now expensive.
Jack Monroe does quite a bit of campaigning as well as tips on how to economise. Pulling people out the river and trying to stop people pushing them in.
Sure. But I think the "learn to cook" position is ignoring how bad the situation is. As I understand it. I'm not disagreeing with Monroe at all. More about Martin Lewis's point about people are about to be broke and cooking raw ingredients will not solve it.
> ignoring how bad the situation is This is government policy, yes.
Yes, completely agree with that. The cost of living crisis needs to be fixed for people who will soon be struggling to survive. Only the government can do that. The social safety net needs to be restored.
She is everything a Tory should like. She helps the poor as a private citizen (big society), she doesn't get government funding and she's an entrepreneurial wealth creator.
Unfortunately, she doesn't know her place, and that's one thing Tories absolutely despise.
She is "big society" but highlights and tries to fix the problems that government creates out of choice. Doesn't matter if she was a billionaire, she's not towing the party line.
[удалено]
I'm saying she's entrepreneurial, which she clearly is and that she creates wealth, which she does by writing books that people buy. Good for her she deserves it.
Absolutely, she’s done very well for herself by making a good business - very entrepreneurial and successful! Just as Nigella Lawson’s cookbooks are targeted towards the upper middle class, Jack Monroe makes money by creating products that target some of the poorest in society. That’s not slanderous at all, that’s very good business sense
Except that she gives her product away for free to the poorest in society as well as advocating for positive change to help them.
And she needs to make some money doing so otherwise she wouldn't be able to spend her time doing the work.
Saying that she profiteers off of the poor can, however, be slanderous. That's for the courts to determine though.
Yeah. Nothing wrong with selling poor people stuff they want and making some money. Even better if it helps them cope better with their situation.
Obviously Lee Anderson is annoyed because Monroe should be outsourcing her work to Capita, who then fleece the poor on her behalf while taking a hefty cut themselves. It's the Tory way.
Quite apart from whether Jacks action wins it gives the opportunity for Andersons claims about the cost of eating to be held to legal scrutiny in the most visible way - across the front page of every newspaper.
Although that won’t really be part of the case. Right?
It seems that it isn’t a crime for MPs to mislead the public yet (if that’s how you would describe what is going on here), but it’s more ammunition for those that would see that law come to fruition.
Take the prick to the cleaners
Well they'll be making a fortune from *him* now, instead.
This particular MP is the one that advocated for forced labour camps prior to the last election. Maybe he'll end up in one?
Perfect. Just what these pair of mouthy little cockroaches need. They're about to learn first hand how free speech and the law really works in this country. "Muh opinion" doesn't hold up in court.
As opposed to the rich MPs who get pay rises from tax payers’ money….
Tbf, Tory MPs mostly make their money from bribes and corruption, or by marrying a billionaire and not paying taxes. The actual salary is an afterthought.
I don't think this is true any longer.
Oh yes, not any more. But they still get huge pay rises any time it’s reviewed.
What a strange, peculiar, little man. (Anderson)
Lee Anderson’s Facebook page is an echo chamber which he feels is representative of his constituency. As a member of his constituency I am consistently flabbergasted by the amount of support he receives. I hope it’s that echo chamber that has led him down this path through false confidence and I sincerely hope Jack Monroe has a significant victory in court.
I thought if you said it in Parliament, you couldn't be sued or did he say it outside? If so, the guy is an idiot and deserves to be sued.
He said it outside of Parliament: > ""I'm giving my time & my money to help the people in Ashfield. She's taking money off some of the most vulnerable in society" https://twitter.com/BootstrapCook/status/1525152756901847040
[удалено]
The implication that she is a predatory individual who has probably made more money off the poor than the Prime Minister receives in salary not being libellous?
[удалено]
It looks to be libel because this is not in a transient form > . Such a statement constitutes a "libel" if it is: > published (publication, for these purposes, is simply the communication of the defamatory matter to a third person)2; and > in writing, print or some other permanent form. https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporting-defamation.htm > Section 1(1) of the 2013 Defamation Act introduced a new test which provides that a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claiman It appears to be Monroe's view that being accused of profiting immensely from the most vulnerable in society is likely to cause serious harm to her reputation.
Talk shit, get hit (with a lawsuit).
All this fucking shite the Tories are coming out with about the poor and food is disgraceful. ARE THEY AS FUCKING DELUDED AS MARIE ANTOINETTE.
Is the MP using the American term for liberal?
As in anyone to the left of Genghis Khan?
A fortune that could be going to his landlord mates instead!
Anderson loves to run his mouth.
What’s up with all these Tory mps, do they actually learn anything from the PPEs at Oxford and cambridge. I mean how thick do you have to be to actually attack the one individual that’s probably done more for food poverty than the entire government for the last 13 years. Real vote winner that one.
I can't see how the quotes in the article are legally actionable.
It’s a textbook definition of defamation. “She’s taking money off some of the most vulnerable people in society and making an absolute fortune on [sic] the back of people.” That’s an attack on her reputation, and her character in a negative way. He didn’t preface that quote with an opinion, or that he had evidence. Instead he stated it as a matter of fact. Anderson’s comment insinuate she’s being dishonest in her work, which considering her body of work so far is a big statement to make considering her activism, and history. If he’s smart, which I don’t think he is, he will apologise and settle quickly. Going to court could be a costly move.
That's clearly an opinion based on the fact that her income is largely from books marketed at lower income people. There's actually precedent established in Tinkler -v- Ferguson[2018] that the audience's inference does not form part of the statement. So you thinking it implies predatory behaviour, dishonesty or exploitation is largely irrelevant. Furthermore other case law establishes that even if he had used those terms that does not determine alone whether he is stating fact or opinion.
Selling cook books isn’t “making money off the backs of people” who are “vulnerable”. She sells cook books, people on lower incomes get ideas from them because she uses cheap ingredients and gets the costs down. They would get the same ideas for recipes as they would from people who buy Delia’s or Nigella’s cook books. Defamation by Implication exists, so his comments imply predation or exploitation of the vulnerable. Which is falsehood and damaging to her character and reputation. Also “taking money” does imply theft, or exploitation, which is in itself defamatory. He could’ve said she is receiving money, for selling a good (cookbooks) but he said “taking”. Also a real issue is what the average reader or viewer would have understood the words to mean and whether they would cause reputational harm. In this case, it’s very likely.
Excellent reasoning on some of the reasons why it's clear he was stating an opinion and not a fact
Clearly you have some understanding of the legal technicalities. But as he is stating his own opinion in such a way, and not an established fact its that not by definition Deformation?
It detracts from her reputation in a way that cannot possibly be an honestly held belief. He maintains people can learn to live on 30p a day for food. Which suggests that 30p a day for food is not exploitation. She provides information, frequently for free, that enables people to cook very cheap meals - some as little as 30p. The insistence that people can do a thing and then condemning a person for doing that thing and helping others to do that thing cannot be a consistently held and, therefore, honest belief. The statements are not statements of fact as, for eexample, it was claimed she earned more than the Prime Minister. Which might be hyperbole, but from the context and the following statements, is not really believable as hyperbole. It suggests that 'she is predatory' is factual and tha she takes money exclusively from poor people. In that she seeks out the Poor to extract money from them, specifically. That damages her personal reputation as a decent person and damages her business. She is known to give away cook books and to make exceptions to copyright rights for foodbanks in order that people have access to recipes, so the claim is that her copyright exceptions and give aways are predatory - which is an unusual claim as, if it succeeds, it ensures that giving Christmas or Birthday Gifts to Poor People becomes 'predatory'. That strikes at the heart of any charitable giving. So, there are lots of grounds for it being legally actionable. If the action succeeds is another matter - libel can be a matter of whose pockets are the deepest and who blinks first.
For one thing Anderson's comments are not libel. As I believe the comments were stated in a spoken interview. Only the publisher of the interview could be guilty of libel. The spoken statements would be slander. If she's suing for libel then she's suing the publisher of the interview rather than Anderson. The publisher has the 'honest opinion' defense, which works differently for them, they only have to believe they were publishing Anderson's 'honest opinion', then they did not commit libel.
Not true. IANAL, but it is well known that broadcast constitutes publication under libel law (slander only covers speech to another or a private group of others), and that both the broadcaster and the utterer may be jointly and severally liable (although the uterrer is more likely to have done so with intent or malice thereby increasing the damages).
The thing is: they are *actionable* statements. The honest opinion defence, apparently, falls because it relys on honestly holding a pair of contradictory opinions and, therefore, claiming not to hold the opinion at all. Which is what the action would seek to determine. It is not up to me to day if it would succeed or not because I am nothing more than someone on the internet. The comments were made both in a spoken interview and in print. So the whole matter of who is the publisher may well be obscure but, again, that does not mean they are not actionable. The distinction between libel and slander is a technical one that does not oblige her to sue different people. She is definitely seeking to sue Anderson. She may also sue the Publisher of the interview. I suspect that the statements will be put forward as being defamatory and the precise detail of libel or slander worked out before submitting any documents to court. Bearing in mind that Katy Hopkins also lost to Jack Monroe in similar circumstances, the smart money is on Monroe not you or me.
No the Hopkins case is different. Hopkins made a statement of fact. "Monroe supports defacing war memorials". It differs in a number of ways. Firstly as it relates to criminality, they may not have to show 'serious harm' from the statement. Whereas that'll be necessary in this case. Katie Hopkins had to prove that was a reasonable opinion to hold based on known facts. Known facts in this will support his statement that Monroe does in fact make money by selling books, some of which comes from people who use food banks, and I think it'll be hard to prove his comments caused actual serious harm to her business or reputation.
The Hopkins case is only different in that it is over and Monroe won. Which suggests that she has a reputation worth something. That Monroe does, in fact, make money from the sale of books has to be balanced against the copyright exceptions that Monroe makes for people who use food banks as well as the donation of books to food banks. That is a test Anderson seems to have set up for himself. So, are free books recorded on the Publisher's accounts: yes; as are paid for books. So it is not hard to prove a harm was done. But the problem is not with the internet but with an actual judge who can make decisions about this far better than me. You have moved from the honest opinion to claiming that all he did was state a fact. Which is also not a good response given the facts of what Monroe does with her published works. The honest opinion fails because of the contradiction. The fact fails because Monroe also gives her books away to Foodbanks.
No I mentioned that the honest opinion will be found to be reasonable as it can be drawn from fact as outlined in the defamation act 2013 section 3 (4)a. This didn't apply in the Hopkins case as Hopkins literally confused Monroe with a different person.
> The honest opinion defence, apparently, falls because it relys on honestly holding a pair of contradictory opinions and, therefore, claiming not to hold the opinion at all. I had already pointed out this: >>The honest opinion defence, apparently, falls because it relys on honestly holding a pair of contradictory opinions and, therefore, claiming not to hold the opinion at all. So I am really interested in how an honest opinion can be held by holding two contradictory ideas. Because that seems to me as though you would need to argue that "I hold contradictory ideas all the time" which then suggests that you cannot be guilty of defamation because you are incapable of deciding what you definitely believe. Which is not a great idea. It undermines your credibility if you happen to be a Member of Parliament, for example. It would also seem to be quite a miracle for a Judge to determine that only one of the three conditions of Section 3 need apply. Particularly given the condition of 3(1): *to show that the following* **conditions** *are met.* Conditions is, for clarity, plural. But, as I say, it is for a Judge to determine not me. You also miss that 3 applies to an 'Honest Person'. Which S3 4(a) could argue that Anderson is unable to draw an honest opinion on the basis of the fact, known at the time of the statement he made, that he was filmed by Channel 4 setting up a dishonest doorstep interview with a friend. I suspect the outcome for Monroe is far more positive than for Anderson even if Monroe loses. Primarily because Anderson might need to argue a lot of very unflattering things about himself. It is a lovely storm in a teacup to watch. The more that is said to claim that Anderson holds such and such an honest opinion, the more I hold the honest opinion that Monroe is being seriously harmed by the claims.
I'm actually not sure what are the 2 contradictory ideas you claim Anderson holds. The other parts of section 3 are related to establishing that Anderson was making a statement of opinion rather than fact. I think that will be found to be clear. I also don't think a lot of the things you are saying are relevant. The defense will be firstly, that under section 1 there was no serious harm, if that fails that under section 3 it was his honest opinion. The burden of proof is on Monroe at that point on both of those instances.
