This can’t be right.

[pipster]

Re: This can’t be right.

Once again, no link I see, but, assuming what you say is right, the WAG are wrong in that case, what more do you want me to say?

That's more than you'll ever get from the slavish defenders of the Westminster Government mind.

It cost the tax payer 15k - is that it ? feck me Wilson havent you got better things to do than jump up and down over 15k?

ps - if you want to know a secret I have some good friends at the beeb in Cardiff both floor staff and some that present. They are conservative with a small c - but they never talk politics at work because due to bullying and abhorrent behaviour of others. To quote one "At work it is like the far left of Starma - like Corbyn on steroids, I just dont respond"

I'll answer your point though to my mind slander is a person thing - unless she was quoting am official Whitehall source - in which case it is definitely a civil service problem - as in they have got their news wrong.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: This can’t be right.

It cost the tax payer 15k - is that it ? feck me Wilson havent you got better things to do than jump up and down over 15k?

ps - if you want to know a secret I have some good friends at the beeb in Cardiff both floor staff and some that present. They are conservative with a small c - but they never talk politics at work because due to bullying and abhorrent behaviour of others. To quote one "At work it is like the far left of Starma - like Corbyn on steroids, I just dont respond"

I'll answer your point though to my mind slander is a person thing - unless she was quoting am official Whitehall source - in which case it is definitely a civil service problem - as in they have got their news wrong.

And here’s slavish defender number 2.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: This can’t be right.

The point is , it wouldn’t matter who was elected , they are both “cheeks of the same derrière” regardless

Nearly five hours ago, I said in this thread that something like this should be above party politics, it’s just wrong.

[JamesWales]

Re: This can’t be right.

And here he comes - slavish defender number one!

No, I just disagree with you for the reasons outlined.

It's not defending her. I just understand why the employer paid. As do you, you just can't seem to think straight if the situation involves a Tory, but that law doesn't discriminate in the same way you do, thankfully!

Again, you are just being divisive. You present a situation that goes with legal precedent and anyone who disagrees is "slavishly" defending something.

Ridiculous.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: This can’t be right.

No, I just disagree with you for the reasons outlined.

It's not defending her. I just understand why the employer paid. As do you, you just can't seem to think straight if the situation involves a Tory, but that law doesn't discriminate in the same way you do, thankfully!

Again, you are just being divisive. You present a situation that goes with legal precedent and anyone who disagrees is "slavishly" defending something.

Ridiculous.

I notice you have not replied to TBG, not surprising really because he nailed it didn’t he.

The problem with you is that it is really hard to believe we’d see the same reaction if it had been a member of the WAG that did what Michelle Donelan did - same with Pipster.

[JamesWales]

Re: This can’t be right.

As someone who doesn't get involved in the right v left spats on here, your comparing faulty paving with a very deliberate libel is totally ingenuous.

Legally it's the same principle. She made a libellous mistake in the course of her work. Be careful what you wish for in terms of legal precedent!

[JamesWales]

Re: This can’t be right.

I notice you have not replied to TBG, not surprising really because he nailed it didn’t he.

The problem with you is that it is really hard to believe we’d see the same reaction if it had been a member of the WAG that did what Michelle Donelan did - same with Pipster.

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

[pipster]

Re: This can’t be right.

And here’s slavish defender number 2.

Im not quite sure what you actually wanted to happen.
People to not respond to your thread ?
People to respond to your thread (who god forbid) may have disagreed with you - so you can trigger yourself?
Or people to 'slavishly' agree with you - so you can puff your chest out and feel good about yourself ?

The sun is shining - breath in , breath out , go and make love to your wife... you'll have a much better time

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: This can’t be right.

Legally it's the same principle. She made a libellous mistake in the course of her work. Be careful what you wish for in terms of legal precedent!

Damages for libel and damages due to injury caused by negligence are not the same principle at all.

[JamesWales]

Re: This can’t be right.

Damages for libel and damages due to injury caused by negligence are not the same principle at all.

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.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: This can’t be right.

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]

Re: This can’t be right.

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]

Re: This can’t be right.

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]

Re: This can’t be right.

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]

Re: This can’t be right.

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?