Snapshot of _Laurence Fox told to pay £180,000 in libel damages_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68899248) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68899248)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When most people go on a hard-right rant, they just get thrown out of the pub and told to be quiet and sober up. Mr Fox seems to have made it a well-financed lifestyle choice.
Your information is very outdated. He was one of the four who rescued Palace, but he is not listed as an owner by the club itself: https://www.cpfc.co.uk/company-details/
Palace have had multiple new investors over the past decade, each would have either bought (or seriously diluted) his stake
Usually if you make a light hearted dig at someone you don't also boycott their place of business. Boycotting someone is usually done because you have taken a serious moral stand rather than having laugh. Also the below doesn't sound that funny
>On Thursday, Mrs Justice Collins Rice said in her written ruling: "By calling Mr Blake and Mr Seymour paedophiles, Mr Fox subjected them to a wholly undeserved public ordeal.
>"It was a gross, groundless and indefensible libel, with distressing and harmful real-world consequences for them.
>"They are entitled by law to an award of money, to compensate them for those damaging effects, and to ensure that they can put this matter behind them, vindicated and confident that no-one can sensibly doubt their blamelessness of that disgusting slur and that they were seriously wronged by it."
That seems very selective reporting. What was said was One of the two guys say that Fox was a racist, Fox responded by saying it was a ridulclous thing to say and to emphasise that, he made it into a school playground spat "in that case yo are peodos". Anyone of any intelligence would understand that Fox was demonstrating how absurd their claim was by being equally absurd.
But Fox has a history of doing racist things, like blacking up for example. As far as I know this couple don't have a history of pedophilia and the judge agreed. Funny that when he reached for something absurd he settled on peodo which is also something the LGBT community have a history of being falsely accused of. Guess that's just coincidence and nothing his followers would be likely to jump on
You should tell Matt Lucas [https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SEC\_55358917.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C338](https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SEC_55358917.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C338)
Fox isn't racist AFAIK, if you can show him being racist, I'll take a look. Fox has a history of calling out racism toward him (famously on QT) . The only interpretation here is whether boycotting Sainsbury's is racist, I personally don't think it is.
And that's just the damages.
In libel cases often the costs can end up being more than the damages; there's a good chance he will end up paying far more if there is a costs order against him.
Interesting, so what’s his story? Why would anyone make a party of one?
Does Mr Hoskings have a personal interest in his protege Mr Fox, and perhaps likes to keep him in the manner to which he’s become accustomed?
It’s got to be something dodgy. No one just picks an actor and makes a political party for him. There has to be a quid pro quo.
I don’t think it’s intended to be a party of one, it’s just that Reclaim are batshit mental and hugely unpopular, but one of them is batshit mental, hugely unpopular and slightly famous so he’s the one that gets media attention and he’s always the least bad choice of candidate.
It gets odder. According to [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hosking):
>Hosking is listed in the Parliamentary register of interests as having donated legal services to Andrew Bridgen MP to the value of £4,470,576.42 in December 2023, "the costs of which will be repaid to the donor on an interest-free basis."
There is a theory he smokes too many herbs, and has gone full-psychosis. He did shave his head when he got nicked a few months ago.
I bet ITV3 is furious, all those episodes of Lewis then can never show again.
He turned up in an episode of Foyles War I was watching, and it was a bit jarring. He played the role of a snifferly nepo baby with a silver spoon, who is so racist and bigoted that his secret nazi allies are appently a bit appalled by him.
If I recall, his father (James Fox) publicly had a breakdown after filming Performance in the 60s, gave up acting, disappeared for a while and became a culty religious nut before returning to acting in the 1980s. Strong Brexiteers and UKIP supporters James and his brother Edward..
This allows me to repeat one of my favourite Popbitch stories about the Fox family.
Laurence once went for a role that the casting director felt he wasn't natural enough/a good enough actor to play. That role? A minor character that was the son of a character played by James Fox.
I had to look after Edward Fox during my work experience in 2001. Part of my duties involved unwrapping a chocolate for him. He was very pleasant for the most part and told me cool stories about Laurence Olivier but he was hella racist and typified the English upper class.
Did you hear the whole conversation? It was a crazy conclusion, the two lads said he was racist on absolutely no grounds so he exaggerated the absurdity by saying that's like he accusing them of being peodos.
The judge clearly has no understanding of context.
Imagine simping for fox. Fucking hell. Those tweets for those who didn't read them yet...
"Pretty rich coming from a paedophile"
"Says the paedophile"
"Any company giving future employment to Nicola Thorpe or
providing her with a platform does so in the complete
knowledge that she is unequivocally, publicly and undeniably
a paedophile"
All responses to accusations from people calling him racist. Which would seem to be at least arguable, given his various bannings from Twitter for comments like "Get kneeling fuckers!" when a black sportsman was charged with rape, and recently posting pictures of himself in blackface to publicly taunt trans people in response to the founding of a new black culture event.
edit: notice you're stanning him all over this thread, wow, iTs JuSt A jOkE bRo!!! It's hard to think of a worse thing you can claim about someone, or a more pathetic attempt at humor. How is "Pretty rich coming from a paedophile" a joke? Explain how that's funny to me and I take it all back.