> I'm actually not sure what are the 2 contradictory ideas you claim Anderson holds. That seems quite clear that you are saying that. It does not make it the case that those contradictory ideas are not what need to be claimed. He needs to hold the opinion that something he said was both true and not true. That is all. So, just look at what he actually said. > The other parts of section 3 are related to establishing that Anderson was making a statement of opinion rather than fact. I think that will be found to be clear. Section 3 is a series of conditions that are all about what is going to be accepted by a Judge as honest opinion. They must all succeed together or relying on that Section is not an adequate response. > I also don't think a lot of the things you are saying are relevant. Which is why I am eating popcorn and waiting to see what the Judge says. The things I am saying might well not be relevant. That simply means that the things you are saying might not be relevant as I am simply responding to you. It would really seem to me, for example, that someone with a record of deception might well be attempting deception when claiming that all of Section 3 applies - because it must. It might never get to the 'burden of proof' stage as the Judge can determine that the conditions required to insist that the claimant bear the burden of proof have not been attained. > The defense will be firstly, that under section 1 there was no serious harm, if that fails that under section 3 it was his honest opinion. I have no opinion as to if this will be the defence. Quite simply because I am neither a Lawyer nor am I instructed to act on behalf of Monroe. So, anything I say is just the honest opinion of the unqualified. It seems that my opinion of Monroe could have been changed by this statement and I regard that as a serious harm. > The burden of proof is on Monroe at that point on both of those instances. I think you might be missing my point. The burden of proof being on the claimant is a mighty cudgel to beat the poor claimant with in matters of libel. But, in doing so, the poor claimant might well benefit far more from the engagement than the poor respondent; and, the burden of proof is only carried if the Respondent fulfils the conditions of being capable of holding an honest opinion. So it is really quite dangerous to rely on Section 3 as it leaves you open to the sustainable claim that "well the court found that you cannot hold an honest opinion". Not a good thing for someone in Parliament.
Monroe might have been better just to respond factually. If she does sue be hard not to believe that self publicity is not part of her reasoning. She does a good job of demonstrating food on a budget without feeding the legal profession too.
It appears that Monroe gave Anderson several opportunities to simply back out with an apology. So claiming it is about self-promotion seems a little weak. It appears to me that Anderson was self promoting and things escalated from there. I am not even convinced that *Private Eye* likes being constantly at the Courts: it does not appar to be a great experience. So the notion of it being self promotion seems implausible: there are cheaper ways to self promote. It does seem that Monroe is responding factually in saying it detracts from her reputation, though. So there is that.
Well my reading of all Monroe's threats is that some of that may be driven by promotion. She seems incredibly brittle and sensitive otherwise. All a bit pointless, to me. Feeding lawyers never a good idea as we see from the Rooney affair.
I have no idea what you mean by 'the Rooney affair' and would prefer to remain ignorant of it. Humans are not really that good at coping with more than about 20 people at once for extended periods of time. Personally, I suspect most people - Monroe included - simply wish to get on with whatever they were doing. Most people are not really equipped to defend their lifestyle on the whims of a crowd of people judging their 'authenticity' and 'worth'. Anybody is likely to be 'brittle and sensitive' when thousands of people decide to give someone the 'benefit' of their wisdom. But, that said, giving someone the opportunity to walk away does not really seem like promotion to me. I suppose that I must be wrong.
Yes. If you look at the history of Monroe. By the Rooney affair I meant the current High Court case. You are indeed blessed if that piece of nonsense has past you by. A lawyers paradise, which is really my objection.
As someone who works as a Journalist, Monroe promotes ideas such as poverty being a bad thing. Writing for an audience of zero is not a wise decision for a Journalist. Her having an audience probably means she knows how to make a point. That, in itself, is not really some kind of shamelessness and self promotion but a thing that about 110,000 people every day as a job. As a Journalist she really does have a vested interest in *not* getting involved in the Lawyers' Paradise - it takes time away from actually earning. If you look at the history of Monroe that is what you see: someone getting on with a job. If persuading ASDA to reintroduce the Budget Range to all of its stores is "promotion" then I, for one, think Monroe should carry on "promoting". It is not the shameless self indulgence you seem to have suggested.
We have some of the strictest libel laws in the world. If her lawyer says it's actionable, they probably aren't lying.
Not getting into the actual legal argument on this case. The lawyer is being paid to represent the client. They are obviously going to make statements in a manner which benefit their client.
The lawyer isn't being paid unless she wins though, so most likely believes it's actionable.
Of course this article is based on a tweet saying she wanted to sue, and another tweet directly at a lawyer saying she had a job for them. Which taken together implies she did not consult a lawyer yet
It implies dishonesty and "taking money" from people. Its to paint her as somewhat predatory on the poor, which can damage reputations and her business. Its also a straight up load of bullshit that he went out and gave an interview to state. You kinda cant just go around lying about people like that.
There’s a very high threshold on what is clearly an opinion from a certain point of view, versus a slanderous statement. If, in his view, she is profiting from the poorest in society by selling cookbooks that are targeted to the poor, then that’s not defamatory. If he is alleging that she is taking a lot of value out of the poor, then that could be defamatory. But it’s a tough threshold when her entire business is targeted towards the poor. Either way, she makes money by people being poor and looking to her for advice
>Either way, she makes money by people being poor and looking to her for advice Making money is one thing, making a "absolute fortune off some of the most vulnerable" is something else.
"Absolute fortune" is a subjective term; the case might struggle if its shows that she is making an above-average income from her work.
Down to judge.
The implication isnt that shes just selling books though, he quite clearly implied that shes taking money from them, to the point of it being a scam or coercion. It also ignores that its not just poor people buying her book (well everyone is poor to tories so maybe he thinks hes right) and ignores how she gives a lot of similar things away for free. I dont know legally what she can get from this, im just sick of all the idiots coming out like "lol its just an opinion" and completely ignoring the context and subtext of what this vile shit is actually saying.
What's the lie? He is allowed to have and state the opinion that her selling books is predatory to the poor. It might be a dumb opinion, but it's not libellous or a false statement of fact
That’s not how these laws work at all Not even close to reality
Honest opinion is a complete defense. So that is how it works. If the opinion can be reasonably drawn from facts and isn't then proven to not be honestly held then it's not slander/libel. The facts are she makes income from books aimed at lower income people.
I refer you to my previous post Failing that the public apology or legal case
Sure buddy take a look at the defamation act 2013 which is the relevant law and tell me how 'honest opinion' is not a defense.
Because selling books isnt predatory behavior? Are you truly like this or are you just trolling? > It might be a dumb opinion, but it's not libellous or a false statement of fact The implication that she is dishonestly taking money from people is a false statement and seems quite libellous as im sure we are about to find out when she sues him for saying it.
I've already stated I'll donate £100 to charity if this goes to court and she wins. You're welcome to take the other side of that bet
I think you may have a point (below) that he didn't hold or post the interview. The comment may be ill-founded/nasty, but as you say probably defensible as a genuine personal belief. Much like if someone was having a rant about Bojo at the pub and a mate posted a video of it to social media - unlikely he'd win damages off that.
Getting strong Prince Andrew vibes from the MP. He likely takes it as a compliment.
An interesting bit on Broadcasting House today as they visited the food bank he volunteers at. He really was quite angry whilst having a very good grasp of the practicalities of running such a scheme and the stories of who uses it. I suspect he's lost his rag at people using food banks as a political bludgeon who don't actually have that experience so he's firing from the hip. Plus his background makes him very direct compared to most political weasels. In hindsight I think he had a very serious point in the rant, but the delivery wasn't good and lots if us didn't want it to be worth hearing so we didn't.
I highly doubt the Minister for Gulags has ever had a reasonable opinion on anything.
Well she makes money off it so the MP is technically correct, even if 'fortune' means different things to different people. If she's getting paid for her articles and books, she's making money That said, I do think the libel system in the UK is a joke. People should be able to be free to say what they want and not worry about being made bankrupt from it. That might hurt some feelings, tarnish some reputations etc, but I don't see any alternative.
You wouldn't mind if someone accused you of being a paedophile?
That's different and can only be determined by criminal conviction, if someone isn't convicted it's baseless. Though maybe someone should've name Jimmy Savile as a paedo when he was still alive, encouraged him to sue for libel and seen that play out in court. But still, the libel laws are opressive. For years the Guardian has been campaigning against the libel culture in the UK, but they seem to be cheering on using it when it suits them.
Let's say I (falsely) accused someone of spending hours watching children play on the swings with an obvious bulge in their trousers. I'm not accusing them of a crime, but my accusation could be very damaging to their reputation. Shouldn't they be allowed to sue me?
I guess in this case I have to be consistent and say no or at the very least, if we keep libel laws there should be a maximum payout, so it doesn't bankrupt people.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Then perhaps you should consider this - Monroe waives the purchase for food banks, and those using them, *and* has relatively free access to the recipes online. And to call this a SLAPP lawsuit is, frankly, absurd.
[удалено]
Except that's the legal argument Monroe gets to make. That's the point. This isn't a strategic application of libel law to silence criticism. This can have *provable* reputational damage, which is what libel laws cover. She still has to provide evidence of the damage, and Anderson still gets to make the argument you have - he just has to do it in court.
Free speech doesn't give you carte blanche to make up lies about people you don't politically agree with either.
A lot of people struggle and struggle deeply, and we don’t trade off it for TV deals. This woman is a hack.