| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61782578
I don't think it's unfair to say that one of brexits biggest financial backers is a Russian asset.
Remember when brexiters frothed at the mouth calling remainers traitors?
I think you have misinterpreted this. Essentially the judge said she did defame him, but that it didn't cause reputational damage, partly because of the nature of who reads her tweets (ie, they already dont like him)Originally Posted by Doucas
I only keep a lose eye on these kind of things, but it strikes me as an interesting precedent to say the least.
He says he will like appeal too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61782578
A good result for those who think the powerful should be accountable.
So says one of Miss Codswallop's biggest fans
From the Justice:
- Ms Cadwalladr said she did not intend to make that allegation, and accepts it was untrue,.
True, although Carole is hardly without power. It does set an interesting precedent that you can say a mistruth that you believe to be true, repeat it but as long as your audience is something of an echo chamber then it doesn't mean their reputation has been damaged.
I do see the logic - Cadwalladr's followers wouldn't like Aaron Banks in any circumstance, so his reputation is likely not damaged, but as I say, it seems a curious decision to me because she basically admits what she said was untrue and she linked him to whom is now the most disliked person on earth (Vladimir Putin)
I don't much like either of them tbh. He's a brash, rude bully hero worshipped by the worst of the leaver set and she's an obnoxious self-entitled luvvie hero-worshipped by the worst of the remainer set
I think he was the biggest donor to the Leave campaign, and without his money the UK would very likely still be in the EU, so he holds a lot more power than her.
The echo chamber goes both ways, as he has publicly said and posted things about her that have directly led to death threats, amongst other things, from the more rabid of his followers. However, her pockets aren't deep enough to spend three years suing for libel. His are - that's the kind of power a select few have.
And after all the thousands of words she wrote about him, was that really it for untruths? No wonder he wanted to shut her up. And he very nearly did.
Yeah, I get it..but you can't just go around saying things about people with no consequences, especially after admitting it's not true. Obviously, he should have just let it be, but still..
His financing probably had little to do with the outcome really, when you look at who was funding the Remain campaign and they outspent leave by about 50% anyway.
https://www.electoralcommission.org....-eu-referendum
It's a moot point, as the globalists via their proxies at the WEF took over 5 mins after we left the EU.
For the most part, people do get away with saying things about people without consequences - because most of us cannot afford a three year legal campaign. I'm sure she wasn't the only person to say something untrue about him, but he certainly wanted to stop her investigations into him.
About half of that Leave money came from Banks, so I'd say his impact was massive. It may have been less than Remain, but it was spent more intelligently. Even so, cut it in half and surely Leave wouldn't win.
Took over what? The UK or the EU.... or both?
And it was only the presence of the UK in the EU that prevented this takeover before?
The thick plot is thickening further!
Look at the bigger picture and you will see what is happening.
Interesting piece of investigative journalism into the twitter habits of the judge who determined that someones reputation within twitter didn't matter.
I for one am absolutely flabbergasted
https://order-order.com/2022/06/15/m...apparent-bias/
Can't wait for Banks's appeal that the original judgement was flawed on the grounds that the judge followed Gary Lineker on twitter . Rarely has my flabber been so completely gasted!
It's not just Gary Lineker though is it. 24 of 27 followrs are high profile remainers. Perhaps this is a trend? I'm sure if the judgement went the other way you would be equally as concerned about a potentially politicised judiciary!
But actually, it may well form part of his appeal as it goes.
Any appeal will be based on whether the Judge made any errors in law, I believe that's how it works though we can keep track on what happens next for the estimable Mr Banks in his quest for redemption I guess!
Indeed, though there are specifics here given the case revolved around twitter and influence.
I trust the judge to make impartial decisions. It's just interesting to see it clearly highlighted at quite how unbalanced this establishment figures twitter interactions are.
As I said, it's whether her act in following twitter lovies translated into error in law. These cases have a tendency to start with a great trumpet of course we will appeal against this ridiculous verdict before quietly folding when the noise has died down.
Indeed...we shall see..
I think it's luvvies instead of lovies btw. Or Lefty luvvies to give them their full title
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote