Tag: Libel

Corbyn’s Libel Case – This Blog Suddenly Becomes Relevant

July 23rd, 2020 / Leave Feedback / nezuppal

As if there is some higher power or something, today the hashtag #istandwithcorbyn emerged. Having previously done articles about libel laws and Corbyn’s time as leader of the Labour party it seems as if the God is reading my blog and giving me things to write about. Or it’s a coincidence.

I would advise you to read my Johnny Depp vs. The Sun article to get a summary of libel laws. Then my article on Labour’s fear of winning – in which I did express dissatisfaction for Corbyn’s style of leadership, prior to reading this. I have never denied he is a man of integrity. In the face of constant attacks, misinformation and downright lies Corbyn managed not to go completely insane. I do not deny the man’s heart and his political convictions. What I was questioning in my article was his leadership style and, more importantly, the fact that he was and is a genuinely caring human would mean that Labour would never get into power. Name me a high-ranking politician who is a genuinely good, caring person. Go on.

The saying goes, “nice guys finish last.” And that was my point on Corbyn in my previous article.

So what’s the story? Well, a Panorama presenter called John Ware is suing Jeremy Corbyn for libel. When Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour party one of his many headaches was the media. This was back when Jeremy Corbyn had near-full support within the Labour party. The Party supported their leader, as they should, and accused John Ware’s investigation into antisemitism within the Labour Party as a “deliberate and malicious misrepresentations designed to mislead the public”.

This is where it gets slightly confusing. Seven former employees from Labour’s governance and legal unit, who contributed to the programme, had sued the party after it issued a press release describing them as having “personal and political axes to grind”.

So what do we have? An investigative journalist doing his job within the Labour Party. Then we have whistle-blowers within the Labour Party who testify to antisemitism not being tackled appropriately internally. The Labour Party says this is nothing more than a personal attack on Corbyn to try to undermine his credibility – a possibility but we won’t find out for many months.

Now, if you had read my previous article on libel laws in the UK you will remember that they are virtually impossible to win without clear evidence, strong backing and – most importantly – a load of money. And so that is why Carole Morgan has created a ‘gofundme’ type page to raise a target of £20,000 to help Corbyn fight his legal battle. See, unlike Boris Johnson, David Cameron or George Osborne, Corbyn is not part of the Eton-Oxford-PPE elite. He is a humble, not particularly wealthy, politician who has come under attack.

You may be thinking at this point – why does Corbyn need more money. He is still part of the Labour Party, the party which originally defended Corbyn against these claims.

But in the late hours of yesterday the Labour Party issued a statement saying: It would pay “substantial damages” and accepted press statements made against them last year were “defamatory and false”.

The party also apologised and agreed to pay damages to John Ware – the journalist who presented the Panorama investigation – after falsely accusing him of “deliberate and malicious misrepresentations designed to mislead the public”.

This is almost unprecedented. The Labour Party just lay down. It is virtually impossible to win a libel case but the Labour Party surrendered before the fight had even begun!

After leaving the High Court yesterday Corbyn issued a statement which, whilst I suspect is most likely true, did absolutely nothing to help his personal image and case. He said, “The party’s decision to apologise today and make substantial payments to former staff who sued the party in relation to last year’s Panorama programme is a political decision, not a legal one.” And I think I agree.

Corbyn has always been a thorn in Labour’s side. When he was a backbencher he voted most consistently against Blair’s proposals because he did not feel they were left-wing enough. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq Corbyn directly asked Tony Blair, “why are we doing this?” To which Tony Blair ignored him and carried on down the corridor.

The Party’s decision to abandon Corbyn, one of their longest-serving MPs, demonstrates the ruthlessness within the party that we only really see in the Conservative Party. But Corbyn has already lost this case because the Labour Party have abandoned him. The fundraiser may help – but Corbyn can’t escape this and the lack of loyalty from the Labour leadership was almost certainly the final nail in the coffin.

Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite and Labour’s biggest donor, also lashed out at the action from the Labour Party. He said: “Today’s settlement is a misuse of Labour Party funds to settle a case it was advised we would win in court,” he said. And he’s absolutely right; with the support of the Labour Party Corbyn could have won. He could have won something!!

The Labour Party want to move on from Corbyn’s brief legacy. Starmer has already committed himself to removing any sort of anti-semitism in the Party, obviously a great commitment but one which I think he will find hard to acheive.

The abandonment of Corbyn in such a cold-manner is certainly more worthy of the Conservative Party than any previous Labour Party.

Johnny Depp vs. The S*n

July 20th,0 / Leave Feedback / nezuppal

Who still reads The S*n? Who still works for The S*n? Why? Journalistic principles, investigative work, or so you can add click-bait to my Facebook page?

Everyone I know, everyone I’ve met and anyone I respect knows The S*n is the worst newspaper in Britain. I have never read it once, I am ashamed to admit.  In fact, I can’t recall a time when I’ve ever seen anyone read it. Yet it remains a jewel in Rupert Murdoch’s journalistic crown as the third most-read newspaper in the country.

Hillsborough victim dies 32 years after UK stadium disaster | AP News

The paper that dismissed Liverpool fans as ‘drunken hooligans’ and blamed them directly for the Hillsborough disaster, whilst simultaneously protecting corrupt police officers and politicians. That’s the paper you really want to be seen reading? I suspect it is largely read in private, out of shame.

The new problem The S*n now faces is the claims about domestic abuse from Amber Heard and Johnny Depp. The saga began because The S*n’s Executive Editor, Dan Wooton, referred to Depp as a ‘wife-beater’ in 2018 and claimed there was ‘overwhelming evidence’ that he had been attacking his then-wife Amber Heard. It goes without saying that there was no evidence. Normally, that wouldn’t be a problem for The S*n. They throw mud, it sticks, do they have to prove anything? No. Johnny Depp’s career is ruined and they can move on to the next target.

It was actually J.K Rowling’s decision to cast Johnny Depp in her new ‘Fantastic Beasts’ that re-ignited The S*n’s irrational hatred of Johnny Depp. How dare Rowling cast an incredibly successful actor in a lead role? They’d accused him without any evidence, this was over.

But Johnny Depp had recordings, terrible recordings of Heard punching him in the face, slicing his hand with a bottle of vodka and (sorry for this) defecating in his bed. Their relationship doesn’t interest me at all, I’m sure there were problems on both sides. What’s more important than Depp vs Heard, to me, is Depp vs The S*n.

In America libel laws are the exact opposite to those in the UK. In the USA if a newspaper wants to print an article it needs to have actual verifiable proof, which could hold up in court, before they can print a ‘revealing’ or ‘investigative’ article. This is what makes it so hard for American newspapers to take down Trump or any other senior politician, because the pressure is on them to find the evidence.

Rather bizarrely, in the UK libel laws require the accuser to provide proof of their innocence. In this instance, Depp has to prove that he was not a ‘wife-beater’, rather than The S*n being forced to reveal their evidence (of which there is probably little more than hearsay). This is why victory in libel cases in the UK is so low – because so much effort, evidence and money has to be funnelled into a court case that you will probably lose anyway.

Innocent until proven guilty? Unfortunately, not for Johnny Depp.