Housing crisis. Number 10 apologises over tory slur e-mail

Zagu

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I think you are confusing two separate things. You were suggesting that it was Libel because they intended to publish smears which hadn't been written yet

Of course they had been written! The very first step in the chain of events was McBride writing to Draper asking him what he thought of his stupid stories.

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Saying "am I going to do X" and not doing it doesn't make you guilty of doing so, even under civil proceedings.

Writing down "am I going to do X", sending to your friend, then your friend writing back saying "am I going to do X" is "Absolutely Totally Brilliant", and then goes further with ideas of how to publish "am I going to do X" is not the same as saying "am I going to do X". In fact, it's a million miles from it.

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I am saying that the email - where writing such smears was suggested - claimed as libellous was never intended for wider publication in that it was written by one person to three others.

Man alive. The email it's self wasn't intended for wider publication, but the sentiments it contained were intended for a much wider audience.

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

In making your comment above you are confusing the two.

I don't think I'm confusing anything. I think you are trying to squirm your way out a situation you appear to understand almost nothing about.

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Easy to clip words out of their context and come to a false conclusion as you have just demonstrated.

Rubbish. Now you're just being a idiot. I took nothing out of context.

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about - its been a good decade since the term-long module on media law as part of my Journalism degree

You have a journalism degree, and yet your usual level of discussion often doesn't advance beyond "Look at the Tories though..."? Amazing.

A._Badger

It's a journalism degree. What did you expect? Someone has to train the next generation of 'fearless newshounds' for the MSM. Who better than Left-wing college lecturers?

Rochdale_Pioneers

Zazu, I think you're being rather dim, so I will respond collectively to your various comments. The smear campaign wasn't written - the email said "lets pretend Cameron has an embarrassing illness" etc - they hadn't written them up for publication on their smear website, they'd just come up with the topics. Is a newspaper story written when they type the headline and nothing else?

And "intended for a much wider audience" is exactly the point. Libel law doesn't allow for sentiment or intent - was it written, was it published, was it malicious in intent. As the smear campaign had neither been written not published it cannot be libel. An email saying "we're going to publish X" is not proof that X was published. Go argue semantics all you like with a libel judge.

And me trying to "squirm my way out of" what exactly. Go read the thread and my utter condemnation of McBride and his plan. We're discussing libel law in England, not whether the material in question is acceptable - we all agreed long ago that it wasn't. You're getting confused again. I can provide you with quotations from myself earlier if you are incapable of reading backwards yourself.

Zagu

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

"lets pretend Cameron has an embarrassing illness"

You think McBride and Draper were 'just pretending'? How sweet.

I give up! Your attempts to dilute and divert the situation are quite amusing, but you have done nothing to enhance your credibility. I'd suggest that you stick to writing 'But the Tories...' on every thread. It's much simpler.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Zagu wrote: »

You think McBride and Draper were 'just pretending'?

If you make up something that isn't true then you are pretending its true and put out this pretence as if it were fact.

Its called "lying".

Graham_Devon

Rochdale, I have read your comments with interest. But your now starting to lose the plot it seems and trying to water down anything anyone says unconvincingly!

Rochdale_Pioneers

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Rochdale, I have read your comments with interest. But your now starting to lose the plot it seems and trying to water down anything anyone says unconvincingly!

Yes I am watering things down by explaining the legal definition of what is and isn't libel. How unsporting of me to refer to the actual law and not just shout "raaaah" like everyone else.

Generali

This email seems to bring British politics to a new low. I'm particularly interested in the pretence that Mr Brown didn't know nuffin about the email. He should have known about it - if he did and he claims he didn't then he's lying and if he doesn't know anything about it then he's not in control of his own party and so incompetent.

It's not like this is a small thing - this is senior Labourites discussing planting lies in the papers as part of a campaign.

Seriously, get rid of these people. Even if you have to vote in the Lib Dems it'd be hard for things to be worse.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Generali wrote: »

This email seems to bring British politics to a new low. I'm particularly interested in the pretence that Mr Brown didn't know nuffin about the email. He should have known about it - if he did and he claims he didn't then he's lying and if he doesn't know anything about it then he's not in control of his own party and so incompetent.

He probably didn't know about this particular email or what was being plotted. But he set the tone for how things were to be run by hiring McBride and allowing Draper access. Brown is the worst kind of snidey political operator all too happy to release the hounds against anyone who may threaten him - I know of at least one minister who had something nasty leaked against them to try and damage their reputation for the crime of speaking out.

So the idea that Brown can sniffily say "nothing to do with me" is ludicrous - not this email perhaps, but you hired the guy and set the rules of engagement. But it doesn't end with McBride's depature - how many special advisers are still out there loyal to their boss willing to justify anything to protect the desired purpose?

And will the other parties look to their own affairs and think "thats not a good idea any more"? How do the Tories justify having Andy Coulson in charge of communication? They rightfully object to McBride - they can justify hiring the man who ordered the bugging of the Royal Family and claim to be clean can they?

Politics once again decends deeper into the gutter, with the "victims" - both Brown and the Tories - desperate to kick mud from their pile to the other pile in order to claim to be "clean". It'd pathetic if it wasn't so funny.

Generali

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

He probably didn't know about this particular email or what was being plotted. But he set the tone for how things were to be run by hiring McBride and allowing Draper access. Brown is the worst kind of snidey political operator all too happy to release the hounds against anyone who may threaten him - I know of at least one minister who had something nasty leaked against them to try and damage their reputation for the crime of speaking out.

So the idea that Brown can sniffily say "nothing to do with me" is ludicrous - not this email perhaps, but you hired the guy and set the rules of engagement. But it doesn't end with McBride's depature - how many special advisers are still out there loyal to their boss willing to justify anything to protect the desired purpose?

And will the other parties look to their own affairs and think "thats not a good idea any more"? How do the Tories justify having Andy Coulson in charge of communication? They rightfully object to McBride - they can justify hiring the man who ordered the bugging of the Royal Family and claim to be clean can they?

Politics once again decends deeper into the gutter, with the "victims" - both Brown and the Tories - desperate to kick mud from their pile to the other pile in order to claim to be "clean". It'd pathetic if it wasn't so funny.

Frankly I'm surprised by your response RP - in a good way BTW. I've always seen your posts as pro-Labour partisan.

One of the big problems in politics for me (as a libertarian) is that politicians make grandiose claims (eg 'Make poverty history', 'Labour isn't working') without the ability to back things up and the knowledge that they haven't. Voters keep getting sucked in to the idea that slogans can solve complex problems.

I'd missed the Tory bit (it's hard keeping up from Aus) but I'm not surprised any more than I was surprised when it turned out that senior Lib Dems hid Mr Kennedy's alcoholism from voters or when it will turn out that the BNP is a racist party after all.

So who does the honest, British patriot vote for these days? I should come back home and start the Sensible Party!