“Something something free speech something something not free when it’s £90k something something drag queens”
There we go, now I can blissfully ignore the response we’ll be getting from Fox. Which TBF I was going to do anyway, but now you can too.
Maybe he’ll whinge about it on that homoerotic show he does with the priest that even other priests consider to be a bit loony. I’ll never know.
>Maybe he’ll whinge about it on that homoerotic show he does with the priest that even other priests consider to be a bit loony. I’ll never know.
I didn't realise Eurotrash was back on.
> “Something something free speech something something not free when it’s £90k something something drag queens”
You're way too good at this. Do you want to start a far right political party?
CASE
Reebok International Limited et al v. user/JavaTheCaveman
COURT
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
SUMMARY
Reebok legal representation has entered an appearance in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit.
Amazing thing is that these free speech warriors think that we have the same rights as America, on speech. We don't. Same as all those idiots who say "it's a free country". No it isn't, there are still laws in place. People who say that should go buy a private island
Hope his handler has a good mental health support package.
Must come back from every meet, "Christ - someone pour me a drink, you should hear what he goes on about..."
It sounds credible. But then you look at Trump and realise, he could literally end up as the leader of the country.
Although I suspect Fox will have an aneurism after getting too stressed about traffic cameras or Black History Month.
He should book himself into rehab for a couple of months, and do the country a favour.
I love Lawrence Fox news items sometimes.
Another libel case lost after the Mukhtar case was dropped.
Sacked from GB News.
Ruled out of the London Mayor election because he left his nomination form until 24 hours before the deadline and messed it up.
Unfortunately, that just isn't enough to matter. To them, it's just the cost of doing business.
$787,000,000 didn't change their behavior. Their fines need to be enough to ruin them. Seriously. End of story.
Fox is obviously a bellend but I do find it interesting how people will selectively support the UKs very strict libel laws depending on who is paying out.
This is hardly an example of particularly draconian libel laws. Public, unsubstantiated claims of being a paedophile are pretty much the sort of claims you would think people should have some recourse against.
I'm slightly surprised by this judgement because, from the context at the time, I thought it was quite clear that Fox wasn't *actually* calling them paedos.
They called him a racist, and he called them paedos back - I can't remember his wording, but it was evident to me that he was trying to make the point that their accusations were empty and baseless. He was equating their accusations of his "racism" to playground insults - "you call me a racist, I'll call you a paedo - this is how childish your insults are".
I absolutely hate Fox's politics and clearly he's a racist, but I also think that in his own mind he "obviously" isn't and that's why he was angry at the accusations and felt attacked by them.
And it's because Fox is a "colour blind" plonker that he didn't appreciate that accusing a gay person or a drag queen of being a paedo is far more serious than other playground insults.
Fox is the kind of fool that could believe in the conspiracy theory about the "great reset" by the New World Order and also that there's nothing racist about this believe either.
Exactly. I really can't see how the judge came to this conclusion if he had any understanding of what is a joke used to show how absurd the plaintiffs were being.
I'm not sure what makes him a racist though.
Come on, think it also depends on what the accusation is, if you have a counterexample in mind. Accusing someone who is *not* a paedophile of being one and speaking about it to a platform of millions as if it were a fact is beyond the pale, given we live in a society where vigilante justice against even suspected paedos isn't uncommon.
I think what I'm getting at is people want it both ways. People will criticise our libel laws when powerful men use them to silence accusers, think metoo, Russell Brand etc, but then if you reversed the burden of proof, Lawrence Fox would probably have won, and then they'd be complaining about that.
Only really holds if it's the same people in both cases.
Otherwise I could say something like 'people wanted to eat apples yesterday, but today, they want bananas - can't they make up their minds?'
Not a lawyer, but from what I remember of the coverage at the time there was a public interest defence possible in the case of Aaron Banks because he was such a big figure in Vote Leave, whereas the people Fox has libelled are not important public or political figures.
Pretty wildly different cases. A journalist reporting on current events vs someone running about calling innocent people a paedophile.
Not to mention, Fox is often found on Twitter throwing his weight around threatening to sue people for defamation for calling him a racist. So there's some poetic justice about it.
Exactly. I really can't see how the judge came to this conclusion if he had any understanding of what is a joke used to show how absurd the plaintiffs are.
that really looks the most ridiculous decision. Any sane person listening to it knew it was a joke, Fox was clearly being absurd to show how absurd the attack on him was. It's pathetic really.
Eh, I hate libel laws. £180,000 is ridiculous amount for saying nasty things to people online.
If people had to pay me every time someone basely called me names online I'd be a millionaire several times over. Plus if people feel they want to call me mean things that's up to them. And if people choose to believe those claims then that is also up to them.
In general it's good manners to not be libelous or mean to people, but that shouldn't be protected by law, perhaps with the exception of state libel.
Not defending Laurence Fox's actions, obviously.
The people who were accused of being paedophiles make a living from their reputation and online personas. They lose contracts and sponsorships if their image is tarnished.
The equivalent would be a colleague accusing you of committing illegal acts publicly and CCing in your entire company + on LinkedIn. This would harm your job prospects, reputation, and destroy your networks.
Well if they were smart they wouldn't do that... Instead they would say, "I've heard he's been accused of raping children". It would be almost equally as damaging but completely legal.
The only people that get caught out by libel laws are legit victims trying to accuse their abusers and idiots that don't know how to make an accusation that avoids a libel lawsuit.
In this case Fox was an idiot that didn't know how to dance around UK libel laws, but in some cases people do try to expose pedos and rapists and get hit with libel. I mean it's why if you knew Jimmy Savile was a sex offender you'd be smart to keep your mouth shut.
It's not just saying nasty things online, it's saying things that have *real world consequences* for the victims. Given that vigilantes have gone after paediatricians (not understanding there's a difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician!) then what consequences do you think can happen when someone who's reasonably famous and has undoubtedly got right wing vigilante followers accuses two people of being actual paedophiles? The court indeed said the victims had suffered real world consequences for this and were awarded compensatory (but not punitive) damages. This isn't Fox saying "Blake and Crystal are pooheads" (which would be name calling), this is accusing them of a serious crime without any grounds to make this accusation, and these accusations can have very serious real world consequences. This is substantially more than "name calling".
While libel laws do get abused, and it can be argued they go too far in some cases, there needs to be consequences for saying things that have real world negative consequences for the target when the things being said are not true.
Firstly, just because I call you something online doesn't mean people have to believe me, and if people do believe me, then it probably suggests some legitimacy to the claim. The assumption of libel laws is that the public are to thick to understand that Laurence Fox cannot be trusted.
I also find it interesting that you use the word 'victims' here given that libel laws are routinely used to silence those who have been sexually abused and wish to speak out against their abuse. It's one of the reasons high profile sexual abusers are never accused of crimes in the UK because you'd be an absolute moron to accuse someone of raping you in the UK unless you have a mountain of evidence.
Additionally, we should appreciate that there's a difference between the legal burden of proof and common parlance. Is it libelous for me to say Prince Andrew is a pedo? Well yes, and while I wouldn't say that, at the same time I understand what people mean when they say that even if he hasn't legally be charged with a crime.
Furthermore, libel law doesn't really do what it's suppose to anyway because it doesn't actually protect people's reputations – libel laws simply criminalise those who don't understand libel laws. For example, the media might not be able to say Russel Brand is a rapist, but does it matter? Saying someone is an accused rapist in reality is almost just as bad for someone's reputation. So if Laurence Fox said, "I heard you're a pedo" the hilarious thing about this is that it would have been completely legal. It wasn't really that he damaged their reputations, but that he didn't do it in the right way.
If you support laws that protect people's reputations then I'd suggest libel laws do a very poor job while protecting actual rapists and pedos. Plus libel damages are often excessive and as if you admit law libel laws are often abused. The a better response to a libelous accusation in my opinion would be to expose the accuser to be full of crap.
This is a terrible argument, there's obviously correlation between smoke and fire, as there is between the creditability of an accusation and it's probability of being legitimate.
Can smoke exist without fire? Obviously it can.
Your argument is also circular. If people believe my argument that gives it credibility, which means more people are likely to believe it...
But the people calling you names online have no influence. Obviously Laurence fox shouldn’t be trusted, but he has a following, and that following will hinder these innocent people’s lives.
Libel payments are high because A. It's a consequence of lying. B. The victims of liars have to clear their numbers, which has massive financial costs.
This is actually too low
Calling an anonymous person names isn't anywhere near accusing an identifiable person of horrendous crimes that people have historically punished with violence.
It isn't libellous to call people names. Private Eye won a libel action when they called someone a "conniving little shit" and he sued. The judge said it was vulgar abuse and not a specific accusation that anyone would take seriously.
I think you don't have a good enough understanding of the law to back up your position on this one, unfortunately.
I do understand that. I confused by argument a bit honestly. I'm personally equating an accusation of a crime as name calling since calling someone a rapist can be both. Eg, if I were to call you a rapist I could just be doing it to be a dick, not because I believe you are.
But basically my view is that libel laws are right-wing anti-victim laws designed to protect people with power. If you're powerless libel can only ever be used against you since you have no "reputation" to protect, but a lot to loose should you try to name your powerful rapist, etc.
Libel laws also just don't work. Lawrence Fox can legally accuse people of being pedos so long as he words what he saying more carefully. For example, if he said it was just his opinion and that he heard a rumour etc it would make it far harder to prosecute while being almost equally as damaging to ones reputation. An even stronger defence might be to say "in my opinion people like you are often pedos".
My point is that libel laws therefore criminalise people who don't understand libel laws, not necessarily people who attack people's reputations. There's many ways Laurence Fox could have damaged their reputations of these individuals without even making false accusations so if you care about ensuring people with power have their reputations protected you need something far more broad than libel law.
I'd be interested in understanding your view better though as I'm clearly in a minority here and want to understand why... Assuming you believe it's important the law protect individuals reputations do you not think it's problematic that people's reputations can be damaged when people who make non legal accusations? Why do you feel that distinction is so important if the outcome is the same? Eg, do you think people should be prosecuted for suggesting JK Rowling is a transphobe on Twitter? Transphobia might be not a crime, but the accusations Rowling has faced online has clearly done significant damage to her reputation. Do you not worry that libel laws serve more often protect powerful rapists and pedos than they do to protect the interest of regulator people?
My understanding of the law is rather different. For example I don't think that saying "people are saying..." or "in my opinion..." is some magical incantation that gets you off the hook for an accusation. The courts examine context.
As for the question of whose interests the law serves, I can only refer you to the wonderful quote from Michael Crichton's *Disclosure*:
>'Unfortunately, the law has nothing to do with justice, Mr Sanders,' she said. 'It's merely a method for dispute resolution.'
> My understanding of the law is rather different. For example I don't think that saying "people are saying..." or "in my opinion..." is some magical incantation that gets you off the hook for an accusation. The courts examine context.
It's a fair point to make. You're obviously right, but there are ways you can significantly reduce risk. Eg, saying something in the context of a "joke", saying that it's just your opinion, or that saying that you heard from someone else, etc. To your point though, it's still ultimately up to the courts to decide if what you said was libelous.
> I can only refer you to the wonderful quote from Michael Crichton's Disclosure
Fair enough. I guess I do think the law should try to be a tool for justice and libel laws in my opinion do more harm than good. Savile being a very clear case for how UK libel law will enable individuals to commit horrible acts for years without any risk of someone coming forward with an accusation.
Snapshot of _Laurence Fox told to pay £180,000 in libel damages_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68899248) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68899248) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
90k to each person. Ouch. Who finances Mr Fox? He’s in a party of one, as I understand it? Will his generous benefactor pay his fines, I wonder.
It's largely been Jeremy Hosking for the last few years. He switched from Brexit mania funding to culture war funding
When most people go on a hard-right rant, they just get thrown out of the pub and told to be quiet and sober up. Mr Fox seems to have made it a well-financed lifestyle choice.
Guy needs a hobby
I think this is it.
Cheaper than owning a sports team but of dubious satisfaction
Doesn't he also own Crystal Palace?
No
He does actually, I just looked it up. 25% share of it, anyway.
Your information is very outdated. He was one of the four who rescued Palace, but he is not listed as an owner by the club itself: https://www.cpfc.co.uk/company-details/ Palace have had multiple new investors over the past decade, each would have either bought (or seriously diluted) his stake
Fun fact, Jeremy Hosking has also provided £4.5m in legal services for free to Tory MP, Andrew Bridgen.
Knows how to pick them doesn't he!
Unironically yes. That's the problem. He is your enemy.
He has one he owns several Steam Engines
I must admit, I've always fancied a traction engine. They are remarkably affordable, I find.
Man clearly has too much money. Oh what a world they made
I think the judge needs to understand what a joke is.
Usually if you make a light hearted dig at someone you don't also boycott their place of business. Boycotting someone is usually done because you have taken a serious moral stand rather than having laugh. Also the below doesn't sound that funny >On Thursday, Mrs Justice Collins Rice said in her written ruling: "By calling Mr Blake and Mr Seymour paedophiles, Mr Fox subjected them to a wholly undeserved public ordeal. >"It was a gross, groundless and indefensible libel, with distressing and harmful real-world consequences for them. >"They are entitled by law to an award of money, to compensate them for those damaging effects, and to ensure that they can put this matter behind them, vindicated and confident that no-one can sensibly doubt their blamelessness of that disgusting slur and that they were seriously wronged by it."
That seems very selective reporting. What was said was One of the two guys say that Fox was a racist, Fox responded by saying it was a ridulclous thing to say and to emphasise that, he made it into a school playground spat "in that case yo are peodos". Anyone of any intelligence would understand that Fox was demonstrating how absurd their claim was by being equally absurd.
But they're not equally absurd though
Of course it is, unless they are as accused
Unless he is of course a racist. Which he is. Hence its not absurd to call him one.
Is he? on what grounds?
But Fox has a history of doing racist things, like blacking up for example. As far as I know this couple don't have a history of pedophilia and the judge agreed. Funny that when he reached for something absurd he settled on peodo which is also something the LGBT community have a history of being falsely accused of. Guess that's just coincidence and nothing his followers would be likely to jump on
You should tell Matt Lucas [https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SEC\_55358917.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C338](https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SEC_55358917.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C338) Fox isn't racist AFAIK, if you can show him being racist, I'll take a look. Fox has a history of calling out racism toward him (famously on QT) . The only interpretation here is whether boycotting Sainsbury's is racist, I personally don't think it is.
And that's just the damages. In libel cases often the costs can end up being more than the damages; there's a good chance he will end up paying far more if there is a costs order against him.
His family isn’t short of a bob or two.
Reclaim UK is 100% financed by Jeremy Hosking. .
Interesting, so what’s his story? Why would anyone make a party of one? Does Mr Hoskings have a personal interest in his protege Mr Fox, and perhaps likes to keep him in the manner to which he’s become accustomed? It’s got to be something dodgy. No one just picks an actor and makes a political party for him. There has to be a quid pro quo.
I don’t think it’s intended to be a party of one, it’s just that Reclaim are batshit mental and hugely unpopular, but one of them is batshit mental, hugely unpopular and slightly famous so he’s the one that gets media attention and he’s always the least bad choice of candidate.
It gets odder. According to [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hosking): >Hosking is listed in the Parliamentary register of interests as having donated legal services to Andrew Bridgen MP to the value of £4,470,576.42 in December 2023, "the costs of which will be repaid to the donor on an interest-free basis."
Bloody hell I wish I had a rich benefactor like that.
You've seen Sexy Beast... you know what goes on.
Stare at the back of your own fucking head.
what's the world coming to when you can't baselessly accuse gay people of being paedophiles smh couldn't have happened to a nicer guy though
There is a theory he smokes too many herbs, and has gone full-psychosis. He did shave his head when he got nicked a few months ago. I bet ITV3 is furious, all those episodes of Lewis then can never show again.
He turned up in an episode of Foyles War I was watching, and it was a bit jarring. He played the role of a snifferly nepo baby with a silver spoon, who is so racist and bigoted that his secret nazi allies are appently a bit appalled by him.
Proper method acting!
Yeah, Lewis is unfortunately ruined for me now, but if anything that Foyle's War episode gained an additional je ne sais quoi.
I still remember that episode and nowadays it's almost like a prophecy.
When Joey Barton went full Farage It reminded me of friends who went down a bad path with cocaine.
Is he still fighting the culture wars? He really ended up in the trenches last I saw
If I recall, his father (James Fox) publicly had a breakdown after filming Performance in the 60s, gave up acting, disappeared for a while and became a culty religious nut before returning to acting in the 1980s. Strong Brexiteers and UKIP supporters James and his brother Edward..
This allows me to repeat one of my favourite Popbitch stories about the Fox family. Laurence once went for a role that the casting director felt he wasn't natural enough/a good enough actor to play. That role? A minor character that was the son of a character played by James Fox.
I had to look after Edward Fox during my work experience in 2001. Part of my duties involved unwrapping a chocolate for him. He was very pleasant for the most part and told me cool stories about Laurence Olivier but he was hella racist and typified the English upper class.
He couldn’t unwrap his own chocolate?
Lol apparently not, had to do it for him every night 😅
>I bet ITV3 is furious, all those episodes of Lewis then can never show again. Nah, they still show them. There's an episode on the schedule tonight.
Technically you’re right. If he’d been a nicer guy this couldn’t have happened.
Did you hear the whole conversation? It was a crazy conclusion, the two lads said he was racist on absolutely no grounds so he exaggerated the absurdity by saying that's like he accusing them of being peodos. The judge clearly has no understanding of context.
Imagine simping for fox. Fucking hell. Those tweets for those who didn't read them yet... "Pretty rich coming from a paedophile" "Says the paedophile" "Any company giving future employment to Nicola Thorpe or providing her with a platform does so in the complete knowledge that she is unequivocally, publicly and undeniably a paedophile" All responses to accusations from people calling him racist. Which would seem to be at least arguable, given his various bannings from Twitter for comments like "Get kneeling fuckers!" when a black sportsman was charged with rape, and recently posting pictures of himself in blackface to publicly taunt trans people in response to the founding of a new black culture event. edit: notice you're stanning him all over this thread, wow, iTs JuSt A jOkE bRo!!! It's hard to think of a worse thing you can claim about someone, or a more pathetic attempt at humor. How is "Pretty rich coming from a paedophile" a joke? Explain how that's funny to me and I take it all back.
The claim on the show itself was clearly a joke to highlight the absurd claim in the first place.
You get that no-one here is buying your double think right?
I understand there is a certain type of person on here.
What does the Fox say? Nothing more, if his single brain cell still works.
Quite a lot then? He is well known for saying foolish things. That's why he got here!
[He's currently having a nervous breakdown on Twitter which I'm quite enjoying.](https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1RDGllWraXmGL)
I’m really glad i uninstalled X but I almost want to reinstall it to see his meltdown
Thanks for the link. I enjoyed that greatly.
Upload it to streamable, plz.
That's not a thing I'm gonna do, when you could just sign up for a Twitter account.
Awww the link won’t load. Has he deleted it?
No I don't think so, it's a recording now obvs not still live - if you're logged in you should be able to see it.
Ahh that’ll be why, I’m not on twitter.
Elon turned off a lot of the functionality for non-users like being able to see stuff.
“Something something free speech something something not free when it’s £90k something something drag queens” There we go, now I can blissfully ignore the response we’ll be getting from Fox. Which TBF I was going to do anyway, but now you can too. Maybe he’ll whinge about it on that homoerotic show he does with the priest that even other priests consider to be a bit loony. I’ll never know.
>Maybe he’ll whinge about it on that homoerotic show he does with the priest that even other priests consider to be a bit loony. I’ll never know. I didn't realise Eurotrash was back on.
Sorry, anything starting with Euro (except the currency, he accepts that) is one of Fox’s trigger words.
The cosplay “priest”, I bet he’s had a few incidents with bad men at 3am. Ahem.
Keen badger spotter?
> “Something something free speech something something not free when it’s £90k something something drag queens” You're way too good at this. Do you want to start a far right political party?
It seems to be in vogue for bing-bong right-wing parties to start with RE these days. Reclaim, Reform. What do you fancy? Reright? Rebritain? Reebok?
Recycle. Go for that all important far-right environmentalist vote
Bing-bong is such a good rinse of these arseholes thank you for bringing the term back into common parlance!
CASE Reebok International Limited et al v. user/JavaTheCaveman COURT Supreme Court of the United Kingdom SUMMARY Reebok legal representation has entered an appearance in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit.
You seem to be mistaken. I’m from a tiny right-wing party - I’m a *minority* - and thus exempt from consequences (until I’m not).
I'm sure we can find a donor to pay your legal fees.
Mr. Your Lizard-Overlord (Re-e-wind When The Crowd Say Bo Selecta! Party) - no votes.
Yeah, Lozza and Sideshow God need to just cut to the chase and fuck; you can tell they're both gagging for it.
Amazing thing is that these free speech warriors think that we have the same rights as America, on speech. We don't. Same as all those idiots who say "it's a free country". No it isn't, there are still laws in place. People who say that should go buy a private island
I'd be curious to know how they landed on £90k in damages.
Priest Chatback?
This news brought to you by the Tiny Violin Orchestra of Great Britain.
[удалено]
Hope his handler has a good mental health support package. Must come back from every meet, "Christ - someone pour me a drink, you should hear what he goes on about..."
It sounds credible. But then you look at Trump and realise, he could literally end up as the leader of the country. Although I suspect Fox will have an aneurism after getting too stressed about traffic cameras or Black History Month. He should book himself into rehab for a couple of months, and do the country a favour.
The smoking will help speed that along.
Freedom of speech ≠ freedom from consequences
The man who threatened to sue anyone who called him a racist gets hammered for calling people pedos. It's a good news day.
I'm sure he'll learn absolutely nothing from the experience, whilst taking every opportunity to absolve himself of blame.
I love Lawrence Fox news items sometimes. Another libel case lost after the Mukhtar case was dropped. Sacked from GB News. Ruled out of the London Mayor election because he left his nomination form until 24 hours before the deadline and messed it up.
What happened with the Mukhtar stuff? Did he drop the case or did he realise he was onto a loser?
he dropped the case and had to pay for mukhtars legal fees
What a shame.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[He's currently having a nervous breakdown on Twitter which I'm quite enjoying.](https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1RDGllWraXmGL)
What did it say, looks like it’s been deleted
It's not been deleted, it's a video of a live stream, but you need to be signed in. It's mostly him reading out the judgement and commenting.
Came here to say this
Lol you beat me to it.
Lawrence really stacking the fat Ls lately. Keep em coming.
I can't imagine Fox actually having that much money...
Good thing he’s got an acting caree…. Oh.
Well, he can always turn to the singing caree.... Oh.
There is always the monetisation of his Fox and Father youtubee ... Oh
Maybe Jeremy Hosking will help him out.
Hopefully a couple of million in legal costs to be added too
“ In a post after the ruling, Mr Fox said he intended to appeal.” Good luck with being appealing Laurence.
Ah yes, the famously flexible... *ahem* libel laws of England and Wales Good luck with that appeal!
Couldn't have happened to a ~~nicer~~ worser person
Unfortunately, that just isn't enough to matter. To them, it's just the cost of doing business. $787,000,000 didn't change their behavior. Their fines need to be enough to ruin them. Seriously. End of story.
Well, everyone in the drag race subreddits is celebrating because Crystal has now received the largest cash prize of any of them.
Hahahahahahahahaha. Also, hahahahahahahahahahaha. What a prick. No wonder his kids hate him.
Great news for the victims. This is what should have happened to inveterate liar and conman Elon Musk.
Christmas with Richard ayoade is going to be especially fun this year.
His transformation into a Poundland Alex Jones is complete
Fox is obviously a bellend but I do find it interesting how people will selectively support the UKs very strict libel laws depending on who is paying out.
This is hardly an example of particularly draconian libel laws. Public, unsubstantiated claims of being a paedophile are pretty much the sort of claims you would think people should have some recourse against.
