Conservative Nadine Dorries today issued libel writs against former Downing Street spin doctor Damian McBride and Labour activist Derek Draper, who together over email planned to smear her private life. McBride, who was Gordon Brown's press chief, suggested Draper should publish allegations that Dorries had an affair with a …
I don't wish to seem cruel
...but I really hope they nail those scumbags.
They think it's all over...
It is now.
For ZaNuLabour that is.
And to think I nearly went to the same school as McBride. I'm so glad I didn't.
If there's going to be any justice
Both of the equally odious parties in this case will lose.
The tax payer should only be paying for the 645 non politically impartial people. The 645 MPs we are saddled with. All other people who are funded by the tax payer should be politically neutral in all aspects of their work. If the political parties, including the one in government want any others people, they should pay for them themselves. I don't see why I should! These special advisers are just another way of politicians stealing from the rest of us.
Does our PM know anything?
Seems our beloved Leader doesnt know much of what goes on around him! Probably why the country is a bit fucked!
A title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
So a blogger gets hold of some politicians emails that no one knows about, publishes them, and the politicos are the ones that did the libelling?
Don't get me wrong, I'm quite glad to see labour party hacks taken to the cleaners, but this smells. And lets face it, yer woman was doing very well out of the benefits system herself.
I hope Draper gets taken to the cleaners on this one. A more odious jumped up little arse is difficult to imagine.
That is all.
"He denied any knowledge of the plot."
Doesn't GB realize that no one believes a word he says? Is he so addicted to lies, distortion, spin, and denial that he is unaware that the rest of the population has wised up and now dismisses all statements by NuLabour as self-serving bullshit?
They are all idiots!!!
Can you really sue for libel over something that you stupidly said it would be good/funny to publish even if you don't then publish?
It was a moronic childish email but if you sue over a story that was never published that seems just as moronic to me.
Fighting like rats in a sack
They're all as bad as each other...
suing for what?
They never published it. It was published by Guido Fawkes (who in a strange twist served the writ on McBride).
If she's suing for defamation, both libel and slander require publication in some form. As this was a private email, it can hardly be said to have been published, except by Fawkes.
To get punitive damages, you must also prove that the publication was with malicious intent. As they didn't publish it, that'll be a tad tricky to prove against McBride or Draper, regardless of how moronic their activities were.
If anyone, she should be suing Guido Fawkes, but of course there's no political mileage in that, is there?
Who published the emails?
The emails were published without the consent of the authors and almost certainly against their wishes.
The plan was obnoxious - but how come they are in the frame for libel?
If I make a remark in my diary that would be libelous if repeated in public, then my diary is stolen and the thief publishes the remark, would I then be guilty of libel?
A pox upon all their houses
WTF bloggers delivering writs, on behalf of Conservitives
I wish they would all fuck off and die (I include the Labour ones in that statement)
Draper's a fool, McBride a bully and this seems a good comeuppance for a nasty, sleazy whispering campaign (if I understand correctly, the emails repeat slanders that *may* have been originated by the gents in question).
And besides, who wants a clique of beery, laddish blokes running women MP's down for their own amusement? And I do think it's just for the fun, as Dorries is hardly a high profile enough MP to warrant this kind of thing to be justified.
<- The pint's for Guido. Nice work, serving papers on McBride on his first day a new job.
Par for the course...
The whole NuLab concept has been based on smearing any opposition - hell, Broon & Bliar were actively smearing & counter-smearing each other for years.
It is, and always has been, an inherently sick & twisted political philosophy & practice.
Hope they pay squillions - couldn't happen to more deserving people - except for the rest of the bastards at Transport House or wherever they've decamped to these days.
Grenade? I'm beginning to think we need a revolution far more than an election...
It must be true then.
If Gordon denied the incedent, then it must be true, and nothing but the truth.... umm.. just like the Lockerbie release... 10p tax.... oops, this box can't hold that much text..
Let me get this right...
She's suing the guys who planned to publish the content, but actually didn't and not suing Guido Fawkes and the national newspapers who actually did publish the content and presumably acquired it through nefarious means.
Regardless of the morality of all this, surely she hasn't got a legal leg to stand on?
"Broon & Bliar were actively smearing & counter-smearing each other for years"
Thanks for that image!
@AC 10:24 8 Sept
De Nada... Es ist nichts.... C'est rien.... You're welcome...
However, being well aware of M'Learned friends and their predilections, I hasten to add that the suggestion of the image apparently conjured up by you was not of my intention - either explicit or implicit, and I accept no responsibility for any injuries suffered - howsoever caused - during the visualisation of such image.
Furthermore, I wish to indicate that any references to Broon 'n' Bliar do not represent any specific person, living, dead or ensconced in Westminster.
Visualise at your own risk.
Missing the point...
Gotta love it when everyone misses the point.
True, the allegations weren't published. However they were intended to be published, the only reason they weren't was that the blog site never went live due to them being caught out. When they were first confronted about the allegations they denied all knowledge, and then tried to spin the story as "we were only going to publish information that's in the public domain".
To add to the story these emails were deliberately kept out of Downing Street's email system. It is a criminal offense for a civil servant or MP to use private email for parliamentary work. By using their private email they showed that they had contempt for the rules of their job.
"they were intended to be published"
Intent to publish is not libel. Publication is. Guido Fawkes published it, hence he commits the libel which occurs (if any). McBride, Draper et al did not publish them, thus they libel nobody. The law does not depend on whether you like the alleged miscreant or not.
"these emails were deliberately kept out of Downing Street's email system"
Er, we're talking about Nadine Dorries here, not the legality of using Downing Street's email for private purposes. Anyway, you state "By using their private email", so you clearly accept that these were private emails and therefore not for publication. You can't have it both ways.
"everyone misses the point"
Yes, you have.
@ AC 18:56
So you're perfectly okay with a plot to libel several prominent MPs so long as someone else gets the blame because they broke the story that Labour were actively supporting a smear campaign running from within No 10?
And get your facts straight, Guido Fawkes did NOT publish any emails, he handed them to a newspaper (much in the same manner in which he was handed them to start with) and it was the newspaper that ran with the story.
In fact if I didn't know better I'd think you were Derek Draper or Damian McBride yourself, as no one else with the slightest bit of sense could ever condone their actions.
"So you're perfectly okay with a plot to libel several prominent MPs"
Actually, no, I'm not. I don't condone it whatsoever. I'm simply pointing out some of the legal aspects, rather than opening the top of my head for a rant and letting my brain fall out.
Please take note - there is no offence of plotting to commit libel. That's right, no matter how much you wish there was, there is NO offence of plotting to commit libel.
"it was the newspaper that ran with the story." Fair enough, but all you're saying is that any libel was committed by them rather than Guido Fawkes. Sorry that it doesn't suit your agenda, but that's the way it is.
"In fact if I didn't know better I'd think you were Derek Draper or Damian McBride yourself, as no one else with the slightest bit of sense could ever condone their actions."
If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a member of the Tory party, Guido Fawkes, or possibly even Nadine Dorries herself, as no one else could possibly be quite so blinkeredly rabid about this, instead of actually bothering to look at it from a rational point of view.
Conspiracy to commit libel
Mr Anonymous Coward writes:
" - there is no offence of plotting to commit libel."
I wonder, however, whether there might be a charge of "conspiracy to commit libel"? Or is "consipricy" restricted purely to criminal charges?
Time to call Schillings and Carter-Ruck...
- One HUNDRED FAMOUS LADIES exposed NUDE online
- Google flushes out users of old browsers by serving up CLUNKY, AGED version of search
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- GCHQ protesters stick it to British spooks ... by drinking urine
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES