[Omah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22553531

A tweet by Sally Bercow pointed the "finger of blame" at Tory peer Lord McAlpine in the wake of a report which saw him wrongly linked to claims of child abuse, the High Court has heard.

Lord McAlpine, who was falsely accused after a BBC Newsnight investigation, is seeking libel damages over the tweet.

He was not named on the programme but was wrongly identified on the internet.

Mrs Bercow, the wife of the House of Commons Speaker, has denied that her tweet was defamatory.

Last November, a Newsnight programme accused a "leading Conservative politician from the Thatcher years" of sexually abusing boys in the care of a children's home in Wales in the 1970s and 1980s, but it did not name Lord McAlpine.

There followed widespread speculation about the politician's identity and, two days after the broadcast, Mrs Bercow tweeted: "Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*."

She went on to apologise in four subsequent tweets.

'Nudge and wink'

The BBC apologised unreservedly to Lord McAlpine for wrongly and falsely implicating him. It settled his defamation claim for £185,000.

Several other high-profile figures also mentioned Lord McAlpine's name on the social networking site, Twitter.

The BBC's legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said the High Court "meaning hearing" was held in front of a judge and involved both sides arguing over the meaning of the words in the tweet.

If the judge decides the tweet was defamatory, there will be a separate hearing to decide the amount of damages owed. If he rules it was not, it will be an end to the case.

Sir Edward Garnier QC, a former solicitor general who is acting on behalf of Lord McAlpine, told the court that because of the huge amount of publicity around the Newsnight programme "only an idiot in a hurry" could not have known the meaning of the tweet.

He said it was against a backdrop of extensive news coverage that Mrs Bercow tweeted Lord McAlpine's name - a man who fitted the description of the unnamed person at the centre of the controversy.

The addition of "innocent face" underpinned the connection of him to wrongdoing, giving "a nudge and a wink" to readers.

Neutral question

"Put another way, what was the tweet about, if it was not pointing the finger of blame at Lord McAlpine?" he said.

Lord McAlpine was not in court for the hearing but Mrs Bercow did attend.

Her lawyer, William McCormick QC, told the judge that Mrs Bercow had swiftly tweeted a number of apologies and had written to apologise for the distress caused.

He added that a previous offer to settle the case had not been withdrawn.

He said Mrs Bercow's tweet posed a question and contained an implied statement of fact that Lord McAlpine was trending, but this was entirely neutral.

The words and punctuation of "innocent face", he said, were merely an indication that the question should be read with a deadpan emphasis or tone, comparable with stage directions such as sotto voce or a notation on a musical score.

Judgement in the hearing has been reserved.

Can there be any doubt .....

[arista]

Guilty

[Omah]

Yeah, she should be fined at least £100k .....

[Omah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22652083

A tweet by Sally Bercow about Lord McAlpine has been ruled libellous by the High Court.

Mrs Bercow said she was "surprised and disappointed" by the ruling.

A subsequent High Court hearing will determine the damages she must pay.

After publishing her comment about Lord McAlpine, Mrs Bercow apologised in four subsequent tweets but denied that her original tweet had been defamatory.

The judge ruled that the tweet meant that the Conservative peer was a "paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care".

In a statement, Mrs Bercow responded: "I will accept the ruling as the end of the matter. I remain sorry for the distress I have caused Lord McAlpine and I repeat my apologies.

"I did not tweet this with malice, and I did not intend to libel Lord McAlpine. I was being conversational and mischievous, as was so often my style on Twitter.

"I very much regret my tweet, and I promptly apologised publicly and privately to Lord McAlpine for the distress I caused him. I also made two offers of compensation. Lord McAlpine issued proceedings and the last few months have been a nightmare. I am sure he has found it as stressful as I have. Litigation is not a pleasant experience for anyone.

"Today's ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users. Things can be held to be seriously defamatory, even when you do not intend them to be defamatory and do not make any express accusation. On this, I have learned my own lesson the hard way."

I suspect that, precedent having been established, such cases will become more prevalent - what goes on social media can end up in the High Court .....

[Livia]

Saying it on the Internet opens you up to the same libel laws as if you took out an ad in the newspaper. You'd think someone who takes such great pains to paint herself as an intelligent woman would have know that.

[Kizzy]

If she had said 'why is McAlpine trending' she would have got away with that.

[Omah]

The words and punctuation of "innocent face", he said, were merely an indication that the question should be read with a deadpan emphasis or tone, comparable with stage directions such as sotto voce or a notation on a musical score.

I better be careful with my emoticons, then .....

[Omah]

Under the Defamation Bill, due to become law later this year, website operators may also be forced to remove potentially libellous comments by anonymous "trolls" or hand over their names and addresses to the authorities.

Who's that banging on your door .....

[Kizzy]

Big brother is watching you...

[Nedusa]

I think she should have more sense and not just jump on the tweeting bandwagon , her tweet was not 100 % clear so she does have some wiggle room. But she has apologised and the matter should be left there.

But it won't be because the wronged party here lord whatshisname is on a crusade for compensation. Mad for it he is , suing absolutely everybody and forcing them to donate money to charities of his choice.

He'll hath no fury for a Libelled Lord......!!!