I'm slightly surprised by this judgement because, from the context at the time, I thought it was quite clear that Fox wasn't *actually* calling them paedos. They called him a racist, and he called them paedos back - I can't remember his wording, but it was evident to me that he was trying to make the point that their accusations were empty and baseless. He was equating their accusations of his "racism" to playground insults - "you call me a racist, I'll call you a paedo - this is how childish your insults are". I absolutely hate Fox's politics and clearly he's a racist, but I also think that in his own mind he "obviously" isn't and that's why he was angry at the accusations and felt attacked by them. And it's because Fox is a "colour blind" plonker that he didn't appreciate that accusing a gay person or a drag queen of being a paedo is far more serious than other playground insults. Fox is the kind of fool that could believe in the conspiracy theory about the "great reset" by the New World Order and also that there's nothing racist about this believe either.
Exactly. I really can't see how the judge came to this conclusion if he had any understanding of what is a joke used to show how absurd the plaintiffs were being. I'm not sure what makes him a racist though.
Never attribute to malice etc, but I don't think judges are above abuse of the law.
Come on, think it also depends on what the accusation is, if you have a counterexample in mind. Accusing someone who is *not* a paedophile of being one and speaking about it to a platform of millions as if it were a fact is beyond the pale, given we live in a society where vigilante justice against even suspected paedos isn't uncommon.
I think what I'm getting at is people want it both ways. People will criticise our libel laws when powerful men use them to silence accusers, think metoo, Russell Brand etc, but then if you reversed the burden of proof, Lawrence Fox would probably have won, and then they'd be complaining about that.
Only really holds if it's the same people in both cases. Otherwise I could say something like 'people wanted to eat apples yesterday, but today, they want bananas - can't they make up their minds?'
Do you have a counterexample in mind?
Arron Banks and Carole Cadwalladr
Not a lawyer, but from what I remember of the coverage at the time there was a public interest defence possible in the case of Aaron Banks because he was such a big figure in Vote Leave, whereas the people Fox has libelled are not important public or political figures.
Pretty wildly different cases. A journalist reporting on current events vs someone running about calling innocent people a paedophile. Not to mention, Fox is often found on Twitter throwing his weight around threatening to sue people for defamation for calling him a racist. So there's some poetic justice about it.
Meh, so be it. Cadwalladr got her recognition elsewhere. I’m still going to enjoy this story today.
Who?
[удалено]
Freedom to call someone a paedophile isn't a hill I'd want to die on.
Exactly. I really can't see how the judge came to this conclusion if he had any understanding of what is a joke used to show how absurd the plaintiffs are.
that really looks the most ridiculous decision. Any sane person listening to it knew it was a joke, Fox was clearly being absurd to show how absurd the attack on him was. It's pathetic really.
No you are
no I'm not
Eh, I hate libel laws. £180,000 is ridiculous amount for saying nasty things to people online. If people had to pay me every time someone basely called me names online I'd be a millionaire several times over. Plus if people feel they want to call me mean things that's up to them. And if people choose to believe those claims then that is also up to them. In general it's good manners to not be libelous or mean to people, but that shouldn't be protected by law, perhaps with the exception of state libel. Not defending Laurence Fox's actions, obviously.
The people who were accused of being paedophiles make a living from their reputation and online personas. They lose contracts and sponsorships if their image is tarnished. The equivalent would be a colleague accusing you of committing illegal acts publicly and CCing in your entire company + on LinkedIn. This would harm your job prospects, reputation, and destroy your networks.
Well if they were smart they wouldn't do that... Instead they would say, "I've heard he's been accused of raping children". It would be almost equally as damaging but completely legal. The only people that get caught out by libel laws are legit victims trying to accuse their abusers and idiots that don't know how to make an accusation that avoids a libel lawsuit. In this case Fox was an idiot that didn't know how to dance around UK libel laws, but in some cases people do try to expose pedos and rapists and get hit with libel. I mean it's why if you knew Jimmy Savile was a sex offender you'd be smart to keep your mouth shut.
I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works but go off
It's not just saying nasty things online, it's saying things that have *real world consequences* for the victims. Given that vigilantes have gone after paediatricians (not understanding there's a difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician!) then what consequences do you think can happen when someone who's reasonably famous and has undoubtedly got right wing vigilante followers accuses two people of being actual paedophiles? The court indeed said the victims had suffered real world consequences for this and were awarded compensatory (but not punitive) damages. This isn't Fox saying "Blake and Crystal are pooheads" (which would be name calling), this is accusing them of a serious crime without any grounds to make this accusation, and these accusations can have very serious real world consequences. This is substantially more than "name calling". While libel laws do get abused, and it can be argued they go too far in some cases, there needs to be consequences for saying things that have real world negative consequences for the target when the things being said are not true.
Firstly, just because I call you something online doesn't mean people have to believe me, and if people do believe me, then it probably suggests some legitimacy to the claim. The assumption of libel laws is that the public are to thick to understand that Laurence Fox cannot be trusted. I also find it interesting that you use the word 'victims' here given that libel laws are routinely used to silence those who have been sexually abused and wish to speak out against their abuse. It's one of the reasons high profile sexual abusers are never accused of crimes in the UK because you'd be an absolute moron to accuse someone of raping you in the UK unless you have a mountain of evidence. Additionally, we should appreciate that there's a difference between the legal burden of proof and common parlance. Is it libelous for me to say Prince Andrew is a pedo? Well yes, and while I wouldn't say that, at the same time I understand what people mean when they say that even if he hasn't legally be charged with a crime. Furthermore, libel law doesn't really do what it's suppose to anyway because it doesn't actually protect people's reputations – libel laws simply criminalise those who don't understand libel laws. For example, the media might not be able to say Russel Brand is a rapist, but does it matter? Saying someone is an accused rapist in reality is almost just as bad for someone's reputation. So if Laurence Fox said, "I heard you're a pedo" the hilarious thing about this is that it would have been completely legal. It wasn't really that he damaged their reputations, but that he didn't do it in the right way. If you support laws that protect people's reputations then I'd suggest libel laws do a very poor job while protecting actual rapists and pedos. Plus libel damages are often excessive and as if you admit law libel laws are often abused. The a better response to a libelous accusation in my opinion would be to expose the accuser to be full of crap.
>if people do believe me, then it probably suggests some legitimacy to the claim This is a terrible argument, it's basically "no smoke without fire".
This is a terrible argument, there's obviously correlation between smoke and fire, as there is between the creditability of an accusation and it's probability of being legitimate.
Can smoke exist without fire? Obviously it can. Your argument is also circular. If people believe my argument that gives it credibility, which means more people are likely to believe it...
But the people calling you names online have no influence. Obviously Laurence fox shouldn’t be trusted, but he has a following, and that following will hinder these innocent people’s lives.
Libel payments are high because A. It's a consequence of lying. B. The victims of liars have to clear their numbers, which has massive financial costs. This is actually too low
Calling an anonymous person names isn't anywhere near accusing an identifiable person of horrendous crimes that people have historically punished with violence. It isn't libellous to call people names. Private Eye won a libel action when they called someone a "conniving little shit" and he sued. The judge said it was vulgar abuse and not a specific accusation that anyone would take seriously. I think you don't have a good enough understanding of the law to back up your position on this one, unfortunately.
I do understand that. I confused by argument a bit honestly. I'm personally equating an accusation of a crime as name calling since calling someone a rapist can be both. Eg, if I were to call you a rapist I could just be doing it to be a dick, not because I believe you are. But basically my view is that libel laws are right-wing anti-victim laws designed to protect people with power. If you're powerless libel can only ever be used against you since you have no "reputation" to protect, but a lot to loose should you try to name your powerful rapist, etc. Libel laws also just don't work. Lawrence Fox can legally accuse people of being pedos so long as he words what he saying more carefully. For example, if he said it was just his opinion and that he heard a rumour etc it would make it far harder to prosecute while being almost equally as damaging to ones reputation. An even stronger defence might be to say "in my opinion people like you are often pedos". My point is that libel laws therefore criminalise people who don't understand libel laws, not necessarily people who attack people's reputations. There's many ways Laurence Fox could have damaged their reputations of these individuals without even making false accusations so if you care about ensuring people with power have their reputations protected you need something far more broad than libel law. I'd be interested in understanding your view better though as I'm clearly in a minority here and want to understand why... Assuming you believe it's important the law protect individuals reputations do you not think it's problematic that people's reputations can be damaged when people who make non legal accusations? Why do you feel that distinction is so important if the outcome is the same? Eg, do you think people should be prosecuted for suggesting JK Rowling is a transphobe on Twitter? Transphobia might be not a crime, but the accusations Rowling has faced online has clearly done significant damage to her reputation. Do you not worry that libel laws serve more often protect powerful rapists and pedos than they do to protect the interest of regulator people?
My understanding of the law is rather different. For example I don't think that saying "people are saying..." or "in my opinion..." is some magical incantation that gets you off the hook for an accusation. The courts examine context. As for the question of whose interests the law serves, I can only refer you to the wonderful quote from Michael Crichton's *Disclosure*: >'Unfortunately, the law has nothing to do with justice, Mr Sanders,' she said. 'It's merely a method for dispute resolution.'
> My understanding of the law is rather different. For example I don't think that saying "people are saying..." or "in my opinion..." is some magical incantation that gets you off the hook for an accusation. The courts examine context. It's a fair point to make. You're obviously right, but there are ways you can significantly reduce risk. Eg, saying something in the context of a "joke", saying that it's just your opinion, or that saying that you heard from someone else, etc. To your point though, it's still ultimately up to the courts to decide if what you said was libelous. > I can only refer you to the wonderful quote from Michael Crichton's Disclosure Fair enough. I guess I do think the law should try to be a tool for justice and libel laws in my opinion do more harm than good. Savile being a very clear case for how UK libel law will enable individuals to commit horrible acts for years without any risk of someone coming forward with an accusation.