The Senior Lecturer on Appleby and the courts

It has, of course, always been the favoured trick of those who despise the state so much that they try to avoid any regulation that it imposes to resort to its legal protection whenever they might. But it’s telling that the action is only being brought against the BBC and Guardian and only in the UK. And that’s because the fact is that UK libel law still stacks the odds against the telling of truth in this country. And that means the law becomes a weapon for the rich and powerful to use to suppress tales of abuse of all sorts.

They’re not suing them for libel but for breach of confidence.

But then someone who lost a libel case to Lord Ashcroft will tend to think that all is about libel law…..

Not only do Appleby’s deserve to lose heavily, the point has to still be made that even after recent libel law changes the UK is the remaining place for such litigation, as this case proves.

Nope, breach of confidence. Err, something rather extended by the Human Rights Act as well. You know, the EU.

17 comments on “The Senior Lecturer on Appleby and the courts

  1. “It has, of course, always been the favoured trick of those who despise the state so much that they try to avoid any regulation that it imposes”

    Is this Spud accusing Appleby of ‘despising the state’ and ‘avoiding any regulations’?

    Gosh, this tarnishes Appleby’s reputation in my opinion. I think much less of them.

    I hope Spud can prove what he says about them. It’d be kinda libellous if he couldn’t.

  2. Bertrand Russell insisted that he didn’t have to fight because he was a pacifict but also insisted that HMG had a duty to protect him from Hitler.
    Appleby’s, OTOH, insist that they are obeying all relevant laws and want some relevant laws to be applied to those taking advantage of theft – not quite as incomnsistent as Murphy tries to suggest

  3. In the Guardian:

    “Jeremy Corbyn has expressed his support for the Guardian and the BBC in the face of legal action over their reporting on overseas tax havens, which he described as “an immoral scourge”.”

    I could read that one of three ways. I prefer the version in which Jezza described the BBC and Guardian as an immoral scourge over their reporting on overseas tax havens.

    I do so love the English language.

  4. So a UK organisation (BBC) publishes information in the UK
    Under what jurisdiction is he suggesting that they should sue them under instead of the UK?

  5. …….and this man is a lecturer at a UK University. He doesn’t appear to be able to read and comprehend what he has read. I’m a humble scientist and even I understood that this was a case of breach of confidence not libel. Indeed I don’t think the word libel has appeared ina nay news report I have read

  6. “And that’s because the fact is that UK libel law still stacks the odds against the telling of truth in this country.”

    No Richard, it doesn’t. I know that’s what you would like to tell yourself but, well, you would wouldn’t you.

    It stacks the odds against those who would wish to go around defaming others. It may be that only the rich have the means to access it, but hey, if you hadn’t lied about him, he wouldn’t have used that access against you.

    ‘And that means the law becomes a weapon for the rich and powerful to use to suppress tales of abuse of all sorts.”

    Or even just tales of getting your rocks spanking slappers whilst wearing kit reminiscent of the stuff your fascist dad liked to wear.

    And it seems that where Impress, Hacked Off anax Mosley are concerned you’re more than happy for the rich to enjoy that “weapon to supress tales of abuse of all sorts”.

  7. He doesn’t appear to be able to read and comprehend what he has read.

    As I have noted at other times, Murphy reads rapidly, inaccurately and uncritically. He does not read to gather facts or analyze facts. Nor does he read to develop an argument or an analysis. He reads to confirm his bias.

  8. Oddly, some Brit woman has come out of the woodwork re Harvey Weinstein. She settled for £150k and signed an NDA. presumably she’ll give the money back now she breached the NDA, although accepting it in the first instance proves that she was a whore, accepting money for sex.

  9. I’m getting she’s assuming he won’t dare sue her at this point for the money as it would only make him look worse so she can pretend to have principles and make herself out a martyr
    The BBC article states he never laid a finger or made a suggestion to her, But another woman told her about an attempt he made.

    See Matt Damon is in trouble for suggesting that just because there’s some scum bags abusing their position it doesn’t mean all men in Hollywood are in the same boat, that there’s a spectrum of behaviour

  10. “Bertrand Russell insisted that he didn’t have to fight because he was a pacifict but also insisted that HMG had a duty to protect him from Hitler.”

    The best use for pacifists is human shields for soldiers. You don’t want to fight? Fine. You can still die for your country, though.

  11. Sod the breach of confidence action, what about criminal prosecution for potential offences under the Computer Misuse Act etc, hell even terrorism offences under the Terrorism Act 2000?

  12. Spud seems remarkably tetchy in the comments, even for him, though no one has overtly mentioned his own libel case.

    On a vaguely related matter, I imagine it’s just him and his dad for Christmas dinner. Do you think he’ll bother with a turkey?

  13. Like some of our other commentators here, I’ve signed confidentiality contracts that would result in criminal conviction, not a pansy little civil conviction, so boo hoo pussy cat. Still, they have the might of the Scott Trust funds to throw at it.

  14. I’ve signed confidentiality contracts that would result in criminal conviction, not a pansy little civil conviction

    That’s what they tell you – they are, of course, lying.

    Unless you are signing on as an outsider under s1(1)(b) OSA89 (and even then they only need to tell you, not to have you acknowledge it in writing), the OSAs apply to you regardless of whether or not you’ve signed their little bit of paper.

    It’s what Bruce Schneider refers to as “security theatre”.

  15. “Andrew K

    Spud seems remarkably tetchy in the comments, even for him, though no one has overtly mentioned his own libel case.”

    Not overtly. But I did drop some enormous hints…

    “If on the other hand you lied about, say, whether a firm was aiding in tax evasion when it wasn’t then that would be libel” – Ralph Spangler

    “If they said Appleby knowingly helped clients to evade tax and that wasn’t correct then that would be libel. ….

    and libel cases can be very very very expensive if you lose” – Charles Phillips

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.