Lee Anderson

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Dorkwood
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Lee Anderson

Post by Stranger Mouse » Sat May 14, 2022 9:39 am

Has teamed up with Martin Daubney (deputy leader of Reclaim who famously couldn’t remember who he represented)

In doing so he they have raised the ire of Bootstrap Cook. Because of defamation law I’m reluctant to link until there is some reporting on this as I don’t want to spread a potential defamation..

But it’s all great fun. The dynamic duo are pushing it like mad and Jack Monroe is just replying on Twitter with the number of views the alleged slander has had. They really ought to google Katie Hopkins.

I’ve put the thread in Lee Anderson’s name because I think he’s going to be the gift that keeps on giving for at least another couple of years.
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
jimbob
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3742
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by jimbob » Sat May 14, 2022 9:45 am

And this:

https://twitter.com/BootstrapCook/statu ... 3332047874
He doesn’t get the easy way out. This was premeditated, scripted, doubled down on, shared, and then repeated. I’m not playing nice now.
in reply to a suggestion of a grovelling apology and massive donation to a foodbank
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

noggins
Fuzzable
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by noggins » Sat May 14, 2022 11:55 am

Wtf? Jack is a good egg but do we really want this kind of low grade sh.t to be actionable? Because i want to able to mildly slander tories without fear.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 8745
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat May 14, 2022 12:09 pm

In what way is it "low grade" for a member of a (despicable) govt to go on the news and falsely claim a political activist is making huge sums of money exploiting the poor?

In any case if you ever want to say a Tory is making huge sums of money exploiting the poor you needn't worry about its being actionable.
Tree dwellers leaping out the boughs shouting «Get the paper»
Trunk hugging rebels chucking petals at a detonator

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Dorkwood
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by Stranger Mouse » Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 pm

noggins wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 11:55 am
Wtf? Jack is a good egg but do we really want this kind of low grade sh.t to be actionable? Because i want to able to mildly slander tories without fear.
I’m in two minds about it. The comments of these w.nkers that she is earning an absolute fortune, that she is probably earning more than the PM (so getting on for £200,000 with taxable benefits in kind excluding donor bungs) and taking money off the most vulnerable are pretty serious. Jack’s probably meagre income (she said she was thinking about training as a train driver which would double her income) relies on her public image to a certain extent and the accusations don’t appear to have any meat on their bones.

At the same time all the people treating Lee Anderson’s couple of hundred thousand pounds expenses as if they are just money for nothing are also leaving themselves open to criticism.
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Dorkwood
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by Stranger Mouse » Sat May 14, 2022 12:17 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 12:09 pm
In what way is it "low grade" for a member of a (despicable) govt to go on the news and falsely claim a political activist is making huge sums of money exploiting the poor?

In any case if you ever want to say a Tory is making huge sums of money exploiting the poor you needn't worry about its being actionable.
Truth is an absolute defence against defamation and if you express a fact within an opinion that can also be liable for damages if it is erroneous.

I think their claim that she is earning a fortune will be fairly easy to disprove. Strangely enough if they said she was earning more than Jeff Besos that could have been defended as hyperbole and not to be taken seriously
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Dorkwood
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by Stranger Mouse » Sat May 14, 2022 12:19 pm

noggins wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 11:55 am
Wtf? Jack is a good egg but do we really want this kind of low grade sh.t to be actionable? Because i want to able to mildly slander tories without fear.
Bearing in mind Lee Anderson has been filmed setting up a fake doorstep interview you can probably have a go at him as he hasn’t got a reputation to ruin
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Dorkwood
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by Stranger Mouse » Sat May 14, 2022 3:18 pm

Update

https://twitter.com/bootstrapcook/statu ... h_lY0e7InQ
Gloves off. Lawyer instructed. 732,000 views and climbing. Daubney, Anderson, Fox and co are playing a very expensive game of chicken with someone who has a proven track record of crossing this particular road without fear nor favour. Good luck, boys.
And Daubney in particular seems to be doubling and tripling down with some remarkably ill judged tweets
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2589
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Sun May 15, 2022 7:46 am

If it's actionable, it's actionable. If you're a politician, you should be staying away from saying things that are actionable. Of course it should be legal to sue if someone has lied about you.
Tomato passata potato frittata

EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1686
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by EACLucifer » Sun May 15, 2022 8:11 am

Though in general I worry about the misuse of libel law, specific claims are specific claims. It is hard to claim that you are being targetted for your opinions when you directly lie about specific, factual details.

Assuming they have lied, but then given who it is making these claims, I'm really quite ready to believe the are lying.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Dorkwood
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by Stranger Mouse » Sun May 15, 2022 10:57 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 8:11 am
Though in general I worry about the misuse of libel law, specific claims are specific claims. It is hard to claim that you are being targetted for your opinions when you directly lie about specific, factual details.

Assuming they have lied, but then given who it is making these claims, I'm really quite ready to believe the are lying.
Well there are basically two parts to their claims.

1) That she is wealthy.
2) That she has become wealthy by exploiting the poor and vulnerable. I’ve had some of their supporters say that if a poor person buys her book she is making money from them but I think this is a stretch. The entire thrust of Daubney and Anderson’s tirade made clear that they were accusing her of “taking advantage” or “exploiting” even if they do not use those words.

I think 1) will be very easy to disprove. I think they are working on the assumption that authors all earn the big bucks like J K Rowling but any writer is likely to tell you that this is sadly untrue.

They may be able to squirm around 2) a bit but bearing in mind how Sally Bercow lost a lot of money for tweeting “innocent face” I can’t see them getting very far.
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
bob sterman
Catbabel
Posts: 858
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by bob sterman » Sun May 15, 2022 11:04 am

To be defamatory a claim generally needs to lower the claimant's reputation in the estimation of "right thinking members of society" - not merely a section of society.

Making a false claim about a factual detail is not necessarily defamatory in itself - e.g. simply claiming that someone earns a lot of money is unlikely to be defamatory in isolation (even if false) as we currently live in a society where earning a lot of money is not seen as a bad thing.

However, a false claim that someone earns a lot of money could potentially be defamatory if it leads to an imputation of something that would lower the claimant in the eyes of "right thinking members of society" such dishonesty or hypocrisy (e.g. if they had claimed to not earn a lot of money).

False claims about factual details could lead to a different type of action - malicious falsehood. For something to be a malicious falsehood it doesn't need to be defamatory - it just needs to be untrue and cause damage. But to bring a malicious falsehood claim - the claimant needs to demonstrate that the claim was published maliciously (not merely negligently) and also the claimant needs to demonstrate actual loss.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Dorkwood
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by Stranger Mouse » Sun May 15, 2022 11:13 am

bob sterman wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 11:04 am
To be defamatory a claim generally needs to lower the claimant's reputation in the estimation of "right thinking members of society" - not merely a section of society.

Making a false claim about a factual detail is not necessarily defamatory in itself - e.g. simply claiming that someone earns a lot of money is unlikely to be defamatory in isolation (even if false) as we currently live in a society where earning a lot of money is not seen as a bad thing.

However, a false claim that someone earns a lot of money could potentially be defamatory if it leads to an imputation of something that would lower the claimant in the eyes of "right thinking members of society" such dishonesty or hypocrisy (e.g. if they had claimed to not earn a lot of money).

False claims about factual details could lead to a different type of action - malicious falsehood. For something to be a malicious falsehood it doesn't need to be defamatory - it just needs to be untrue and cause damage. But to bring a malicious falsehood claim - the claimant needs to demonstrate that the claim was published maliciously (not merely negligently) and also the claimant needs to demonstrate actual loss.
Well if you say she is getting rich by exploiting poor people you are saying not only that she is exploiting poor people but also that she is lying about helping them and about not being rich. That would seem to fit the bar for damaging reputation. Their “more than the PM” reference point is quite handy for quantifying how much they are accusing her of lying.

It’s in the Guadian now https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... e-anderson
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2589
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Sun May 15, 2022 11:22 am

I think an MP would have a hard time arguing that right-thinking members of society should ignore them because they're obviously talking bollocks
Tomato passata potato frittata

User avatar
jimbob
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3742
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by jimbob » Sun May 15, 2022 11:23 am

Stranger Mouse wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 11:13 am
bob sterman wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 11:04 am
To be defamatory a claim generally needs to lower the claimant's reputation in the estimation of "right thinking members of society" - not merely a section of society.

Making a false claim about a factual detail is not necessarily defamatory in itself - e.g. simply claiming that someone earns a lot of money is unlikely to be defamatory in isolation (even if false) as we currently live in a society where earning a lot of money is not seen as a bad thing.

However, a false claim that someone earns a lot of money could potentially be defamatory if it leads to an imputation of something that would lower the claimant in the eyes of "right thinking members of society" such dishonesty or hypocrisy (e.g. if they had claimed to not earn a lot of money).

False claims about factual details could lead to a different type of action - malicious falsehood. For something to be a malicious falsehood it doesn't need to be defamatory - it just needs to be untrue and cause damage. But to bring a malicious falsehood claim - the claimant needs to demonstrate that the claim was published maliciously (not merely negligently) and also the claimant needs to demonstrate actual loss.
Well if you say she is getting rich by exploiting poor people you are saying not only that she is exploiting poor people but also that she is lying about helping them and about not being rich. That would seem to fit the bar for damaging reputation. Their “more than the PM” reference point is quite handy for quantifying how much they are accusing her of lying.

It’s in the Guadian now https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... e-anderson
If believed, it would also be likely to cause a severe loss of earnings.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
bob sterman
Catbabel
Posts: 858
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by bob sterman » Sun May 15, 2022 11:27 am

Stranger Mouse wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 11:13 am
Well if you say she is getting rich by exploiting poor people you are saying not only that she is exploiting poor people but also that she is lying about helping them and about not being rich. That would seem to fit the bar for damaging reputation. Their “more than the PM” reference point is quite handy for quantifying how much they are accusing her of lying.

It’s in the Guadian now https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... e-anderson
Yes - there could be something actionable here. Not saying there isn't!

Personally, I think it's a more difficult case to make than her successful claim against Katie Hopkins. The behaviour that Hopkins falsely implied Monroe had engaged in was unequivocally something that would lower someone's reputation in the estimation of "right thinking members of society" (although perhaps not in the eyes of Laurie Penny!).

With the current claims - if they lead to the false imputation of lying - that could certainly be actionable. The view that lying is bad is widely held.

However, I think action based on the "exploiting poor people" claim could be tougher because we're talking about legal trade. Legal trade is mostly all about profit and there's a lot of variation in how much of this we view as exploitative.

Take for example selling lottery tickets, running a betting shop, or running a payday loan company. These all profit from their customers and many view a lot of this trade exploitative. But what would a court think the views of "right thinking members of society" would be? Not saying that specific claim is not actionable - just that I think the case would be harder to make.

User avatar
bob sterman
Catbabel
Posts: 858
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by bob sterman » Sun May 15, 2022 11:28 am

jimbob wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 11:23 am
Stranger Mouse wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 11:13 am
Well if you say she is getting rich by exploiting poor people you are saying not only that she is exploiting poor people but also that she is lying about helping them and about not being rich. That would seem to fit the bar for damaging reputation. Their “more than the PM” reference point is quite handy for quantifying how much they are accusing her of lying.

It’s in the Guadian now https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... e-anderson
If believed, it would also be likely to cause a severe loss of earnings.
Yes - if so could make a case for malicious falsehood even if it's not defamatory.

EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1686
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by EACLucifer » Sun May 15, 2022 11:42 am

Stranger Mouse wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 11:13 am
Their “more than the PM” reference point is quite handy for quantifying how much they are accusing her of lying.
That's the bit I was referring to by specific claims

noggins
Fuzzable
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by noggins » Sun May 15, 2022 11:49 am

But “severe loss of earnings” supports the claim that they are making a fortune.

I wonder if this is a trap.

User avatar
bob sterman
Catbabel
Posts: 858
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by bob sterman » Sun May 15, 2022 12:02 pm

noggins wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 11:49 am
But “severe loss of earnings” supports the claim that they are making a fortune.

I wonder if this is a trap.
Ah - good point! Perhaps best to stick with defamation. You don't need to prove actual loss of earnings to win a libel trial.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 8745
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sun May 15, 2022 12:11 pm

bob sterman wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 11:27 am
Stranger Mouse wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 11:13 am
Well if you say she is getting rich by exploiting poor people you are saying not only that she is exploiting poor people but also that she is lying about helping them and about not being rich. That would seem to fit the bar for damaging reputation. Their “more than the PM” reference point is quite handy for quantifying how much they are accusing her of lying.

It’s in the Guadian now https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... e-anderson
Yes - there could be something actionable here. Not saying there isn't!

Personally, I think it's a more difficult case to make than her successful claim against Katie Hopkins. The behaviour that Hopkins falsely implied Monroe had engaged in was unequivocally something that would lower someone's reputation in the estimation of "right thinking members of society" (although perhaps not in the eyes of Laurie Penny!).

With the current claims - if they lead to the false imputation of lying - that could certainly be actionable. The view that lying is bad is widely held.

However, I think action based on the "exploiting poor people" claim could be tougher because we're talking about legal trade. Legal trade is mostly all about profit and there's a lot of variation in how much of this we view as exploitative.

Take for example selling lottery tickets, running a betting shop, or running a payday loan company. These all profit from their customers and many view a lot of this trade exploitative. But what would a court think the views of "right thinking members of society" would be? Not saying that specific claim is not actionable - just that I think the case would be harder to make.
She's mentioned before as well that all her recipes in her books can be copied and distributed for free. And also arranged for thousands of them to be donated to food banks etc. So she can show she's gone above and beyond to lessen exploitation.
Tree dwellers leaping out the boughs shouting «Get the paper»
Trunk hugging rebels chucking petals at a detonator

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 5223
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by dyqik » Sun May 15, 2022 12:28 pm

noggins wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 11:49 am
But “severe loss of earnings” supports the claim that they are making a fortune.

I wonder if this is a trap.
No, it doesn't.

If she's bringing in £200k a year, and this reduces it to £100k a year, that's a large loss of earnings, but not particularly severe, in that it's not going to particularly threaten the ability to afford somewhere comfortable to live or to afford food, heat and power.

If she's bringing in £20k a year, and this reduces it to £10k a year, then that's a severe loss of earnings.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Dorkwood
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by Stranger Mouse » Sun May 15, 2022 12:52 pm

dyqik wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 12:28 pm
noggins wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 11:49 am
But “severe loss of earnings” supports the claim that they are making a fortune.

I wonder if this is a trap.
No, it doesn't.

If she's bringing in £200k a year, and this reduces it to £100k a year, that's a large loss of earnings, but not particularly severe, in that it's not going to particularly threaten the ability to afford somewhere comfortable to live or to afford food, heat and power.

If she's bringing in £20k a year, and this reduces it to £10k a year, then that's a severe loss of earnings.
Exactly. Some universal credit claimants lost £20 per week and it dropped them in the sh.t.

ETA

This is an old article but it refers to her receiving £25 thousand for a book deal and it cutting off her housing benefits. Now things could have changed since then but she currently lives in Southend On Sea which I don’t think is particularly cheap to live in.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... rn-poverty

Anderson was banging on about how he wasn’t privileged (I really do think it would be worth looking into his claims of being a coal miner and also whether he has family members working for him) and accused her of being privileged with a small fortune from her Bootstrapcooking. As well as the PM salary comparison I think you could use Anderson’s own salary for comparison purposes.

“Mr Anderson (Hugo Weaving voice) - with your salary of £82,000 do you consider yourself to be privileged?”

“No I work hard for my money blah blah blah”

“Then, Mr Anderson, how can to say that Ms Monroe who earns £25,000 (or whatever) per annum is earning a small fortune?”

With his doorstep shenanigans it should be easy to destroy his claims to honesty. With his other comments “If I classify a family as a nuisance they should be made to stay in a tent and have 12 hour days of potato picking and cold showers” it should be fairly easy to cast doubt upon his claims of caring about the poor.
Last edited by Stranger Mouse on Sun May 15, 2022 1:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
bob sterman
Catbabel
Posts: 858
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by bob sterman » Sun May 15, 2022 12:56 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 12:52 pm
dyqik wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 12:28 pm
noggins wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 11:49 am
But “severe loss of earnings” supports the claim that they are making a fortune.

I wonder if this is a trap.
No, it doesn't.

If she's bringing in £200k a year, and this reduces it to £100k a year, that's a large loss of earnings, but not particularly severe, in that it's not going to particularly threaten the ability to afford somewhere comfortable to live or to afford food, heat and power.

If she's bringing in £20k a year, and this reduces it to £10k a year, then that's a severe loss of earnings.
Exactly. Some universal credit claimants lost £20 per week and it dropped them in the sh.t.
This is all absolutely true - but the size of the loss of earnings is not relevant to a defamation (libel) claim. It's only reputational damage that needs to be demonstrated.

The size of the loss would be relevant to a malicious falsehood claim - and the small point Noggins made was that if the size of this loss was claimed to be very large it would undermine a claim that "earns less than the Prime Minister" is a falsehood.

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 5223
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Lee Anderson

Post by dyqik » Sun May 15, 2022 1:12 pm

bob sterman wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 12:56 pm
Stranger Mouse wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 12:52 pm
dyqik wrote:
Sun May 15, 2022 12:28 pm


No, it doesn't.

If she's bringing in £200k a year, and this reduces it to £100k a year, that's a large loss of earnings, but not particularly severe, in that it's not going to particularly threaten the ability to afford somewhere comfortable to live or to afford food, heat and power.

If she's bringing in £20k a year, and this reduces it to £10k a year, then that's a severe loss of earnings.
Exactly. Some universal credit claimants lost £20 per week and it dropped them in the sh.t.
This is all absolutely true - but the size of the loss of earnings is not relevant to a defamation (libel) claim. It's only reputational damage that needs to be demonstrated.

The size of the loss would be relevant to a malicious falsehood claim - and the small point Noggins made was that if the size of this loss was claimed to be very large it would undermine a claim that "earns less than the Prime Minister" is a falsehood.
Noggins (quoted) word was "severe", not "large". There's a world of difference, which is why I wrote what I wrote. You've just conflated that with large, again, which was my point

Post Reply