IWCA win five figure settlement

[soulman]

The "precedent" that is set is that anyone who plans to campaign against the IWCA with smears or innuendo damn well better be sure that they have documentary backing for everything they say or write.

For example, to say that

the Tories are the party that appointed as its Treasurer the Belize-based multi-millionaire Lord Ashcroft, who sued the Times for libel after it reported that US authorities - including the Drug Enforcement Agency - were investigating his financial affairs, but chose not to pursue the case to court
​

is a very finely-balanced piece of writing indeed and is entirely an accurate account of documented events.

Everyone with a brain would be equally careful writing about the Tories or Labour. Now perhaps the Tories and Labour will take others a bit seriously.

Of course they will laptop, because everyone has a brain and they'll think just like you do now.

 

[newharper]

Out-of-court settlements are for the legal bods, not the normal folk. Who want's to know about legal settlements, precedents, payouts, and the stifling of public information.

Not me that's for sure.

I'm far too busy with the Emmerdale omnibus.

Slight difference here between out of court settlements and

'legal settlements, precedents, .'

 

[laptop]

No, soulman is absolutely right to demand the right to express opinions on the law without doing any intellectual heavy lifting.

 

[newbie]

The "precedent" that is set is that anyone who plans to campaign against the IWCA with smears or innuendo damn well better be sure that they have documentary backing for everything they say or write.
...
Everyone with a brain would be equally careful writing about the Tories or Labour. Now perhaps the Tories and Labour will take others a bit seriously.

Including the BNP and Labour, yes? Every allegation, smear or innuendo should be backed with documentary proof. Should foreign dictators have the same shield against scrutiny?


How on earth does that improve our understanding of what they're about?

 

[Random]

How on earth does that improve our understanding of what they're about?

How would making up stuff about the BNP help us campaign against them?

 

[Joe Reilly]

That's the problem, see. You know which bit was made up. Your constituents don't.

All they know is that the allegation has been made and you've been to court to stop it being repeated.

The IWCA went to court because they saw an opportunity to make the New Labour toffs eat crow. What the IWCA's constituents do now know as a result of the case is that New Labour have been running a protracted smear campaign against IWCA activists for about five years. And that they, have been lied to in a systematic way. The IWCA has now proved this in a court of law. Labour has admitted their culpability. The size of the settlement is prove of this. The money will no doubt be re-invested in further undermining New Labour locally. That not the 'gag' is what it is all about.

 

[soulman]

Slight difference here between out of court settlements and

'legal settlements, precedents, .'

I'll concede on the 'legal' precedent. But a legal settlement has been made whether it's in court or out of court. Both parties have agreed to be bound by a contract. If that contract is broken by either party then it can be contested in the courts.

 

[hibee]

Including the BNP and Labour, yes? Every allegation, smear or innuendo should be backed with documentary proof. Should foreign dictators have the same shield against scrutiny?


How on earth does that improve our understanding of what they're about?

One of the reason the BNP are gaining ground is that many of the "anti fascist" left are making claims about them that their potential supporters know to be ridiculous.

 

[newbie]

One of the reason the BNP are gaining ground is that many of the "anti fascist" left are making claims about them that their potential supporters know to be ridiculous.

Yes. Their response to smears has been to fight them politically and try to turn the arguments to their own advantage.

Some mud sticks. Discredited mud sticks to those who threw it. The public isn't stupid and is capable of making it's own mind up, given the opportunity.

 

[newbie]

What the IWCA's constituents do now know as a result of the case is that New Labour have been running a protracted smear campaign against IWCA activists for about five years. And that they, have been lied to in a systematic way. The IWCA has now proved this in a court of law.

Asserting that this out of court settlement 'proved' something is clearly your party line. It's been repeatedly shown to be wrong on this thread. If the party asserts one thing that's clearly wrong why should I (or the w/c in Oxford) trust the party line assertion that the allegation is a lie?

We don't know. Only you know and you won't let at least one critic speak.

You've introduced a question of trust into this, by going to court.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Asserting that this out of court settlement 'proved' something is clearly your party line. It's been repeatedly shown to be wrong on this thread. If the party asserts one thing that's clearly wrong why should I (or the w/c in Oxford) trust the party line assertion that the allegation is a lie?

We don't know. Only you know and you won't let at least one critic speak.

You've introduced a question of trust into this, by going to court.

I don't agree with your stance on this, Newbie, but I repeat the gist of my previous comments:

the defamation laws are not there to prove or disprove the truth of a statement - only its impact on the reputation of somebody

In this instance, the Labour Party lawyers will have accepted that the statement in the leaflet could have been judged by a court of law to have lowered the reputation of the members of IWCA making the claim, causing them to be "shunned or avoided ... or having a tendency to injure them in their office, trade or profession in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally".

However the IWCA lawyers will have also accepted that the value of the damages likely to be awarded should a court of law find in their favour, would not have outweighed the cost of pursuing the action through the courts and risked losing or not being awarded costs.

Both sides have agreed to settle out of court, and therefore nothing has been legally proved or disproved.

If only life were simpler ...

 

[newbie]

Certainly, nothing is proven. The allegation had to be proved or withdrawn, and it was withdrawn.

Fisher, I do take your point, and I accept that there's an element of shorthand when it comes to discussing 'lies'. It's not my choice of word, it's an assertion being made. But I've also skimmed the links you've provided further up the thread and can't help noticing "It has always been a complete answer for a civil action for defamation to prove that the words complained of are true in substance and in fact." (see Defences) So whatever the technicalities, it can come down to rules of evidence based provability, if it gets to court.

Not that I think getting bogged down in the legal niceties should be any part of a political bunfight.

 

[Nigel]

Well Done To The Iwca.

But the so called "independent" working class association didn't win a libel case. It was an out of court settlement. What would the argument in court have been? That they weren't associated with Red Action, or that RA weren't extremist? Not to mention RA's Irish section (euphemism alert).

Well done to the IWCA, especially for taking on these unitegral tossers in the Oxford Labour Party, and of their smug acolyte hangers in some elements of the middle class left.

There is no way anyone who has had any dealings with these back stabbing weasals in, could claim that they could claim the moral high ground.

Incidentely was the case against the IWCA, something to do with membership of Red Action, and how did they/you deal with this?
Does Red Action even still exist as an organisation?

 

[Geoff Collier]

So Geoff what is your explanation for Labour's out of court settlement? Not that I think you're genuinely interested in the slightest, rather you're much more interested in taking the opportunity to have a dig at the IWCA as you have done previously (and to similarly little effect) over on UKLN.

Louis Mac

Well, if you still want an answer; here it is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1688904,00.html

 

[Joe Reilly]

One estimate puts the Labour Party some £30,000 out of pocket. A rather expensive outcome for what you contend was a goal less draw.

 

[Sue]

Well, if you still want an answer; here it is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1688904,00.html

Geoff, from the article above:

'Lee didn't get an admission that we libelled him. He didn't get an apology. He didn't profit from the case (even if his lawyers were paid)....We were not defeated.'

The IWCA did get an admission that Bill Baker/Oxford Labour party had libelled them. The IWCA did get an apology. The IWCA did profit from the case. Oxford Labour party and Bill Baker were defeated.

And as has been said before, Bill Baker was afforded plenty of opportunity to issue an apology/retraction without damages being requested. The fact that he did not even bother to respond to the IWCA's letter concerning this and, indeed, implied to the Oxford Mail that he hadn't received any such letter (thus suggesting the IWCA were lying about it) says to me that he thought he could get away with saying whatever he damn well pleased. Let's hope he and his cronies have now realised that they can't.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

One estimate puts the Labour Party some £30,000 out of pocket. A rather expensive outcome for what you contend was a goal less draw.

I can't stand football metaphors! Only a legal draw - morally, politically, financially, the IWCA win hands down - and I welcome that.

 

[Joe Reilly]

I can't stand football metaphors! Only a legal draw - morally, politically, financially, the IWCA win hands down - and I welcome that.

I'm happy enough to see the thread end on that happy note if everyone else is.

 

[newbie]

I always like a happy ending, but I doubt this is going to go away.

It's perhaps worth noting that on the IWCA multiculturalism thread there were two clear attempts to use this win to warn posters off particular subjects (Ireland #69, racism #156). Both perfectly justified I'm sure.

Political parties are using libel threats to suppress their critics, from a position of no win no fee power. I remain baffled why anyone other than committed party members should see this as positive.

 

[LLETSA]

I always like a happy ending, but I doubt this is going to go away.

It's perhaps worth noting that on the IWCA multiculturalism thread there were two clear attempts to use this win to warn posters off particular subjects (Ireland #69, racism #156). Both perfectly justified I'm sure.

Political parties are using libel threats to suppress their critics, from a position of no win no fee power. I remain baffled why anyone other than committed party members should see this as positive.

I don't think either post was written by IWCA members (in fact the second poster you refer to says somewhere in the thread that he isn't). I which case they are in no position to 'warn' anybody. Seems like you're beginning to read into things whatever you please now. Post 156, meanwhile, is obviously, at least to my mind, not speaking with the subject of the previous libel case in mind, but is simply making a statement of fact.

 

[Nigel]

Baby Out With The Bath Water!!!!!!!

Most of the left, pre-Blair have tried to engraciate themselves with the Labour party. One of the basis is that they could influence grass root members. How do individuals around the 'revolutionary' left see the situation. Their support for a fringe quasi-leftist organisation like the IWCA or for the friends within the Labour Party Beaurocracy. I was talking to someone in the Oxford ISG recently who thought that initiatives surrounding Blackbird Leys Community Centre in Oxford were tantamount to racism. Apparentely the two individuals involved have left the country. They were involved very much in anti-racist activity and were apparentely harrassed by the police over various cases of racism that occured. Much of the left backed them up. Probably rightly so.

In no way would I suggest that the IWCA/RA are racist but they do have a tendency towards white paternalism. Given the choice between white paternalism and the abortion that is modern multiculturalism I would choose the former, between seperatism and an inclusive society, the latter.
However, with the IWCA claiming they are no not socialist/communist left in anyway, that the labour movement is dead. I can't help thinking that they chucked the baby out with the bath water!!!!!

 

[jannerboyuk]

It's perhaps worth noting that on the IWCA multiculturalism thread there were two clear attempts to use this win to warn posters off particular subjects (Ireland #69, racism #156). Both perfectly justified I'm sure.

As the writer of the second post i would make a couple of points. Firstly as stated i'm not a member of the IWCA so i'm not in a position of warning anybody off anything and that was a bollocks interpretation of what i was saying. Making crappy attempts to paint the IWCA as racist is a shitty thing to do as far as i am concerned and individuals in the IWCA would have every right to be pissed off by constant attempts by people doing that especially as those people know damn well that the IWCA critique doesn't reduce to "giving all the money to Asians" or "the council being racist against white people". Deliberately trying to make the IWCA analysis synonomous with BNP ramblings is slanderous in its more basic sense. Its bad political practise and trying to paint pointing that out as an attempt to suppress debate is equally bollocks.

 

[Sue]

I was talking to someone in the Oxford ISG recently who thought that initiatives surrounding Blackbird Leys Community Centre in Oxford were tantamount to racism. Apparentely the two individuals involved have left the country. They were involved very much in anti-racist activity and were apparentely harrassed by the police over various cases of racism that occured. Much of the left backed them up. Probably rightly so.

In no way would I suggest that the IWCA/RA are racist but...

I'm not clear what you're talking about re the BBL community centre and the IWCA. The only thing I can think of is this:

http://www.bliwca.fsnet.co.uk/clnswp2.htm

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[newbie]

Making crappy attempts to paint the IWCA as racist is a shitty thing to do as far as i am concerned and individuals in the IWCA would have every right to be pissed off by constant attempts by people doing that especially as those people know damn well that the IWCA critique doesn't reduce to "giving all the money to Asians" or "the council being racist against white people". Deliberately trying to make the IWCA analysis synonomous with BNP ramblings is slanderous in its more basic sense. Its bad political practise and trying to paint pointing that out as an attempt to suppress debate is equally bollocks.

I want to be clear: I don't take issue with that, except the very last bit. If I thought the IWCA people here were racists I'd say so. I don't (& I extend to them the trust that they don't knowingly hang out in the same party as racists). That's neither what I'm attempting to say, nor part of any sub-text. Same with the Ireland stuff: I know and care almost nothing about it. It's simply not my concern. Nor do I want to bash the IWCA from any partizan position.

So you pointing out that a set of statements are potentially libellous is only of interest to me in the context of political parties using no win no fee lawyers to silence their critics. Prior to this development what you said would have been entirely unexceptional- it wasn't a real threat, merely a point used to counter someone elses debating point.

But can you not appreciate that parties using libel lawyers like this has changed the climate of debate? By slipping into the conversation that political debating points are potentially libelling a party that has used Carter Ruck in the past, you are warning off their critics. How else can it be interpereted?

There has been created a climate of uncertainty about what can be said about the IWCA and what might attract a writ. Your statement suggests that a particular poster may have overstepped some invisible mark. The cost of doing so may amount to thirty grand. We've been assured that posts here will not attract writs- but those assurances have come from anonymous screennames and can't bind real councillors.

Your post is merely an example- it's nothing personal- of that changed climate. Since I think gagging writs are against the interests of everyone who is not a political party member, I will continue to note such warnings during debates.

 

[Nigel]

I'm not clear what you're talking about re the BBL community centre and the IWCA. The only thing I can think of is this:

http://www.bliwca.fsnet.co.uk/clnswp2.htm

Would you care to elaborate?

What I am trying to say very clumsely, so it seems, is that although the strategy of modern multiculuralism has been proven to be wrong, their have been benefits and rights gained, that all individuals who were involved in these projects, especially in struggles for victmised groups, are not necessarily totally the enemy.

I would argue that being highly critical of multiculuralism, that it was a wrong strategy, and much of it is out dated and outmoded in contempory British society still had, and has benefits.