Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us


8:36 pm - February 4th 2010

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

In his columns he styles himself as a defender of free speech, but when it concerns himself Rod Liddle is happy with making legal threats to shut down debate on his past writings.

Today afternoon Liddle turned up on the Facebook group: ‘If Rod Liddle becomes editor of The Independent, I will not buy it again‘.

There, he started off immediately with legal threats, saying:

Can I just point out that your letter to Mr Lebedev is defamatory, in quite a big way? I think I ought to warn you about that.

So much for that dedication to free speech. Rod Liddle then goes on to defame the creator of the FB group Alex Higgins.

Our proposed Indy ad does not even refer to comments made by ‘monkeymfc’ on the Millwall website.

They only re-publish statements he has already made in the mainstream media and I am happy to stand by all of them.

The only opinionated comment we actually make in the ad is:

He has been arrested for beating up his pregnant girlfriend, made jokes about smoking at Auschwitz and is a climate-change denier. Does he represent the values of progressive, independent minded readers of this newspaper?

The first claim comes from The Times, the second from his discussion on the Millwall site (which he admits to) and the third on the basis of statement he’s made on global warming at the Spectator.

On the basis of that Liddle is calling it defamatory and warning us. What a hypocrite.

Even more absurdly, he then goes on to attack the creator of the group by saying:

You’re another liberal middle class whiteboy who turns into a fascist when his comfortable values are challenged.

For the record, Alex Higgins is a teacher at an inner-city school.

And what does it say about people who start throwing around the word ‘fascist’?

Apparently calling Rod Liddle “racist” is also “way beyond fair comment”. This is despite the fact that his own colleague at the Spectator Alex Massie said:

How delightfully refreshing to see someone trot out the kind of tired, stale prejudice you can find in thousands of boozers across the country! Or at any BNP meeting, for that matter.

Can’t wait for Liddle to try and sue his fellow Spectator blogger. Calling someone “racist” for making racist comments is definitely within fair comment and it was made across many blogs after he wrote that Spectator blog post.

Defender of free speech indeed.

Read the whole debate on Facebook. I’ve taken screenshots in case Liddle deletes his own comments. The Millwall site has already decided to hide many of the threads ‘monkeymfc’ wrote on.

Update: I’ve changed the wording of the ad to say “he has been arrested for allegedly hitting his pregnant girlfriend” – which mirrors the wording of the Times article more closely. But Liddle’s complaint that calling him a racist and sexist is beyond fair comment is rubbish, and what I’d call ‘lawfare’.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Bzuh? How is Alex Higgins turning into a fascist? The facebook group is the epitome of capitalist thinking! “If you do this, your customer base will leave. If you want us to buy your product, you will have to maintain its current standard.” It’s just market forces! Nobody’s railing against Liddle’s right to free speech, or to do anything at all.

Methinks this man is stupider than he looks. That, or he doesn’t actually know what fascism is or how the free market works.

I am a self confessed racist (God, I hate Nigerians), bigoted, over opinionated, homophobic womaniser, a drunkard AND an attention seeking ignorant loud mouth shitbag.

Yet I will never issue a legal threat against anyone.

Come on Rod, play the game mate.

Unbelievable.

I agree. Butter £1.30 in Asdas. Unbelievable

Let Freedom Roll!

Oh wait……………………

Another fake libertaian bites the dust.

Sunny,

Since when does warning someone that they are making defamatory comments constitute a legal threat? He didn’t say he intendsto take legal action did he?

He’s not trying to close down a debate, rather you are trying to engineer one.

“Since when does warning someone that they are making defamatory comments constitute a legal threat?”

Shorter troll “I’m so stupid I can’t understand English”

Trolls love defending tossers.

“Since when does warning someone that they are making defamatory comments constitute a legal threat?”

Since every single time anyone has ever said that.

‘ Can I just point out that your letter to Mr.Lebedev is defamatory, in quite a big way’ To quote Mandy Rice-Davies – he would say that woudn’t he?

Good for you for pissing off that oaf Liddle, Sunny. (Is it defamatory to call an oaf an oaf?)

Would he be even more pissed-off if you also pointed-out his 2006 “The Trouble With Atheism” show on Channel 4 was atrocious, riddled (or should that be “Liddled”? gosh, I’m so witty…) with factual errors and logical fallacies…?

Might we perhaps suggest he is less that trustworthy, since he cut short his honeymoon (lying to his then wife that he had “work commitments”), in order to be with his mistress…?

