Lord McAlpine’s lawyers have announced they are to issue a writ for defamation of character to Lord McAlpine after discovering he has publicly mentioned his own name in connection with false child abuse allegations.
The Tory peer is reported to be taking actions against himself after his lawyers confirmed they had evidence he had implicated himself in a televised interview as the victim of false rumours alleging a senior political figure was involved in historic abuse in North Wales.
According to the Sunday Times, lawyers for McAlpine are planning libel action against a ‘very long list’ of other people who may have repeated his name in public at the time of intense speculation – including his wife who recklessly named him while introducing someone to him at a party and a hotel receptionist who admits she may have written his name on a bill.
The BBC last week agreed to pay Lord McAlpine £185,000 in an out-of-court settlement after admitting its Newsnight programme hadn’t named an unnamed name it didn’t name as Lord McAlpine – a name which they didn’t name.
A spokesperson for the BBC said the broadcaster had agreed to reach an out-of-court settlement with the Tory peer after its lawyers advised them that the case was potentially so confusing they probably wouldn’t have a clue what the f**k was going on.
More articles by Tom Pride:
BBC Panorama investigates BBC Newsnight over BBC scandal of BBC cover-up over BBC scandal
BBC Denies It Was Aware Jimmy Savile Was A Northerner
Scientists discover dim stars orbitting massive black hole at heart of BBC
BBC – No Bias Against Extremist, Loony Left-Wing Parties Like Labour
Kayax Burleyus – scientists discover living vampire dinosaur on satellite television
OFCOM rules Murdoch ‘fit and proper’ to own David Cameron
By the way, if you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a big favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Are you sure this is satire?
your just asking to get slapped eh xxx
Twitter currently claiming he’s going to sue 10,000. I guessing at least one of them is going to be from the Awkward Squad.
Will I be sued for leaving a comment here even though I haven’t named the person who was not named?
It’s a slap in the face for the BBC licence fee payers that they have to fork out such a sum, does that mean more repeats on the goggle box? There’s no guarantee that said licence payers were all watching the beeb at the time, seems unfair to me.
Tom Pride said:
I’ve heard his lawyers want to make everybody pay a small amount – say a fiver which would be donated to a children’s charity.
Not a bad idea actually.
is it just me or does any one else feel they have walked into an episode of harry potter, tho truth be told l can see allot of parallels between Alpine and Voldamort
Pingback: Lord McAlpine to sue himself after mentioning own name in connection with false abuse allegations | SteveB's Politics & Economy Scoops | Scoop.it
Scarlet Wilde said:
Disgraceful. Think of the family. Very hurtful. Much worse than being abused. Bound to bring on a heart-attack. Decent upstanding citizen. Really, certain people should check facts before naming names that have not been named. You couldn’t make it up.
Pingback: Lord McAlpine to sue himself after mentioning own name in connection with false abuse allegations | Mental Health, Politics and LGBT issues | Scoop.it
Can anyone explain how LMac can send letters to 10,000 twitter users? How can his lawyer’s team access people’s addresses? What right would they have to demand information from service providers given that his claim has never been tested in court? Can anyone demand people’s personal information just on the basis of a claim of defamation?
All one has to do is present a prima facie to a judge and he will order the ISP to disclose details to the lawyers.
Much worse than being abused
Thanks Harry – the sort of thing that if it happened in say, China or Iran, there would be outrage?
Would he have to provide a prima facie case on every one? There could be people in there who may have not defamed him, even though HIS lawyers may think they have, for example Sally Bercow. It would then be breaking data protection laws?
Can this be done in civil proceedings where no criminal law has been broken ?
People may not be sure if they did defame him as they may have reported a source such as a journalist who named him and said he was going to go to court about Newsnight prior to programme being shown. Is that deformation, as it states a fact and does not say he’s a paedophile?
I’m guessing so. Also, most legal cases for defamation are just a shit throwing competition. Die größte Scheiße gewinnt.
The Infamous Culex said:
Except that Twitter is not an ISP and is not based in the UK; even if Twitter were to hand over any details of its users after a court order, all that the claimant’s lawyers would get would be the IP addresses.
They’d then have to chase up those addresses with the respective ISPs, some or many of which may be based overseas.
And all that would have to be done before the claimant could even seriously think about suing most of the Twitter twits who allegedly tweeted his name.
Anyone who thinks the process is simple or straight-forward should consider what happened to the law firms of Davenport Lyons and ACS Law when they tried to claim damages arising from alleged breaches of copyright.
Pingback: Scientists – UK bird population falls after threats for offensive tweets « Pride's Purge
tony roma said:
i would like to go on official record to anonce my full support and backing for lord mc at this terrible and deeply emotional time.
lord mc has been crystal clear about this.
There was no impropriety whatsoever in my acquaintanceship with anyone ever at all ever.
i have met sir jimmy but that was at private masonic rituals with only adults in attendants.
lord mc has very little choice but to come down hard and with no mercy on lord mcalpine.
lord mcalpine deserves to feel the full weight of the libel law courts for outing lord mc.
the magazine scallywag and the sports presenter david ike will not be part of this action because they wrote about another lord mcAlpine not connected with this case.
it is up to the 2 other lord mcAlpines to defend themselves in the courts.
the fact that at least 4 of the mcAlpines are now dead may complicate the courts democratic process.
sufface to say the guilty must pay through the courts or private agreement with my legal team.
sally burr cow and undercover reporter phillip scofield itv and the 22 thousand members of terrorist intranet group twatter need to pay now.
let the guilty tremble with these words probably lord mc’s best ever.
If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it.
i lord fukin mc am cumin for you twit twat fookers am gonna fookin smasha upman
smashangrab den eye go home to me castle in italy init.
Nothing is worse than being abused.Some people should check facts before leaving comments on a subject they clearly do not have any insight to.
Pingback: Justin Bieber to sue UK Twitter users after 1,000s ask why the f*** is he always trending! « Pride's Purge