Dame Margaret, Lady Hodge

Apparently not quite up with longstanding British attitudes. She wants to ban online anonymity. Because:

Among the dossier of abusive tweets collated by CST, one called Hodge “a backstabbing, evil old wrinkled pedo lover”

That is what a libel court would call mere vulgar abuse.

And she’d not want to even try prosecuting that for libel given the Oscar Wilde case. See back issue of Private Eye for why.

35 thoughts on “Dame Margaret, Lady Hodge”

  1. I’ve never received an abusive Tweet.

    There is nothing that says politicians must have a Twitter account. They choose to swim in the cesspool of the internet because they believe it will advance their interests, they must live with the nature of the beast.

  2. Our semitic chums do seem to have a problem with non-semites expressing themselves. Probably worried that some uncomfortable facts might get out….

  3. Bad punctuation means that she’s been accused of being both a pedo and a lover. I can’t imagine that the second accusation is true.

    It should read ‘a backstabbing, evil, old, wrinkled pedo-lover’.

  4. In the U.S., and I assume then Britain, public figures cannot claim defamation. I should think than anyone titled ‘Dame’ would be a public figure.

  5. @ Gamecock:

    ” In the U.S., and I assume then Britain, public figures cannot claim defamation.”

    The US differs from English law on public figures being fair game and I don’t think that’s the case over here, but M’Lud would probably know more…

  6. No, it’s one of the major differences. It’s an American only idea that public figure defence against libel.

    It’s also true that the phrase I used, “mere vulgar abuse” is a defense in libel. It’s accepted that calling someone a cunt isn’t actually stating that they’re a vulva, labia etc collection, instead it’s an insult. The interesting thing becomes what’s defined as an insult …….

  7. The interesting thing becomes what’s defined as an insult…twas ever thus “Do you bite your thumb at me?”

  8. There was a radio show recently where the MP being interviewed complained to the interviewer that she was shouting at him, to which she promptly replied I’m a voter I’m allowed to shout at you
    Fair enough I thought

  9. The old cunt can piss up her leg. If you are going to be subject to reprisals anyway–might as well track the sleb down and give them a hiding.

  10. I hadn’t seen a picture of her recently, but from a quick squint at google images I’d say she is indeed wrinkled.

  11. So Much For Subtlety

    Chris December 7, 2020 at 2:43 pm – “Well, now we know you’re a cunt. But you may not be uncomfortable with that.”

    Joanthan is openly and unreservedly anti-Semitic in the sense that he is anti-Semitic and not merely someone who annoys people who like to throw the term anti-Semite around.

    But unfortunately he does sort of have a point. The number of Muslims who support free speech for non-Muslims is rather small. Not zero but small. The number of Jews who support proper free speech for non-Jews is, I think, even smaller. Which is reasonable if you think about – trusting non-Jews is a bit of an issue when you can see a long history of non-Jews being non-trustworthy.

    I would think that the main lobby against ending Hate Speech laws is the Jewish community. For that reason.

    I noticed this when reading about the Andrew Bolt case in Australia. He said that some very White people claiming to be Aboriginees weren’t all that Black. He got sued and he lost. He was sued by a man called Joel Zyngier. Well he found a White-ish woman as plaintiff but close enough. He was due to be tried before Justice Finkelstein, but went before Justice Mordecai “Mordy” Bromberg. Bolt lost.

    https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2011/05/andrew-bolt-on-trial/

    I mean I don’t want to join Jonathan but there is a pattern there.

    The law was passed by a Labour Party AG Michael Lavarch. Want to bet he was Jewish too?

    The modern Tory Party has never come out in favour of free speech and continues to support Hate Speech laws. They also have a significant Jewish membership these days. Want to bet there is a significant over lap between those two? In all fairness, you would have to over-look a lot of history if you were in favour of free speech *and* Jewish.

  12. And she’d not want to even try prosecuting that for libel given the Oscar Wilde case. See back issue of Private Eye for why.

    I don’t know about that. Your courts a receptive to defamation cases in a way that we, over here, can’t understand. Sure, they might eventually find for the defendant, but it could be a long slog before you get there.

  13. My thought was the writer was referring to the early 1980s when Islington Council and other Labour organisations gave or attempted to give PIE a level of support and legitimacy. That is undeniably in the public domain for libel purposes.

  14. Islington Council under Hodge turned a blind eye to an abuse scandal in their childrens’ homes. Patsy Hewitt and Harriet Harperson tried to enable PIE when they were at the NCCL ( later Liberty ). Hewitt recanted many years later and said that they were wrong, but Hattie still brazens it out with a “before my time” defence.

  15. The law was passed by a Labour Party AG Michael Lavarch. Want to bet he was Jewish too?

    You may be blind to another connection.

  16. One point not made is that Dame Margaret, Lady Hodge made use of the Liechtenstein disclosure facility, so a self-admitted tax dodger to boot. That would certainly be hard to deny in court.

