Quote Originally Posted by jon1959 View Post
You were doing alright with the 'legal precedent' argument. I disagree with you but it was at least coherent - even if the evidence seems to show Michelle Donelan slipping between the roles of culture warrior, Member of Parliament and Secretary of State heading a government department.

But then you lost the plot. It does not help your argument to say that this is OK because they could have wasted even more public money by not conceding fault and paying damages. This is about principle not the size of the payout.

It helps even less when you throw legal aid expenditure into the pot to suggest this case is somehow trivial. I thought you had been a defender of legal aid in the past (or maybe that was Feedback in his latest incarnation?) - but anyway the murderer of David Amess wasn't 'given' the Legal Aid - it was paid (against a backdrop of a decade of aid cuts) to ensure that one part of the criminal justice system can continue to function. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty and everyone is entitled to representation and a defence in the courts. It is the bedrock of a civilised society - and under constant threat and challenge by people in Michelle Donelan's part of British politics and the press and media that support them.
I have no issue with legal aid, just as I have no issue with employees not bearing sole financial responsibility for mistakes made in work.

I made that example precisely to prove the point. We don't have to like everything, but the law is there for a reason and it is understandable that people sometimes get hot under the collar about it (whether it's £15k for defamation or £100k for a murder suspect). It is what it is and that's my point. That's the explanation.

It doesn't make anyone a "slavish government defender" any more than someone who defends legal aid (which on principle I do) makes them a "supporter of the terrorist act" in this example.

Councils, the NHS, govt depts get sued all the time, but individual staff don't personally pay out. We all know this, it's just this case happens to be a Tory so thats why some people think it should applied differently.

Stupid tweet? Yes. Should it damage her reputation and career? Yes. Should she personally have to foot the bill for a mistake relating to work? I don't think so, and precedent says not.

And yes, I do think if we are looking for wastes of tax payers money, this is up there. It was an expensive tweet, but by god there are better examples in every department, every council and every central or devolved government. I suspect that highlighting tax payers waste was not the driving force behind this thread though!