This can’t be right.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

In terms of the responsibility it clearly is, as this is the precedent and that's why it happened. There's consequences to changing that if it was done in the name of the job, which in this case it was determined it was.

The libel was issued via her own personal email account and she was being sued for libel personally in the first instance. It suited the government to conflate her personal and professional roles to get rid of the claim.

[JamesWales]

The libel was issued via her own personal email account and she was being sued for libel personally in the first instance. It suited the government to conflate her personal and professional roles to get rid of the claim.

Clearly that doesn't matter, as she was referring to an issue well within her remit. If that's what the precedent is, I can accept that. My understanding is that the payout prevented a more protracted process that would have cost taxpayers more (not that this is the issue that people actually are bothered about here).

She shouldn't have done it, thats unquestionable, but I can see why she hasn't personally paid out.

I'm not going to get outraged given the sum and the sheer amount of other abuses of public money about.

The terrorist who murdered the Tory MP was given nearly ten times this sum in legal aid for example. That's the law, that's precedent, that's where we are.

[jon1959]

Clearly that doesn't matter, as she was referring to an issue well within her remit. If that's what the precedent is, I can accept that. My understanding is that the payout prevented a more protracted process that would have cost taxpayers more (not that this is the issue that people actually are bothered about here).

She shouldn't have done it, thats unquestionable, but I can see why she hasn't personally paid out.

I'm not going to get outraged given the sum and the sheer amount of other abuses of public money about.

The terrorist who murdered the Tory MP was given nearly ten times this sum in legal aid for example. That's the law, that's precedent, that's where we are.

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.

[JamesWales]

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!

[the other bob wilson]

Oh right, maybe you can illustrate your point by pointing to all the times I've started threads on WG ministers, the WG in general, or where I have labelled anyone slavish merely for believing in legal precedent?

You'll be wasting your time Bob. Its annoying of course, she shouldn't have done it, but don't pretend this is an honourable thread, as there are far far greater wastes of public money that you choose to overlook for political reasons

There you go again, making out you know what I’m thinking.

The amount of money involved here is relatively small I know, but I find it interesting and telling that you and Pipster have centred on the amount involved, whereas I look at the principle behind the issue. What Michelle Donelan did was disgraceful - it was not like some construction worker making an expensive mistake, she went out of her way to come down hard on someone who was innocent of what she was accused and Donelan then put pressure on what’s supposed to be an independent body to suspend her.

That should be a sacking offence for a politician of any party - why should I, or anyone else, pay towards making sure that Donelan escapes Scot free?

[JamesWales]

There you go again, making out you know what I’m thinking.

The amount of money involved here is relatively small I know, but I find it interesting and telling that you and Pipster have centred on the amount involved, whereas I look at the principle behind the issue. What Michelle Donelan did was disgraceful - it was not like some construction worker making an expensive mistake, she went out of her way to come down hard on someone who was innocent of what she was accused and Donelan then put pressure on what’s supposed to be an independent body to suspend her.

That should be a sacking offence for a politician of any party - why should I, or anyone else, pay towards making sure that Donelan escapes Scot free?

Because that's how things work. Why should I pay to fix any mistake made in any public sector organisation? Why shouldn't that person pay it themselves?

I can go on and on, but won't because I think the point is made tbh.

I obviously agree with you that you can't accuse people of things without reason to do so, but I do understand why she isn't paying it out herself. That's the difference.

[the other bob wilson]

Because that's how things work. Why should I pay to fix any mistake made in any public sector organisation? Why shouldn't that person pay it themselves?

I can go on and on, but won't because I think the point is made tbh.

I obviously agree with you that you can't accuse people of things without reason to do so, but I do understand why she isn't paying it out herself. That's the difference.

As Jon said earlier, was Donelan acting in an official capacity when she was posting libelous accusations on social media and was she carrying out her Ministerial brief when she put pressure on to get a suspension? I think that’s arguable at best because Donelan would appear to have acted on personal feelings.

[JamesWales]

As Jon said earlier, was Donelan acting in an official capacity when she was posting libelous accusations on social media and was she carrying out her Ministerial brief when she put pressure on to get a suspension? I think that’s arguable at best because Donelan would appear to have acted on personal feelings.

Evidently she got it wrong, but it's part of her remit to comment on such matters if she felt someone deeply inappropriate had been appointed to that board. No one disputes she got it wrong, she'll pay a price, but I don't think she, or any other politician would be paying the sum from their own pockets.

Just looked it up and taxpayers paid out £2.7bn in 2022/23 for claims and legal costs.

It's a huge issue and maybe we should scrutinise that a bit more too?

[JamesWales]

Evidently she got it wrong, but it's part of her remit to comment on such matters if she felt someone deeply inappropriate had been appointed to that board. No one disputes she got it wrong, she'll pay a price, but I don't think she, or any other politician would be paying the sum from their own pockets.

Just looked it up and taxpayers paid out £2.7bn in 2022/23 for claims and legal costs.

It's a huge issue and maybe we should scrutinise that a bit more too?

Sorry, that £2.7bn is NHS alone.

[the other bob wilson]

[Dave Blue]

I thought this would be a sound thread, as clear as day that the Minister was in the wrong and acting in a libellous manner is no part of anyone’s job. But lo and behold, the same tossers are on here justifying it. Unreal.

[the other bob wilson]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68790427

[pipster]

I thought this would be a sound thread, as clear as day that the Minister was in the wrong and acting in a libellous manner is no part of anyone’s job. But lo and behold, the same tossers are on here justifying it. Unreal.

So - anyone who dares disagree with your opinion is a tosser ?

[Citizen's Nephew]

....meanwhile....just see what they're doing to carers. https://www.ccmb.co.uk/showthread.ph...clear-his-name