  17. No, don’t say that. She used the facility, entirely true. But showed that no tax had been evaded by doing so.

  18. @ SMFS:

    ” Jonthan is openly and unreservedly anti-Semitic ”

    Call me a counter-semite and you’d be more accurate. As Steve Sailer says, the biggest crime today is to notice things and I’ve started noticing things.

    ” The modern Tory Party has never come out in favour of free speech and continues to support Hate Speech laws.”

    Who is the Treasurer/ major fundraiser of the Conservative party? He’s Ehud Sheleg, an Israeli. Weird coincidence huh?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Sheleg

  19. She used the facility, entirely true. But showed that no tax had been evaded by doing so.

    You’ve got me there Tim. Why would someone use a facility for tax dodgers to cough if they’re not dodging taxes?

  20. The exact details elude me at this distance. But it was something along the lines of “you can declare assets using this facility and you should do so”. She did so and no tax was due because of some other reason that I can’t recall.

    The net effect being that assets were in Lux, and thereby tax protected, but that made no difference because they were tax protected through some other method as well. Sorta how I recall it.

  21. . . . I’ve started noticing things.

    No, you’re missing things. In this case that Ashkenazim are per capita over represented in the intellectual pursuits – one of which, sadly, is lefty bollocks. Even Israel, facing an immediate existential threat, continually teeters on the leftist abyss of suicide by stupid.

    Of course, there is more than one type of stupid.

  22. JG

    “Why would someone use a facility for tax dodgers to cough if they’re not dodging taxes?”

    Evasion / avoidance?

    AFAIAW she perfectly legally avoided? Correct me if I’m wrong.

    But what she always rightly gets slated for is that she’s a hypocrite. Because she was always haranguing (using her Parliamentary positions) those who also “avoided”. What she did was kosher, absolutely tickety boo.

  23. So Much For Subtlety

    PJF December 8, 2020 at 11:50 am – “No, you’re missing things. In this case that Ashkenazim are per capita over represented in the intellectual pursuits – one of which, sadly, is lefty bollocks.”

    I am not sure how that follows. Let’s agree that Jews are over-represented in intellectual pursuits. Why does that make so many of them Leftists? And interested in banning free speech? Lefty bollocks is an intellectual pursuit. So is Thatcherism. The Lefty bollocks part is likely to be an intellectual pursuit because so many intellectuals are on the Left and need to justify their demands. If there were more intellectuals interested in, say, the Mormons, they would have a vast body of theoretical work too.

    BC December 8, 2020 at 5:16 pm – “@SMFS You’re also a cunt. And I am not Jewish.”

    I couldn’t care if you were Jewish or not. Why is it important? But I love your work, Dude.

  24. Let’s agree that Jews are over-represented in intellectual pursuits. Why does that make so many of them Leftists? And interested in banning free speech? Lefty bollocks is an intellectual pursuit. So is Thatcherism.

    Intellectual pursuits for all groups have leant left for well over a century now. Was it Jews in India, Indo-China and China? Jews have just gone with the flow like everyone else. And Freidman was as influential as Thatcher. Nearly everybody has been interested in banning free speech over all time. Madison wasn’t rebelling against King David.

    I see the joos and the US government (but same thing, am I right?) are now conspiring with aliens to keep us from our galactic destiny. And I bet those aliens in the underground bunkers on Mars are the joos of the Galactic Federation. I mean, they’re signing contracts to use us as their “helpers”, dude.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9029557/Mankind-contact-alien-Galactic-Federation-Israeli-official-says.html

    Hopefully, the neo-Nazi base on the far side of the moon can save us all.

  25. So Much For Subtlety

    PJF December 9, 2020 at 11:18 am – “Intellectual pursuits for all groups have leant left for well over a century now. Was it Jews in India, Indo-China and China? Jews have just gone with the flow like everyone else.”

    It is an interesting view that rejects agency for all and insists that somehow putting pen to paper pushes you to the left. I think “intellectual pursuits” do not have a preferred politics. People do. I think that intellectual pursuits in places like Germany did not lean left until after 1945. Some people have become academics and so pushed academia to the left. The issue is not why is sociology left wing because there is no reason for sociology to have any political preference. The question is why are so many sociologists on the left. Because they do.

    “And Freidman was as influential as Thatcher. Nearly everybody has been interested in banning free speech over all time. Madison wasn’t rebelling against King David.”

    Milton Freidman is an interesting exception. It is hard to see why free speech survives then. If no one has ever supported it.

    “I see the joos and the US government (but same thing, am I right?) are now conspiring with aliens to keep us from our galactic destiny.”

    Made my day.

  26. It is an interesting view that rejects agency for all and insists that somehow putting pen to paper pushes you to the left.

    It may be interesting but it’s not my view.

    It is hard to see why free speech survives then. If no one has ever supported it.

    Who said no one has supported it? Its support is tenuous. It has never properly existed and it likely never will.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *