Open letter to Lord McAlpine
Dear Lord McAlpine
I saw your press statement dated yesterday via Nick Sutton on Twitter.
For the record I am neither an ill- or uninformed commentator. The evidence is that I correctly identified you as the person whom Newsnight refused to name for legal reasons.
Of late there has been a number of rich and powerful people using libel laws and injunctions in an attempt to hide their indiscretions from public gaze. On the other hand, we have seen those on Community Service having to wear High-Visability jackets to expose them to public gaze. So, not everybody is equal in the eyes of the law.
I identified you not as the guilty man of the child abuse allegations, but as the man Newsnight refused to name. It is for the courts to decide guilt or innocence.
Indeed a substantial number of people got your name after I published it on my blog and on Twitter. I reasonably inferred it was you and took a gamble and it paid off.
Indeed there was a media frenzy, and I did my best to whip up a storm. Sometimes the lesser constrained social media achieves where the constrained MainStreamMedia fails. Sometimes the MSM provides pieces of the jig-saw puzzle and lets the new media piece the picture together then the MSM prints what is on the internet.
I care naught for threats of being sued for defamation of character, because being a 'man of straw' I know that being poor is a libel lawyer's worst nightmare. The downside is that when I get libeled I cannot afford the lawyers fees to sue.
It is a shame that Clwyd Council chose not to publish the report. I feel it should have done so with a rider that some parts cannot be substantiated. There is a feeling that the report was suppressed because of the alleged involvement of rich and powerful people. There is an allegation that the son of a Peer was not prosecuted in spite of his confessing to the police that he had engaged in paedophile activities.
In conclusion, I have not been malicious in exposing your name.
Yours sincerely
John Hirst (Jailhouselawyer).
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
11 comments:
"Of late there has been a number of rich and powerful people using libel laws and injunctions in an attempt to hide their indiscretions from public gaze. On the other hand, we have seen those on Community Service having to wear High-Visability jackets to expose them to public gaze. So, not everybody is equal in the eyes of the law."
See, what's happened there is you've mixed up people who would rather keep what they've been (legally) up to out of the press and people who are convicted criminals. People who are criminals are treated differently than non-criminals while their sentence is being served. Who'd have thought, eh?
"I care naught for threats of being sued for defamation of character, because being a 'man of straw' I know that being poor is a libel lawyer's worst nightmare."
Not particularly. You can be forced to pay damages - just look forward to paying them in instalments for the rest of your life.
"The downside is that when I get libeled I cannot afford the lawyers fees to sue."
Heh. No win no fee passed you by?
"There is a feeling that the report was suppressed because of the alleged involvement of rich and powerful people."
And absolutely zero evidence to further this.
"There is an allegation that the son of a Peer was not prosecuted in spite of his confessing to the police that he had engaged in paedophile activities."
Ditto.
"In conclusion, I have not been malicious in exposing your name."
See, quite apart from that fact that this statement does not follow from anything you have said in your post, it also happens to be a claim that is difficult not to laugh about.
It's a shame that someone who has done such good for prisoner votes is also such a self-serving tosser. Ah well. Such is life.
Congratulation at obtaining your degree in ignorance.
No I don't see any mix up but an intentional comparison.
Idiot. You are obviously not a libel lawyer. First the other party has to prove their case and that what was claimed actually injured reputation. It's a rich man's law. Ever tried getting blood out of a stone?
There is no no win no fee for libel. Lawyer's want £5,000 just for looking at the papers.
Do your own research for the evidence.
Ditto.
Ask a lawyer to explain the malicious bit that you don't grasp.
Ho, ho, ho. I am laughing at you making a fool of yourself in my comments.
Thanks for your praise re prisoners votes. However, it is Cameron who is the Tory tosser. I claim no credit for that.
"No I don't see any mix up but an intentional comparison."
Which was meant to show what, exactly?
"Idiot. You are obviously not a libel lawyer."
No, but then again - neither are you.
"There is no no win no fee for libel."
Utter, utter shit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/video/2011/nov/18/no-win-no-fee-libel-justice-video
Was every single participant in this video lying?
"Do your own research for the evidence."
Not really how it works. You assert, you prove.
Just wondering what your next comment will be?
John, your post reads like a desperate attempt to mitigate the extremely serious defamation you have plainly committed against Lord McAlpine and other public figures on your blog. You suggest that your reference to Lord McAlpine's name was merely to identity him as the subject of the Newsnight investigation. This is patently untrue. You have repeatedly named him here as a "Tory Paedophile", and you have done so without even a trace of substantial evidence. Instead of a self-serving post which attempts to rewrite your involvement in this appalling assault on Lord McAlpine's reputation, you might have shown a little more generosity of spirit and offered him an unreserved apology. As it is, you have simply (and literally) added insult to injury. And your insult is not limited to Lord McAlpine but extends to the readers of this blog, whose intelligence you now assault by this ridiculous misrepresentation of your own published words. I know you have a high regard for your own legal acumen, but you might be better advised by a professional lawyer with some expertise in defamation. While considering your options, you might also consider removing all these offending posts and their references to other public figures.
John,
I don't know who you are and only found your blog after hearing about the Philip Schofield furore (which was also widely reported in the news and hence brought this issue to a much wider audience).
"Steve" (another commenter) has stated that you can get a no win no fee lawyer for libel action. I have to say that this is not strictly true. You would first need to find a lawyer who is willing to take the risk on your case. Only the most clear cut cases are taken on by no win no fee lawyers and this is because they are 100% sure of being able to get a costs payout from the losing side.
I also agree with the other commenter that you need to get urgent legal advice in what is likely to be a very high profile case. For which reason you may be able to secure the services of a legal representative (who is willing to act for you pro bono), because whatever the outcome such a case would likely set a precedent.
It is fortunate for Lord McAlpine that he has been able to refute the allegations in this way. I'm curious as to how on earth the police managed to attach his name to the photograph of another individual (IMO this was pure incompetence!).
On a related point, this is one of the downsides to withholding the names of those who stand accused, because many innocent people become the targets for speculation and it is human nature to speculate.
you realize that you have actually harmed the investigation of actual child abuse?
do you even care? are you a sociopath? do you actually not realize what you have done?
Which was meant to show what, exactly?
What do you think it was meant to show?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/video/2011/nov/18/no-win-no-fee-libel-justice-video
Was every single participant in this video lying?
I'm afraid that just tells you that libel is a rich man's game of keeping the legal action going.
Not really how it works. You assert, you prove.
Well, no, otherwise libel would just get incredibly ridiculous to the point where people could get sued for everything they say. There is not a requirement for everyone to prove what they say.
As he says, the alleged injured party has to prove that their reputation was injured. That amounts to lawyers fees and time in court - which all has to be recouped somehow.
not sure you helped, i was surprised not to see peter morrison's name on your list, top tory aide to pm he fitted the bill, or did you get the wrong mc alpine ?
any idea what's really going on now ? has this been planned since tom watson broke the story in parliament ?
I think we all know full well that McAlpine is not going to take legal action of any kind. He will hope this now goes quiet.
ECJ has long ago made a ruling that only those who download some stuff illegally on the internet are to be found as committing an offence. The rest who use such a link to download the stuff later cannot be found gulity as they cannot reasonably establish if the stuff they download is from a legitimate source or not.
In the case when the public opinion refers to a publication previously reported by a powerful source of media, not a single citizen cannot be held responsible for catching along the tune.
Which is why MacAlpine referred to the Newsnight only, as the primary source of libellous information.
If some people still don't get this logic, I refer them to the simplest mechanisms of a harmful gossip around - once a gossips goes out, it drifts and drifts... One would only want to establish (and punish) the one/those who started the gossip in the first place rather than those who deliberate on its validity.
You have nothing to worry about John.
Post a Comment