Scrutable

dyqik wrote: ↑

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

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

Ok - yes - as you say they are very different. But I think Noggins meant size when he wrote severity.

And in any case neither "size" nor "severity" of financial loss are relevant to a defamation claim.

dyqik wrote: ↑

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

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

Furthermore accusing someone of being a liar when they do not have a reputation for being a liar is universally considered to be defamation. For Anderson and Daubney to be not making defamatory statements they would have to show that she was in fact rich and had lied about it and/or that she was exploiting poor people (in the commonly understood meaning of the term) and had lied about it. This is quite a high bar.

The question is not whether or not she earns more than the PM (lots of people do) - it is that she lied about it and earns lots of money on the backs of poor people compared to himself donating money to food banks and doing good work etc.

It’s worth noting that they majority of legal professionals commenting I’ve seen have come down firmly on the side of Anderson and Daubney dropping themselves in the sh.t.

dyqik wrote: ↑

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

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

Jack has tweeted this in response to a claim that she is worth £2-3 million

https://twitter.com/bootstrapcook/statu ... MA8Ts-BEOw

Can you let me know where it’s all buried please, because I just failed a credit check (publicly, humiliatingly) for a £10 a month broadband contract. Want to show them my secret stash so I can get my rightful internets

And David Banks tweeted this in response to Daubney’s claim of fair comment

https://twitter.com/dbanksy/status/1525 ... MA8Ts-BEOw

FYI it’s no longer called fair comment, it’s called honest opinion. The opinion needs to be based upon facts and one that an honest-minded person could hold, based on those facts. There should also be some indication of the facts upon which you are basing your opinion.

The opinion should be clearly stated as an opinion, so the reader/viewer/listener understands it as such. Furthermore it should actually be an opinion, not a statement of fact.

You can decide whether you’ve satisfied those conditions.

So you are arguing that if someone incorrectly accuses someone of something , eg,being rich , they should be punished not just for the damage of that accusation, but that the incorrect accusation should be extended to mean an all out assault on their victims integrity and honesty?

noggins wrote: ↑

Sun May 15, 2022 1:43 pm

So you are arguing that if someone incorrectly accuses someone of something , eg,being rich , they should be punished not just for the damage of that accusation, but that the incorrect accusation should be extended to mean an all out assault on their victims integrity and honesty?

No

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Sun May 15, 2022 1:30 pm

Furthermore accusing someone of being a liar when they do not have a reputation for being a liar is universally considered to be defamation. For Anderson and Daubney to be not making defamatory statements they would have to show that she was in fact rich and had lied about it and/or that she was exploiting poor people (in the commonly understood meaning of the term) and had lied about it. This is quite a high bar.

The question is not whether or not she earns more than the PM (lots of people do) - it is that she lied about it and earns lots of money on the backs of poor people compared to himself donating money to food banks and doing good work etc.

It’s worth noting that they majority of legal professionals commenting I’ve seen have come down firmly on the side of Anderson and Daubney dropping themselves in the sh.t.

Yes - absolutely - accusing someone of being a liar can be defamatory - and saying something which implies they are a liar (even if not said explicitly) can also be defamatory - if (as I wrote in my first post on this thread) the supposed dishonesty could be imputed from what was claimed.

For a case related to "earns more than the PM" claim then facts around this would be relevant, and what that claim can be taken to mean, and whether Monroe had said anything about her level of earnings in recent years which could lead to the imputation of dishonesty. The question of whether she does or doesn't earn more than the PM would be central to this - as the falsehood would need to be established.

However, as I said I think the "exploitative" angle is harder to pursue since we're talking about mainstream book publishing - and "right thinking members of society" might not view it as exploitative.

noggins wrote: ↑

Sun May 15, 2022 1:43 pm

So you are arguing that if someone incorrectly accuses someone of something , eg,being rich , they should be punished not just for the damage of that accusation, but that the incorrect accusation should be extended to mean an all out assault on their victims integrity and honesty?

I'm not arguing that at all.

I suggest you try reading what I wrote, and argue within the context of this particular case, not what you think is going on.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sun May 15, 2022 2:35 pm

noggins wrote: ↑

Sun May 15, 2022 1:43 pm

So you are arguing that if someone incorrectly accuses someone of something , eg,being rich , they should be punished not just for the damage of that accusation, but that the incorrect accusation should be extended to mean an all out assault on their victims integrity and honesty?

I'm not arguing that at all.

I suggest you try reading what I wrote, and argue within the context of this particular case, not what you think is going on.

To be explicit, accusing a poverty campaigner who has built a reputation on knowing what it's like to be extremely poor, and who's continuing reputation at least partially relies on publicly having to make ends meet with little money, of being rich is a very different thing to accusing a random member of the public of being rich.

It is a direct and calculated attack on her reputation, integrity and honesty.

"exploiting" poor people is also a clear accusation of bad faith. Offering services, advice, products designed to assist poor people to make ends meet more easily for money is clearly not exploitation, but the joint accusation of her being wealthy (false) and of, essentially, targeting poor people in bad faith specifically to make money off them rather than other groups of people (false) is what the average right-thinking person would understand the accusation to mean.

Now, I'm going to guess here that if, on the opinion of a defamation lawyer, Jack Monroe has no case to pursue, he'll advise her to back away. If, on the other hand, this goes to court, the implication there would be that there is a case here. The lawyer she's worked with previously has done so pro bono. I doubt that lawyer is going to want to waste their time if they don't think it has legs.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Sun May 15, 2022 2:52 pm

"exploiting" poor people is also a clear accusation of bad faith. Offering services, advice, products designed to assist poor people to make ends meet more easily for money is clearly not exploitation, but the joint accusation of her being wealthy (false) and of, essentially, targeting poor people in bad faith specifically to make money off them rather than other groups of people (false) is what the average right-thinking person would understand the accusation to mean.

Now, I'm going to guess here that if, on the opinion of a defamation lawyer, Jack Monroe has no case to pursue, he'll advise her to back away. If, on the other hand, this goes to court, the implication there would be that there is a case here. The lawyer she's worked with previously has done so pro bono. I doubt that lawyer is going to want to waste their time if they don't think it has legs.

Also Anderson and Bane seem to have no understanding of “bane and antidote”. It would have been easy for them to say “don’t be ridiculous I was obviously joking when I said she earned more than the PM. I often say that my son is doing so well with his paper round that he’ll soon be worth more than Jeff Bezos but I don’t expect people to take that seriously”

But they didn’t. They doubled down.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Sat May 14, 2022 12:09 pm

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.

Why not? Because Tories are so nice that they would never sue you? Because no Tory would ever have a reputation which could be harmed? Because every Tory is making huge sums of money exploiting the poor? All of those seem to be very dodgy propositions indeed.

(you've heard of a "joke", right? It's a thing where people say something often misleading, in order to raise a laugh).

So Anderson's grand strategy is:-

1. Announce that the poor could all feed themselves nutritious meals for 30p a pop with just the right cookery skills and can-do attitude.
2. Start a public spat with a food journalist/activist who specialises in ... *checks notes* ... writing cook books for those with tight budgets.
3. ?????
4. Non-exploitive PROFIT!


*Flicks through wiki-page* ... Brexit-supporter ... Labour-defector ... "Cultural Marxism" ... Antisemitism accusations ... Taking the knee ... Pro-labour camps ... Anti-vaxxer ... Anti-traveller ... Staged door-knocking stunts.

Well he appears to be a full-spectrum horrible c.nt-weaselling toad of a human being*.


*Which I believe is considered mere vulgar abuse so I'm fine.

Little waster wrote: ↑

Mon May 16, 2022 8:24 am

So Anderson's grand strategy is:-

1. Announce that the poor could all feed themselves nutritious meals for 30p a pop with just the right cookery skills and can-do attitude.
2. Start a public spat with a food journalist/activist who specialises in ... *checks notes* ... writing cook books for those with tight budgets.
3. ?????
4. Non-exploitive PROFIT!


*Flicks through wiki-page* ... Brexit-supporter ... Labour-defector ... "Cultural Marxism" ... Antisemitism accusations ... Taking the knee ... Pro-labour camps ... Anti-vaxxer ... Anti-traveller ... Staged door-knocking stunts.

Well he appears to be a full-spectrum horrible c.nt-weaselling toad of a human being*.


*Which I believe is considered mere vulgar abuse so I'm fine.

He doesn’t appear to be an anti vaxxer (perhaps surprisingly). I don’t think we should lump in everyone who votes against sensible covid measures with anti vaxers.

https://www.leeanderson.org.uk/VaccineFAQ

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Mon May 16, 2022 8:48 am

He doesn’t appear to be an anti vaxxer (perhaps surprisingly). I don’t think we should lump in everyone who votes against sensible covid measures with anti vaxers.

https://www.leeanderson.org.uk/VaccineFAQ

Fair enough it was shorthand for his actual stance which may be a bit more nuanced but equally moronic* as I couldn't recall the precise term, "COVID-numpty" is probably better.




*Which is apparently something along the lines of "Yes COVID is real and deadly but my freedom not to wear a face-covering for brief periods of time outweighs your freedom not to have a potentially lethal pathogen coughed directly into your face. Nor should health care workers be expected to observe the most basic of safety precautions when working with the most vulnerable; it's better that 10 patients die in terrifying agony then expect a consultant to have a slightly numb upper arm for a couple of days." I mean the actual COVID-deniers are idiots but at least they are internally consistent. To adapt Johnson's favourite metaphor it's the difference between going for a swim because you don't believe there is a shark and slathering a child in chum and shoving them off the pier as you see the dorsal fin approach with the creepy music in the background.

Little waster wrote: ↑

Mon May 16, 2022 9:05 am

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Mon May 16, 2022 8:48 am

He doesn’t appear to be an anti vaxxer (perhaps surprisingly). I don’t think we should lump in everyone who votes against sensible covid measures with anti vaxers.

https://www.leeanderson.org.uk/VaccineFAQ

Fair enough it was shorthand for his actual stance which may be a bit more nuanced but equally moronic* as I couldn't recall the precise term, "COVID-numpty" is probably better.




*Which is apparently something along the lines of "Yes COVID is real and deadly but my freedom not to wear a face-covering for brief periods of time outweighs your freedom not to have a potentially lethal pathogen coughed directly into your face. Nor should health care workers be expected to observe the most basic of safety precautions when working with the most vulnerable; it's better that 10 patients die in terrifying agony then expect a consultant to have a slightly numb upper arm for a couple of days." I mean the actual COVID-deniers are idiots but at least they are internally consistent. To adapt Johnson's favourite metaphor it's the difference between going for a swim because you don't believe there is a shark and slathering a child in chum and shoving them off the pier as you see the dorsal fin approach with the creepy music in the background.

I think you’ve been more than fair there

Despite Martin Daubney claiming he went to “media law school” I think someone needs to take him on one side for a few tips. I missed that he asked Jack if she can prove that she doesn’t earn more than the PM to which she has politely pointed out that she can but the she doesn’t need to because he carries the burden of proof. How can he not know this? Before anyone jumps in I’ll emphasise that nobody in the thread or anyone else is suggesting that getting her income wrong is problematic in isolation.

Also this tweet is interesting from Jack

https://twitter.com/bootstrapcook/statu ... RY9T2wyubg

I haven’t claimed any benefits since about 2013. I actually qualify for several but am so f.cking traumatised by what the DWP put me through that i can’t bring myself to even think about going anywhere near that hell again. Not that it’s ANY of your business, Jon.

So it looks increasingly like the claim of how much money she makes is massively overstated and the repeated attempts to make it appear true do not speak well to Daubney’s and Anderson’s understanding of how deep a hole they are digging themselves.

Her (inactive for over a year) Patreon alone is still making her (before fees) anywhere from £2,534 to £7,240 per month. That’s before any book deals, royalties, appearances, brand sponsorships and money just donated to her through PayPal.

https://www.patreon.com/jackmonroe

pipette wrote: ↑

Mon May 16, 2022 1:12 pm

Her (inactive for over a year) Patreon alone is still making her (before fees) anywhere from £2,534 to £7,240 per month. That’s before any book deals, royalties, appearances, brand sponsorships and money just donated to her through PayPal.

https://www.patreon.com/jackmonroe

That number is extremely unlikely, it would be based on every SINGLE member being a top tier patron while none of them paying annually.

These things tend to follow Pareto principles where 90% of the patrons are bottom tier, 9% are middle tier, and 1% top tier (so in this case 7 people, that's not going to keep you in speedboats very long) so whatever income she gets will be at the lower end of that scale rather than the implicit equivalent likelihood of the two extremes.

With the discount* her likely income via Patreon is probably closer to £2200 per month and that is probably the lion share of her income given most books sell in trivial amounts after their initial launch and the number of free copies she gives away to foodbanks or online.

*or are we assuming people are still deliberately subscribing monthly to an apparently inactive patreon account.

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Mon May 16, 2022 12:52 pm

Despite Martin Daubney claiming he went to “media law school” I think someone needs to take him on one side for a few tips. I missed that he asked Jack if she can prove that she doesn’t earn more than the PM to which she has politely pointed out that she can but the she doesn’t need to because he carries the burden of proof. How can he not know this?

Absolutely - burden of proof is on the defendant in the UK.

Does anyone know how this would work at a trial? Could the defendant only rely on public sources of information? Or can a defendant get a court order for disclosure of information that could help their defence?

https://graphtreon.com/creator/jackmonroe

Interestingly about 25 of those patreons only joined this week once this spat kicked off and just back in January there were only 250.

Since 2018 she's averaged around 200 patreons peaking at 350 in 2021 before the recent increase in interest.

On those figures she was getting less than £800/month at the start of this year and never more than £1000/month since she joined.

Little waster wrote: ↑

Mon May 16, 2022 1:29 pm

With the discount* her likely income via Patreon is probably closer to £2200 per month and that is probably the lion share of her income given most books sell in trivial amounts after their initial launch and the number of free copies she gives away to foodbanks or online.

3+ years after publication "Cooking on a Bootstrap" is currently ranked at #507 in books on Amazon. #9 in Vegetarian & Vegan Cooking. Not going to generate Prime Ministerial levels of income but probably a bit more than trivial.

bob sterman wrote: ↑

Mon May 16, 2022 1:42 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Mon May 16, 2022 12:52 pm

Despite Martin Daubney claiming he went to “media law school” I think someone needs to take him on one side for a few tips. I missed that he asked Jack if she can prove that she doesn’t earn more than the PM to which she has politely pointed out that she can but the she doesn’t need to because he carries the burden of proof. How can he not know this?

Absolutely - burden of proof is on the defendant in the UK.

Does anyone know how this would work at a trial? Could the defendant only rely on public sources of information? Or can a defendant get a court order for disclosure of information that could help their defence?

Generally the civil procedure rules in E&W require both parties to disclose any documents which could harm their case or help the other side's. About to not have Internet for a few hours so not sure if there are any separate rules for defamation and can't remember exact wording as haven't used English rules in a couple of years or so but can check later.

pipette wrote: ↑

Mon May 16, 2022 1:12 pm

Her (inactive for over a year) Patreon alone is still making her (before fees) anywhere from £2,534 to £7,240 per month. That’s before any book deals, royalties, appearances, brand sponsorships and money just donated to her through PayPal.

https://www.patreon.com/jackmonroe

Little Waster and others have taken this claim apart but even if the top level you refer to was available it still only approximately equates to what Lee Anderson gets as salary. Would he describe himself as earning an “absolute fortune”?

bob sterman wrote: ↑

Mon May 16, 2022 1:42 pm

Absolutely - burden of proof is on the defendant in the UK.

Aha thats whats bugging me.

Our libel laws are draconian, so I am uneasy at even a righteous person winning,