So much more fun than the “oooh, get that Ian Dale!” shenanigans…

🙂

“Ms Monckton, 23, is reported to have dialled 999 during a row but when police arrived at the flat she declined to pursue a complaint. Mr Liddle, 45, was held under new domestic violence guidelines which allow police to question suspects without cooperation from victims. Last night he was reported to have said that he accepted a caution because it was the quickest way for him to be released and said that he never touched Ms Monckton, who is 20 weeks pregnant.”

It is wrong of you to include “He has been arrested for beating up his pregnant girlfriend” if “she declined to pursue a complaint.” and “he was reported to have said that he accepted a caution because it was the quickest way for him to be released and said that he never touched Ms Monckton, who is 20 weeks pregnant.”

You also fail to include some of the points he made in the debate on Facebook, and pick out the particularly ‘juicy’ ones he makes about the group creator.

He said he is not a climate-change denier (where is the link to that story) on Facebook.

I accept wholly that he may be making these points in a feeble attempt to persuade the incumbent editor of his credentials. ‘I am not racist’, ‘I am not a climate-change denier’ (he never said he hit is girlfriend, and has never admitted such), ‘I am to the left of all of you’ etc….

I did donate to this advert. However, I am starting to question my choice, not for any particular affiliation to Liddle, but because this, instead of being about the editorship of a newspaper, is becoming a particularly nasty attack on every aspect of his character. Something in the past he is probably guilty of doing, but seriously, glass houses and all that.

George, this would only be a matter of glass houses if Sunny or Alex Higgins were wife-beaters, or global warming deniers, or racists. To my knowledge, they are not.

The police do not arrest somebody, hold them, and caution them for domestic violence without very good reason. Remember: Liddle accepted a caution. He had no need to do that. You can get out of prison cells without it. I would never accept a caution for domestic violence, because I would never commit it. I suspect you are the same.

I don’t think this is an illegitimate attack on Liddle. He has chosen, in his public life, to take abhorrent positions towards black people in particular. Now other people are choosing to say that, as a result, he should not be given a position of significant public interest. Nobody is saying he should be jailed, or silenced. We are only saying he should not be editor of a liberal newspaper, and if he becomes one, we won’t buy it. There’s nothing unreasonable about that.

I don’t think it’s “particularly nasty”. Nothing Sunny has said is half as nasty as calling lesbians “hideous”, Muslims “savages”, Somalians thick, and so on.

14. Libel law reformer

George, the Times article states this:

“Mr Liddle, who is a team captain on BBC Two’s Call My Bluff quiz show and associate editor of the Spectator magazine, accepted a caution for common assault and was later released.”

Imagine for a moment what that last clause means regardless of what excuses or denials were proferred afterwards, and the cagey language a paper is obliged by its lawyers to use. Women often decline to seek charges against men they know or care about even when they commit serious crimes against them.

It’s a very personal detail, and God knows we all make mistakes in our private lives. But to what extent can “common assault” against a pregnant woman be regarded as a private matter? This is not the 16th century. Violence against women isn’t a private matter.

We have a real problem as a society with this and it’s disgraceful how often people get away with this crime.

If that person then seeks to regularly degrade women in print and wishes to edit a national paper, I think it’s pretty relevant. The Facebook campaigners have not mentioned any other aspect of Liddle’s private life, though that did make the papers a few years back.

“Nobody is saying he should be jailed, or silenced. We are only saying he should not be editor of a liberal newspaper, and if he becomes one, we won’t buy it.”

I agree.

“I don’t think it’s “particularly nasty”. Nothing Sunny has said is half as nasty as calling lesbians “hideous”, Muslims “savages”, Somalians thick, and so on.”

Again, I agree, my point being, Liddle has made some ‘particularly nasty’ points, but I do not want to be of the same ilk and throw the same mud.

I would hope (in the case of the caution) that people who are beating up their pregnant girlfriends get more than a damn caution. He is putting his own child’s life at risk. If the police had any-more to go on, why didn’t they? The Times story is pathetic in its detail.

I also said ‘becoming’ particularly nasty, which is slightly different I think.

The glass houses reference was to attacking peoples character, not racism or wife-beating.

His own views and thoughts highlight his character just fine. It seems the threshold is moving from his views, which make him a bad candidate for editing The Independent, to sensationalism about his past. Something I despise in the other media outlets, and would rather didn’t happen here.

“Women often decline to seek charges against men they know or care about even when they commit serious crimes against them.”

I couldn’t agree more – having worked in this field, it is an emotional minefield for the women (and sometimes men lest we forget) involved. But they are still together, they got married, and are bringing up the child together. Nothing else has ever happened as far as I am aware and “It’s a very personal detail, and God knows we all make mistakes in our private lives.” A detail, in so far as this advert is concerned, that moves beyond disagreeing with his views and ability to edit The Independent, to something rather more unpleasant.

17. Libel law reformer

“Something I despise in the other media outlets, and would rather didn’t happen here.”

I completely agree, except on this one issue.

18. Libel law reformer

“Divorce laws mean that one no longer needs to kill one’s wife to have an affair.” – Rod Liddle, 2007

“At the University of Manchester, Professor Mona Baker “unappointed” two Israeli academics from the journal for which she worked. She hopes that, none the less, she can still be friends with them. I hope they punch her on the nose.”
– Rod Liddle, 2002

” Stupid bitch. A year eight sociology lecture from someone who knows fck all…. Someone kick her in the cnt.”

It’s all larks for him, though.

Now that is someone sitting in a glass house.

Painful whilst we are defending free speach but……should Old Holborn be allowed to post on this site. The old “No platformfor racists” question. Are you just letting himmarket his site to a wider audience?

I went to log on to the Millwall site this morning, as I was signed up there since july, and I found I was banned. They were really getting a bit nervous about some of the things I said and told me to stop doing links to websites like this one and Pickled Politics. But when I did stop, they still didn’t like it and I got heaps load of abuse.

Just making a joke about ”Mary Seacole” had a couple of them warning me to ‘watch it’.
I was trying to just ask them about general attitudes to racism and the EDL, and even though a few supported the EDL and many didn’t, they all claimed they were not racist.
And I somewhat believed them.
It’s not a site that is actually what it seems, and they all pretend to be really hard foul mouthed louts. Some of it is just a game and many of them are very fast and witty with their comments.
So I wouldn’t really take too much notice of anything that was said on it.

They had me down for a spy, but I wasn’t really. I was trying to work out their thinking.

21. gacetillero

Christ, it’s like the Famous Five here.

1. Legally, common assault can include causing someone to fear imminent violence, without violence actually occurring, and

2. He accepted a caution for assault, and nobody has proved he hit her, and

3. The sane laws that tie the papers up in knots most certainly apply to your ad.

Ergo if you run an ad saying he beat up his girlfriend, you’ll be on very thin ice should he sue for libel, regardless how strongly you feel about domestic violence.

You can, of course, say he was cautioned for assaulting her, which has the great advantage of being verifiably true.

Your other criticisms probably fall into the great vagueness of personal opinion, and so are not defamatory.

But on the assault charge your crusading zeal is blinding you to the fact that you, too, have to play by the rules of the game. You can’t just say stuff you can’t prove no matter how strongly you feel that you must be right.

22. the a&e charge nurse

[13] “but because this, instead of being about the editorship of a newspaper, is becoming a particularly nasty attack on every aspect of his character”.

Yes, I agree, unless monkeyfc is actually the devil incarnate, I think some of this is becoming a bit OTT?

Ordinary people have all sorts of daft ideas and sometimes they voice them, and this is a good thing in the main – but given the drift toward cultural warfare this is becoming an increasingly dangerous thing to do, nowadays.

For some reason, the monkey’s travails remind me of the social workers who were sacked for circulating an e-mail containing a doctored image of Gary Glitter.
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/11/24/48479/social-workers-in-scotland-sacked-over-glitter-e-mail.html

The stink of self-righteousness can start to get to you after a while.

So much for that dedication to free speech…

It is perfectly consistent to be both in favour of free speech and also opposed to being defamed.

He has been arrested for beating up his pregnant girlfriend

And it is this that is defamatory. It is also not strictly true, as he was arrested for common assault. Common assault occurs when a person causes another person to fear that violence is about to be used against them. If violence is actually used, then the offence would be one of battery, ABH or GBH, depending on how much violence.

To be clear then, the fact that Liddle was arrested, and cautioned for common assault means that, as far as the law is concerned, he absolutely and definitionally did not ‘beat up’ his girlfriend, and your statement that he did is libellous.

I remember reading on here a couple of days ago an attack from Sunny about the ignorance of ‘right whingers’ about the law. I meant to bookmark it, so that I could pull it out whenever Sunny makes a howler like this…

Sunny,

Isn’t it time to stop treating us like duds and declare your financial interest in your campaigning against Rod Liddle?

You are, amongst many things, a freelance journalist who is from time to time paid to write articles for the Guardian (the one from a few days ago was most entertaining). Good for you and I hope you continue to profit from this relationship.

The Independent is a rival to the Guardian and is probably the only ‘liberal’ minded national newspaper where you might be paid to contribute your views and articles.

I suggest you feel that the potential change in editorial policy that might occur were Rod Liddle to become it’s editor would reduce the chance you have to enjoy access to it’s readership – and to be paid for it. Especially not now you have campaigned agaist him so vocally.

Your campaigning agaist Rod Liddle isn’t just about his suitability to edit the Independent or a dislike of his views. It’s also an attempt to guarantee you have a potential revenue from as wide a ‘liberal’ base as possible.

It’s merely business posing as morals.

TimJ – his point is that calling him a racist / sexist is also beyond fair comment. The exact wording of the arrest can be disputed. The only thing the Times says differently is that it calls it an alleged attack.

26. Luis Enrique

Can’t believers in free speech object to being defamed?

[I’m not defending Liddle, I’m not saying he has been defamed as opposed to being on the receiving end of fair comment, I’m merely questioning the reasoning behind “man complains about defamation; so much for free speech”]

26 – Um. The Times – who are well lawyered up – refer to an alleged punch, and also put Liddle’s position:

Last night he was reported to have said that he accepted a caution because it was the quickest way for him to be released and said that he never touched Ms Monckton, who is 20 weeks pregnant.

That’s fair reporting of an arrest. ‘Liddle was arrested for beating up his girlfriend’ just isn’t. I’m not really a libel lawyer any more but there we are.

As for calling him a racist – well that’s certainly defamatory, but I reckon you have a reasonable argument that it’s fair comment given his public statements. Always hard to prove that someone is a racist though.

Sunny –

The assault issue isn’t some silly academic quibble about ‘wording’. If you allege that he committed violence — an allegation for which you have no proof — you will have libelled him, precisely because you have no proof. If the Times got away with an ‘allegedly punched’ it’s probably because they a) had a source and b) also gave Liddle’s version (that he didn’t touch her). You’re doing neither.

You *have* to understand the rules of the game that you’ve decided to play, or else you are going to land yourself in very hot water.

Your refusal to face up to the question of whether you’re libelling him or not makes it look increasingly like this is a personal vendetta driven by something not altogether rational.

As a general point on legal matters – if you are going to get involved in high profile campaigns like this Sunny, you really really ought to get legal advice first. You are, after all, deliberately trying to damage Liddle’s career – to cause him financial loss – and if you’re going to do that, it is nothing more than common sense to make sure that you’re doing that in a strictly legal way.

If Liddle doesn’t get the editor’s job at the Indy, and if it can be claimed that a significant reason for that was the success of your campaign, he has an excellent claim against you for financial damages caused by your defamation of him.

It’s always been temtping on the blogs to think we can do more or less what we want, because no-one really cares what we’re saying. You’re (to your great credit) trying to change that, so that what is said on the blogosphere has real world consequences. Well, that can cut both ways.

30. Col. Richard Hindrance (Mrs), VC, DSO and Bar, Buffet, Dancing 'til late

rumpypumpy, you cretin.

There is no clear “financial interest” except in your rather bizarre little cranium. You are, amongst many things, a prannet.

So Hundal’s campaign is born from fear that a Liddle-edited Indie would not buy his work because of, er, Hundal’s campaign.

Without this weird tautology you have no point. The current Indie editor is happy to print screeds from the most right wing types imaginable, and Hundal is not so frothingly extreme that he would be barred from a more right wing Independent.

You don’t really know how journalism – let alone freelance journalism – works, do you?

“It’s merely business posing as morals.”

That is merely partisan idiocy posing as a point.

Comment 31.

To misquote Michael Winner: “Calm down, it’s only a blog”.

If a person recieved money for services there is a financial interest.

I am genuinely disapointed by Sunny’s campaign against Rod Liddle. He runs a good blog here but the repeat articles about Rod Liddle have become sanctimonious, sloppy and petty. He’s starting to sound like a political equivalent of Perez Hilton.

That you think, after being subject to all this campaigning, Rod Liddle (were he to become editor) might be inclined to put work Sunny’s way is plain silly.

(PS: The more you insult a person the more you undermine your own position.)

rp:

It’s all well and good to cry ‘calm down’ when you yourself constantly over-react and troll about here but when you get called out on such antics, you play the tired old trick of it’s only a blog.

This endless defence of Rod Liddle is wearisome and you say you like this blog (I have seen little evidence of you ever agreeing with anything here but still…) you visit only to be destructive, if it galls you that much, don’t bloody read it.

Hello Daniel,

Comment 31 managed to call me a cretin, a prannet and spoke of my idiocy. I think these are examples of overreaction – the kind of which I don’t think I would do.

Neither do I think I over-react – it’s ab it to easy to lable someone who disagrees with you of that.

As far as my agreeing with items on this LibCon I wasn’t aware that we are supposed to aggree with every article posted, no matter what is said. Neither was I aware that saying I disagree would be interpreted as ‘only to be destructive’. Where I do agree, which is quite often, I let other people who are more eloquent than me engage in the conversation rather that pointlessly chip in with a ‘Hear hear’.

If you want to see what I think of LibCon I refer you to item 15 of http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/02/03/anti-war-zealotry-israel-and-aaronovitch/

rp:

Your constant defence of Rod Liddle in every thread where he is mentioned is a perfect example of an overreaction, esp. when it is ‘only a blog’ so you need to decide which it is before using that as a device to attack others.

And consider this, which you deliver with no sense of irony at all: “Neither do I think I over-react – it’s ab it to easy to lable someone who disagrees with you of that.”

Isn’t that exactly what you’ve just done?

And to be clear, I never said you have to agree with everything here, no one would be such a dick as to say that BUT you said that Sunny: “runs a good blog here” yet I have never seen you leave a comment in support of an article, mostly you attack the article and if it contains…heaven forbid…Rod Fucking Liddle, you are nearly apoplectic with outrage. Your defence on this seems to be the rouse that when you agree with a piece, you offer nothing to it at all, which considering how when you do disagree, you make your personal politics pretty clear in those disagreements, you’ll have to forgive me and many others from thinking that is a massive lie to cover your arse.

So you see where I get the idea that you only come here to be destructive and offer nothing of substance? If you wish that to ceae then perhaps, stop harping on in defence of such a vile character as Rod Liddle.

Daniel,

I’m getting my Hear Hear’s at the ready.

I suppose if you only hear a person say they disagree it probably creates a negative impression. But it didn’t occur to me I should voice my agreement as well as I didn’t think that would lend much to the discussions – especially as others are far more arcticulate than me.

The odd thing about this Liddle business is that I don’t much like him though I can understand his appeal as he can be funny and doesn’t just say the borish things often cited. I sense there is a bit of a ‘prissyness’ about him wherein the good is thrown out with the politically incorrect. He has more in common with what would have been considered as the traditional working class than many contemporary left wing views – but he is of the left (just) nonetheless.

In the past month or so there have been more postings about him than Nick Griffin. Does that make sense to you? It doesn’t to me.

It occurs to me that campaigning against Rod Liddle is a bit like Nero’s fiddling whilst Rome burned.

Question to Rod Liddle: what do you think deserves to happen to a man who beats up his pregnant girlfriend?

Incidentally, is this woman the one he snogged whilst being married to another, in front of other people at the BBC (and for which he was praised by Toby Young)?

37. the a&e charge nurse

[37] “incidentally, is this woman the one he snogged whilst being married to another, in front of other people at the BBC”.

A hint of prurience one normally associates with the Fail?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1248641/JAN-MOIR-To-John-Terrys-team-sin-getting-caught.html

38. Shatterface

Sunny was right to highlight the Millwall posts and these do suggest Liddle is unsuited for the Indy but he also make a specific claim about assault that he can’t back up.

Libel laws are overused in this country and *are* often a threat to free speech – but they can and do have a legitimate use where someone is genuinely defamed and suffers financially as a result.

39. sean4thedefence

He would have to have admitted assault to get cautioned. If he’d denied it, then he would have been charged or released without further action. His “acceptance” of the caution is really him going on tape and telling the officers that he did it, under caution and either wit or having waived his right to legal advice, which is free despite his vast wealth.

“I only accepted the caution to get out of the police station” exhudes self justification and a miasma of bullshit.

He would have to have admitted assault to get cautioned. If he’d denied it, then he would have been charged or released without further action.

Very true. And if the accusation made by Sunny was that Liddle had been arrested for assaulting his girlfriend, then there would be no argument. However, Sunny’s accusing Liddle of ‘beating up’ his girlfriend, and that’s an entirely different, and unproven, assertion.

@ 22

He accepted a caution for assault, and nobody has proved he hit her

To be cautioned means you have accepted the offence occurred. Contrary to popular thinking, a caution is not a let off, it constitutes a criminal record and, in theory, you can, if further offences occur, be taken to court for the original offence for which you were cautioned (though this very rarely happens)

Don’t like Liddle, but not arsed one way or another about this if truth be told…..

I’m not accusing him of beating her up, I said he was arrested for it. Which is true. What’s the difference between being arrested for assaulting and being arrested for beating up? Anyway – I’ve changed the wording to be clearer.

But Liddle is making legal threats on the basis that calling him a racist etc was also beyond fair comment.

What’s the difference between being arrested for assaulting and being arrested for beating up?

You don’t know this? What’s the difference between being arrested for indecent exposure and being arrested for rape? They’re qualitatively different offences.

44. gacetillero

He was arrested for assault.

Assault =/= beating her up.

Assault = making someone afraid of imminent violence

Assault and battery = hitting someone.

In popular parlance, people talk about A&B as just ‘assault’.

You have no proof of anything apart from his caution for assault, so you can’t allege that he hit her.

If you do, you’ll have libelled him.

You’re a journalist, right? Surely someone forced you to do a media law training session once upon a time? If not, get on one sharpish.

Sunny,

If you believe it is fair comment (as you do, with some possible justification) then let him threaten. I would think the time to act is if he does take action, not if he makes indirect threats about it.

Sunny,

“But Liddle is making legal threats on the basis that calling him a racist etc was also beyond fair comment.”

Since when does warning someone that they are making defamatory comments constitute a legal threat? He didn’t say that he intends to take legal action did he?

Really, there’s enough information for you to run with this story without ‘sexing it up’.

Liddle’s all piss and wind, issuing a writ on the blogosphere? Do.Me.A.Fucking.Favour. If he issues a writ then John Terry”s a fine, upstanding family man.

Anyhows Sunny, even if he did and says it “went beyond fair comment” you can reply “OK it was vulgar abuse” *TAPS NOSE*

If you’re reading this Liddle, coming to you from a council flat in narf Landhan you faux-prole, racist tosser.

Oh look, the idiot trolls are supporting this revolting man, but they don’t want to admit it so they try to hide behind legal technicalities. The usual domain of the coward.

Their concern for Sunny is very touching. “Be careful Sunny , blah ,blah ,blah”

Concern trolling of the worst sort. But they have no other choice unless they come out and support this piece of human shit.

49. gacetillero

Yeah, trying to cure someone of their complete ignorance of libel law is just coded support for racism. Of course. That’s it. Nothing to do with actually trying to make the argument more watertight.

50. astateofdenmark

OK, I admit it, this campaign of Sunny’s to influence the editorial appointment process of a newspaper disturbed me and pissed me off.

But, resorting to threats of libel to shut down debate does not, a good journalist make. (which is why I was most unhappy when Marr got such a prestigious program).

Liddle has lost the support of this one.

@ 49

Can we have that again in English and coherent this time please.

troll

“Yeah, trying to cure someone of their complete ignorance of libel law is just coded support for racism. Of course. That’s it. Nothing to do with actually trying to make the argument more watertight.”

But no on here asked for your so called knowledge of libel law troll, and I bet Sunny did not ask for it. So all you are doing is stinking the place out as usual.

I’m sure if Sunny wants a laywer he will get one, but it won’t be you. He will want one he can trust.

53. gacetillero

What a beautifully accepting and inclusive little community you have here. If he looks up the relevent bits of law, he’ll find that I’m right. As he would on a media law course. Not that you care – you’re far too interested in indulging your paranoia. Have fun with that.

@ 40

“I only accepted the caution to get out of the police station” exhudes self justification and a miasma of bullshit.

My strong suspicion is that cautions are offered by the police because they don’t think they can make a charge stick or they can’t be bothered to try. Oh yes and it’s good for the clear up stats.

My other strong suspicion is that cautions are generally accepted to “get out of the police station”. At the time, few reflect on the potential consequences of the conviction .

54 Shorter troll.

“I came on here and tried to be an arrogant twat, got called on it, and then whined all the way home about civility”

Normal troll behaviour. So boring.

Sally,

If you are unable to understand what people are saying please desist from calling them trolls. It’s lazy + aggressive and it merely lowers the tone of the conversation.

Thank you.

57. gacetillero

Sally – which just reinforces my initial impression that you’re all in way over your head here. Your response to some legal debate is to call names and try to exclude from the debate. Have you even looked up the relevant bits of law? Tried to do a bit of research? Come to a reasoned conclusion?

Or have you just resorted straight to playground name-calling and attempted to exclude new voices from the debate?

I’ve been following this place for a little while as I know some contributors and was intrigued to see what the place was about. So far some stuff has been quite interesting, but some stuff – this Liddle thing in particular – is like Famous Five Plays Politics. I thought I’d chip in a bit of advice, given that I have more than a slight familiarity with the law and with journalism, and have been quite bemused by the perhaps predictable response. Has certainly given me a better picture of the level of debate here.

58. gacetillero

Oops, repeated myself a bit there. Should re-read more…

I understand trolls all to clealy thank you.

They come and shit all over the place, and then whine when they get called on it.

Nobody here is interested in your so called legal opinions. And nobody here with any sense believes that you want to help Sunny.

@ 55

You are correct, it also avoid a lot of bureaucracy and expense in a court case.

You don’t have to accept a caution, I didn’t once as juvenile (when I borrowed another kid’s bike & ran off to his Mum saying I’d nicked his bike), though this does leave you open to being charged and going to court (police just dropped it in my case).

Also police can issue a warning, which is just that, informal and doesn’t constitute a criminal record,or acceptance that an offence has been committed.

gacetillero,

Thanks for your contribution.
Some people are so entrenched that they behave rudely which is a bit off-putting as they seem to come to cheer and jeer rather than discuss. But don’t let that put you off – if you can be bothered.

Off now. Have a nice weekend all of you.

61 – you just have to tune Sally out. Think of her as background noise.

gacetillero

Thanks for your contribution. I am quite happy to learn about things of which I was ignorant.

Rod Liddle is still a twat, however. But now I will not assert that he beat his girlfriend, nor that he was arrested for it.

It was a legal digression, but quite interesting; the main point is that this is a bigotted twat who parades ignorance as wit – as such, he shouldn’t really be editor of a liberal, broadsheet newspaper.

@70
Robespierre believed that all reasonable men would come to the same right conclusion and view after careful thought – and therefore anyone with a differing view him was guillotined. This is the mentally of some of the posters on websites such as this. Their belief in their own moral and intellectual superiority is staggering and yet they mostly spout bile.

65. Golden Gordon

What I don’t understand about Liddle is why a Middlesboro boy supports Millwall ?.

66. Golden Gordon

Have you noticed how quiet Martin Bright/Nick Cohen has been on the issue. One of their mates contemplates libel. One of their holy grails.

I hate Rod Liddle’s guts. The guy needs Viagra to get it up.
The guy does all this attention seeking evil rubbish to make up for his lack of a sex drive.
The guy is nasty little attention seeking creep Looks like something from a horror film. Creep is a pain the arse.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us. Thought he defended free speech? http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  2. Matt Leys

    RT @pickledpolitics: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us. Thought he defended free speech? http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  3. Ellie Gellard

    The man is a reptile RT @pickledpolitics: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us. Thought he defended free speech? http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  4. Ben

    RT @libcon Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  5. Michael Hanley

    RT @pickledpolitics: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us. Thought he defended free speech? http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  6. tony hatfield

    RT @bloggerheads: RT @libcon Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/cx72Yp <- wht a chump. He's bluffing w/ a pair of 3s

  7. darryl1974

    RT @pickledpolitics: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us. Thought he defended free speech? http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  8. tony hatfield

    @mrpower maybe, but rod is now threatening litigation! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  9. sunny hundal

    Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  10. Steve Hanlon

    RT @msgracefh: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (pleas …

  11. Sarah Slade

    RT @pickledpolitics: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us. Thought he defended free speech? http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  12. tim donnelly

    RT @paulbharrison: RT @wdjstraw: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT)

  13. AdamRamsay

    RT @pickledpolitics: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us. Thought he defended free speech? http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  14. AdamRamsay

    RT @pickledpolitics: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us. Thought he defended free speech? http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  15. Mike Forster

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  16. Jon Patience

    RT @wdjstraw: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please …

  17. altepper

    RT @wdjstraw: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please …

  18. Hari Kunzru

    Liddle making threats, insults, everyone accusing each other of thoughtcrimes http://bit.ly/a1eNvb

  19. Michael Hanley

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  20. Andy Dixon

    RT @msgracefh: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  21. paulstpancras

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  22. Michael Jones

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  23. James Asser

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  24. Andy Gilmour

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  25. George Allwell

    Liberal Conspiracy » Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/ay2zlC

  26. Liberal Conspiracy

    Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  27. Jane Fleming

    RT @libcon: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  28. Paul Burgin

    Go and tell it to Rod Liddle, Sunny http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/02/04/rod-liddle-makes-legal-threats-against-us/

  29. Tim Ireland

    RT @libcon Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/cx72Yp <- What a chump. He's bluffing with a pair of 3s

  30. uberVU - social comments

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  31. Jim Jepps

    RT @libcon: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  32. sianberry

    RT @pickledpolitics: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us. Thought he defended free speech? http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  33. Pickled Politics » Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us

    […] makes legal threats against us by Sunny on 4th February, 2010 at 9:16 PM     More here on Liberal Conspiracy. And he tries to style himself as a defender of free […]

  34. Bella Caledonia

    RT @pickledpolitics: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us. Thought he defended free speech? http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  35. Yakoub Islam

    RT @bloggerheads: RT @libcon Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/cx72Yp <- What a chump. He's bluffing with a pair of 3s

  36. Donald Lamont

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  37. snowy

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  38. Youssef

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  39. Face to Facebook

    RT @liquida #SMM Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us – In his columns he styles himself as a defender of free… http://ow.ly/16v4LM

  40. Will Straw

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  41. Mick Swales

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  42. Old Holborn

    RT @wdjstraw: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  43. Ben McKenna

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  44. Lisa Jackson

    RT @msgracefh: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  45. Lawrence Mills

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  46. David O'Keefe

    RT: @pickledpolitics: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us. Thought he defended free speech? http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  47. David O'Keefe

    RT: @pickledpolitics: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us. Thought he defended free speech? http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  48. David O'Keefe

    RT: @pickledpolitics: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us. Thought he defended free speech? http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  49. PaulHarriott

    RT @LawrenceMills RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp plz RT

  50. PaulHarriott

    RT @LawrenceMills RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp plz RT

  51. PaulHarriott

    RT @LawrenceMills RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp plz RT

  52. Paul Harrison

    RT @wdjstraw: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT)

  53. Paul Harrison

    RT @wdjstraw: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT)

  54. Paul Harrison

    RT @wdjstraw: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT)

  55. Colin Hall

    His defenders may back "freedom of speech" – he doesn't. Liberal Conspiracy » Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/ay2zlC

  56. Colin Hall

    His defenders may back "freedom of speech" – he doesn't. Liberal Conspiracy » Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/ay2zlC

  57. Colin Hall

    His defenders may back "freedom of speech" – he doesn't. Liberal Conspiracy » Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/ay2zlC

  58. Stephen Tall

    RT @wdjstraw: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please …

  59. Stephen Tall

    RT @wdjstraw: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please …

  60. Stephen Tall

    RT @wdjstraw: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please …

  61. Gez Kirby

    RT @msgracefh: RT @pickledpolitics:Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT)

  62. Gez Kirby

    RT @msgracefh: RT @pickledpolitics:Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT)

  63. Gez Kirby

    RT @msgracefh: RT @pickledpolitics:Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT)

  64. tim donnelly

    RT @paulbharrison: RT @wdjstraw: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT)

  65. tim donnelly

    RT @paulbharrison: RT @wdjstraw: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT)

  66. totalkharnage

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  67. Hari Kunzru

    All kicking off in the Liddle v. Liberal Conspiracy fight http://bit.ly/a1eNvb #rodliddle #independent

  68. Simon Mason

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  69. Andrew Nix

    Liberal Conspiracy » Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/ay2zlC

  70. Quietzapple

    RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (please RT!)

  71. Chris Paul

    RT @davecoleDOTorg: RT @libcon Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/cYXpks

  72. Stephen Newton

    Rod Liddle makes legal threats against Lib Con http://bit.ly/cQnfON

  73. Chimp Magazine

    RT @stephennewton: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against Lib Con http://bit.ly/cQnfON

  74. Daniel Selwood

    RT @libcon: Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/cx72Yp

  75. Dave Cole

    RT @libcon Rod Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/cYXpks

  76. sunny hundal

    For those who missed this yest: Rod 'defender of free speech' Liddle makes legal threats against us http://bit.ly/cYXpks

  77. Rob Fahey

    Hypocritical scumbag: RT @pickledpolitics Rod 'defender of free speech' Liddle makes legal threats against critics http://bit.ly/cYXpks

  78. Graham

    RT @msgracefh: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (pleas …

  79. Andrew Collingwood

    RT @msgracefh: RT @pickledpolitics: Don't let ROD LIDDLE shut down debate about his past with legal threats! http://bit.ly/cx72Yp (pleas …

  80. Liddle's BNP friends | Left Foot Forward

    […] Hundal outlines on Liberal Conspiracy why none of the claims are defamatory and says: “In his columns he styles himself as a […]

  81. SOCIALIST UNITY » WITH POWER COMES RESPONSIBILITY

    […] Over the issue of Rod Liddle, I think that Sunny at Liberal Conspiracy seriously needs to get a grip. […]

  82. Orwell was right (unfortunately) « Dual Archipelago

    […] the creator of a group protesting the possibility of Liddle becoming the Independent’s editor, given both his recent […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.