I now deeply regret supporting Nadine Dorries on the issue of blogging freedom after her ISP pulled her blog, following legal threats from the odious Barclay Bros. it is now back. Nadine is such a courageous campaigner for truth, she has pulled the article from her website – something I have never done in response to threats from lawyers acting for Usmanov, Spicer or anybody else.
But then, I have never libelled anyone. Nadine was introduced to blogging by Dorries Dale, recently found guilty of libel in a case that set the Mail on Sunday back over 350,000 pounds including damages and costs.
http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2009/05/press-release/
You can find a photo of Britian’s most libellous bloggers here, as they spend their lives on a never-ending round of freebies.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/05/dorries_and_dal.html#comments
Someone who’s poor hasn’t much to lose. What could anyone sue him for? But if anyone successfully sued Nadine Dorries, she and her family could be ruined. Given this, is it fair to denounce her as a coward?
Peculiar argument – it is OK for the rich to behave badly because they have more to protect. Are you sure you have thought that through?
The idea that the poor are somehow protected from libel action by their poverty, it is of course nonsense. As I have almost no money, if I lost a libel action the bailiffs would be round and taking the few prized possessions I retain. That would in fact hurt me a great deal more than if Nadine had to give up one of her four homes.
This entry really is dumb:
1) If an MP loses a case such as this, he or she will almost certainly be declared bankrupt and automatically have to stand down as an MP. It is much easier to be brave like Craig without this threat
2) Iain Dale immediately apologised and attempted to have the article changed (at 6:30 on Saturday night). This apparently wasn’t possible, and the apology was not enough for poor unfortunate Tom Watson MP, who immediately instructed those heroes of the undertrodden, Carter Ruck.
The question surely is not one of rich or poor, until the issue of libel is established.
If she libelled, then it is expedient to pull the article; if she didn’t libel, and pulled the article, due to threats, then she is a coward.
AndyL
I have written quite a few more articles than Iain for the Mail on Sunday. I don’t buy the “Couldn’t change after 6.30pm” story. It’s not even true for section 2, and certainly not for the first section.
As Jimmy Giro points out, if she is writing truthfully she need not fear a libel action.
Actually I don’t think you should regret supporting her, even if she has caved in since. If you believed then, and still do now, that the information about the Barclays was true or supportable then you did the right thing. Doing the right thing, even when others do not, should not be a matter for regret.
Jimmy is right though – the main issue is establishing whether the Barclays were libelled. She must have had grounds for believing her statements to be true. Given that, I think she should republish and wait for court action, which would never arrive. What do you think, Craig? Would the BBs sue if Dorries pushed them?
On a side note, I re-read the article in question from this website, and found that Nadine predicted the following if large parties are abandoned by the electorate at the next general election:
> “We will be rendered impotent and
> may never again regain the authority
> to withstand the pressure, opinion and
> whims of the overtly wealthy”.
Lovely. When is she defecting to a party that reflects that position?
Sorry, I can’t resist just one more:
> Is there not something slightly hypocritical
> about the DT increasing its revenue by an
> estimated £1 million per day in the name of
> public good?
Um… I think I heard somewhere that one or two Tories secretly rather admired free market principles? :o)
Craig
You may be right about the 6:30 issue – I don’t know what normally happens or what really happened that time.
However I think you were being “economical” by not mentioning it
I posted a comment on her blog yesterday asking her to point me in the direction of her previous writings deploring the legal bullying by the rich of those less well off or her position on enshrining freedom of speech in a future written constitution. The comment didn’t even make it through her moderation.
Tells you all you need to know.
Nadine doesn’t own any homes. She rents two.
Of course if Nadine had more than 6 brain cells (2 of which are on vacation at any given time) then she’d have simply read her feasibly-true conspiracy theories into the parliamentary record, giving her carte blanche to then link to Hansard.
@Craig “it is OK for the rich to behave badly..”
I was referring specifically to the accusation of cowardice, not misuse of allowances.
@Craig “that the poor are somehow protected from libel action .. is nonsense.”
My point was (partly) that fighting any legal action costs much money, and the poor might qualify for legal aid which anyone better off would not. I do not know exactly where the line is drawn, however. But I do think that someone like Dorries would have more to lose, money as well as many prized possessions, not just a few.
@Craig “Nadine had to give up one of her four homes”
I wasn’t aware that she owned any homes. Could you tell us which four homes you have in mind?
She does not own any homes. You are attacking the wrong target here and displaying your misogyny to boot. There are other far bigger targets in Westminster.
“Is there not something slightly hypocritical about the DT increasing its revenue by an estimated £1 million per day in the name of public good?”
Perhaps, but not half as hypocritical as Tory MPs – always the first to denounce benefit cheats – squealing with indignation when they get caught with their own fingers in the till.
“She censors posts that disagree with her views – why, then, should she expect help when she is censored?
Because we are better than her.”
Can I take it that we are not now better than her (tongue is firmly in cheek before you get uppity).
I disagree.
Even the cowardly and stupid have the right to free speech. And no-one should have their whole web site taken down because of one offending article.
As for pulling the article, you don’t know her motivations for doing so. It may have been cowardice. On the other hand, after all the comments she received she might just have decided that she was wrong after all.
I still support her right to free speech. I just wish she did too.
For the apparently google incapable Abe rene and eddie:
A colourful Tory MP was at the centre of a fresh expenses riddle last night after admitting that she runs four homes ?” none of which is near the Commons.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1183553/Homes-Cotswolds-South-Africa-Bedfordshire-MP-Nadine-Dorries-doesnt-live-near-House-Commons.html
Please not I never said she owns four houses. She owns too, one in the Cotswolds but not the one she lives in there, and one in South Africa. The ones she owns are rented out so she can get that income plus claim rent from the taxpayer.
You may also care to note i never siad she owned four houses. I for example have a home but owe nothing.
£350,000? Where on earth did you get that figure from? Presumably you made it up.
Iain
I think you know where I got it.
It includes costs for both sides. Carter Ruck aren’t cheap.
If you wish to give an alternative figure I shall happily publish it.
The Daily Mail ran the article to which the link is given on 17th May. On the 21st, in her blog, Dorries denied either owning a home from whihc she gets rental income, or owning a home in South Africa.
Perhaps we should not believe everything we read in the Daily Mail.
Craig I stand corrected, even though your spelling has gone haywire. Even so, she is not at the top of the scoundrels table by any means.
You couldn’t make this up…
http://tinyurl.com/oncjv7
Voting is a much more serious matter than letting off steam in a forum. It’s deciding the fate of the country and of history. As voters, sharers in democratic power, we have a responsibility to think hard about what any candidates are for, not just what they are against. Else we might get a bunch of freeloaders with no relevant experience, worse than the MPs they stand against.
Abe Rene,
The Mail tell me they stand by their story. You will quite probably find she is the beneficial owner rather than having her name on the title deeds.
What a tangled web, if this be true. But how would anyone prove that she were the beneficial owner of property in the Cotswolds and South Africa? Failing to update the register of members’ interests after her divorce might give rise to suspicion and criticism, but how to place the matter beyond doubt?
I’m confused – does she own two or not? She “runs” four but what prrof do you have that she is a “beneficial owner” of two others?
Well. apparently she gets rent from them. So, unless she is sub-letting.
Rather stopped thinking about this one now!
If we demolished the house of lords we would have the space to give MPs FREE accommodation (no need to claim on expenses)just buy some of these at £1,695 a go…
http://tinyurl.com/mku354
Problem solved…No need to thank me.