Discussion:
Liz Truss "Cease *and* desist"
Add Reply
Jethro_uk
2025-01-09 14:10:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).

Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.

However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?

Link to the full letter.

< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
Jeff Layman
2025-01-10 08:22:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
No, it's an oxymoron. Basically, slander = spoken and libel = written.

As far as I can see the letter which you referenced below mentions only
"defamatory statements".
Post by Jethro_uk
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I wonder if Starmer will consider a reply along the lines of that used
in Arkell vs Pressdram.
--
Jeff
David
2025-01-10 11:54:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
No, it's an oxymoron. Basically, slander = spoken and libel = written.
As far as I can see the letter which you referenced below mentions only
"defamatory statements".
Post by Jethro_uk
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I wonder if Starmer will consider a reply along the lines of that used
in Arkell vs Pressdram.
Can't Starmer simply claim Parliamentary Privilege?
The Todal
2025-01-10 14:02:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
No, it's an oxymoron. Basically, slander = spoken and libel = written.
As far as I can see the letter which you referenced below mentions
only "defamatory statements".
Post by Jethro_uk
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I wonder if Starmer will consider a reply along the lines of that used
in Arkell vs Pressdram.
Can't Starmer simply claim Parliamentary Privilege?
Only if his remarks were made in Parliament - I think he has regularly
made the same point outside Parliament.
Jeff
2025-01-11 10:35:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David
Can't Starmer simply claim Parliamentary Privilege?
Not for things said outside of Parliament.
Jeff
Jethro_uk
2025-01-10 12:32:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeff Layman
[quoted text muted]
No, it's an oxymoron. Basically, slander = spoken and libel = written.
As far as I can see the letter which you referenced below mentions only
"defamatory statements".
[quoted text muted]
I wonder if Starmer will consider a reply along the lines of that used
in Arkell vs Pressdram.
Is there any onus on Starmer to reply ? Would ignoring the letter look
bad when it comes to court ?
The Todal
2025-01-10 14:07:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Jeff Layman
[quoted text muted]
No, it's an oxymoron. Basically, slander = spoken and libel = written.
As far as I can see the letter which you referenced below mentions only
"defamatory statements".
[quoted text muted]
I wonder if Starmer will consider a reply along the lines of that used
in Arkell vs Pressdram.
Is there any onus on Starmer to reply ? Would ignoring the letter look
bad when it comes to court ?
I'd assume that any reply would be from his solicitors.

Since the letter of claim does not comply with the relevant pre-action
protocol, any penalty for failing to address the allegations is unlikely.

It's a bit like the police caution which says, in criminal cases, "it
may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something
which you later rely on in court". If a defendant in civil proceedings
fails to reveal his defence prior to proceedings but then produces an
excellent defence in court, he might be penalised in costs.
Brian
2025-01-10 09:20:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.

That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.

What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time there,
as did Brown, and countless others.

Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than
yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
The Todal
2025-01-10 09:44:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time there,
as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than
yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
See also this analysis of the legal position. The letter from her
solicitors is "glorious but seemingly hopeless" and badly written.

She really has made a fool of herself.

https://davidallengreen.com/2025/01/a-close-look-at-trusss-legal-threat-to-starmer-a-glorious-but-seemingly-hopeless-cease-and-desist-letter/
The Todal
2025-01-10 09:52:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line.  Sunak spent time
there,
as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than
yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
See also this analysis of the legal position. The letter from her
solicitors is "glorious but seemingly hopeless" and badly written.
She really has made a fool of herself.
https://davidallengreen.com/2025/01/a-close-look-at-trusss-legal-threat-
to-starmer-a-glorious-but-seemingly-hopeless-cease-and-desist-letter/
As a general point, defamation law is a highly specialist subject and it
is best to consult a law firm with that expertise, rather than one that
deals with general dispute resolution cases.

Best not to quote the name of the firm or the names of its lawyers here.
Roger Hayter
2025-01-10 12:18:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
<https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time there,
as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than
yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
See also this analysis of the legal position. The letter from her
solicitors is "glorious but seemingly hopeless" and badly written.
She really has made a fool of herself.
https://davidallengreen.com/2025/01/a-close-look-at-trusss-legal-threat-
to-starmer-a-glorious-but-seemingly-hopeless-cease-and-desist-letter/
As a general point, defamation law is a highly specialist subject and it
is best to consult a law firm with that expertise, rather than one that
deals with general dispute resolution cases.
Best not to quote the name of the firm or the names of its lawyers here.
If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim unlikely to
succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors professionally obliged
to implement their wishes?
--
Roger Hayter
The Todal
2025-01-10 14:08:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by The Todal
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
<https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time there,
as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than
yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
See also this analysis of the legal position. The letter from her
solicitors is "glorious but seemingly hopeless" and badly written.
She really has made a fool of herself.
https://davidallengreen.com/2025/01/a-close-look-at-trusss-legal-threat-
to-starmer-a-glorious-but-seemingly-hopeless-cease-and-desist-letter/
As a general point, defamation law is a highly specialist subject and it
is best to consult a law firm with that expertise, rather than one that
deals with general dispute resolution cases.
Best not to quote the name of the firm or the names of its lawyers here.
If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim unlikely to
succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors professionally obliged
to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a
client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to be
dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse to act
if they wish.
Roland Perry
2025-01-11 08:57:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Roger Hayter
If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim
unlikely to succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors
professionally obliged to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a
client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to be
dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse to act
if they wish.
If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a substantial
(could be six-figure) sum in advance.
--
Roland Perry
David
2025-01-12 06:06:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by The Todal
 If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim
unlikely to  succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors
professionally obliged  to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a
client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to be
dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse to act
if they wish.
If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a substantial
(could be six-figure) sum in advance.
I wonder how much she would actually get awarded if it went to court. A
nominal £1?
Mark Goodge
2025-01-12 13:28:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David
Post by Roland Perry
Post by The Todal
 If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim
unlikely to  succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors
professionally obliged  to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a
client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to be
dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse to act
if they wish.
If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a substantial
(could be six-figure) sum in advance.
I wonder how much she would actually get awarded if it went to court. A
nominal £1?
I don't think she'd even come close to winning.

Mark
Roland Perry
2025-01-12 14:10:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David
Post by Roland Perry
Post by The Todal
 If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim
unlikely to  succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors
professionally obliged  to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a
client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to be
dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse to
act if they wish.
If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a
substantial (could be six-figure) sum in advance.
I wonder how much she would actually get awarded if it went to court. A
nominal £1?
And no costs? That's what the lawyers are worried about, and hence want
theirs prepaid.
--
Roland Perry
David
2025-01-12 17:18:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by David
Post by The Todal
 If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim
unlikely to  succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors
professionally obliged  to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a
client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to
be dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse
to act  if they wish.
 If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a
substantial  (could be six-figure) sum in advance.
I wonder how much she would actually get awarded if it went to court.
A nominal £1?
And no costs? That's what the lawyers are worried about, and hence want
theirs prepaid.
No costs.

Or perhaps a nice twist would be that if the court finds Starmer not
guilty/didn't have a case to answer and that she could be ordered to pay
Stamer's costs for bringing a vexatious action/wasting the court's time.
Jon Ribbens
2025-01-12 19:56:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David
Post by Roland Perry
Post by David
Post by The Todal
 If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim
unlikely to  succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors
professionally obliged  to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a
client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to
be dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse
to act  if they wish.
 If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a
substantial  (could be six-figure) sum in advance.
I wonder how much she would actually get awarded if it went to court.
A nominal £1?
And no costs? That's what the lawyers are worried about, and hence want
theirs prepaid.
No costs.
Or perhaps a nice twist would be that if the court finds Starmer not
guilty/didn't have a case to answer and that she could be ordered to pay
Stamer's costs for bringing a vexatious action/wasting the court's time.
That's not a "twist", that's the standard UK procedure - the losing
party usually pays (most of) the costs of the winning party. It doesn't
require any finding that the action was vexatious or a waste of time.
Jethro_uk
2025-01-13 09:44:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by David
Post by Roland Perry
Post by David
Post by The Todal
 If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim
unlikely to  succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors
professionally obliged  to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a
client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to
be dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse
to act  if they wish.
 If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a
substantial  (could be six-figure) sum in advance.
I wonder how much she would actually get awarded if it went to court.
A nominal £1?
And no costs? That's what the lawyers are worried about, and hence
want theirs prepaid.
No costs.
Or perhaps a nice twist would be that if the court finds Starmer not
guilty/didn't have a case to answer and that she could be ordered to
pay Stamer's costs for bringing a vexatious action/wasting the court's
time.
That's not a "twist", that's the standard UK procedure - the losing
party usually pays (most of) the costs of the winning party. It doesn't
require any finding that the action was vexatious or a waste of time.
"Usually"

It's not unknown for some judges to make each side pay their own costs.
Jon Ribbens
2025-01-13 15:05:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by David
Post by Roland Perry
Post by David
Post by The Todal
 If a client should wish, despite advice, to put forward a claim
unlikely to  succeed, to what extent are his or her legal advisors
professionally obliged  to implement their wishes?
The lawyers are entitled to pursue a hopeless claim on behalf of a
client provided it does not rely on allegations which are known to
be dishonest or untrue. I wouldn't say "obliged" - they can refuse
to act  if they wish.
 If it's a defamation claim it's possible they'd ask for a
substantial  (could be six-figure) sum in advance.
I wonder how much she would actually get awarded if it went to court.
A nominal £1?
And no costs? That's what the lawyers are worried about, and hence
want theirs prepaid.
No costs.
Or perhaps a nice twist would be that if the court finds Starmer not
guilty/didn't have a case to answer and that she could be ordered to
pay Stamer's costs for bringing a vexatious action/wasting the court's
time.
That's not a "twist", that's the standard UK procedure - the losing
party usually pays (most of) the costs of the winning party. It doesn't
require any finding that the action was vexatious or a waste of time.
"Usually"
It's not unknown for some judges to make each side pay their own costs.
I didn't include that word by accident ;-)

My point was mainly that making the losing party pay costs is not some
sort of unusual extra punishment only handed down to people who lost
particularly badly, it is bog standard. (And indeed this is one way in
which the English legal system is better than, say, the US system, which
as I understand it does work that way.)

Spike
2025-01-10 11:05:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
Perhaps the problem with the C&D letter issued on behalf of Ms Truss is
that it could be demonstrated that the economy is now in a worse state than
under her leadership, and if she had ‘crashed the economy’ then the current
incumbents have done worse, and are slinging mud in order to deflect
attention away from their woes.
Post by Brian
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time there,
as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than
yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
--
Spike
The Todal
2025-01-10 14:09:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Spike
Post by Brian
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
Perhaps the problem with the C&D letter issued on behalf of Ms Truss is
that it could be demonstrated that the economy is now in a worse state than
under her leadership, and if she had ‘crashed the economy’ then the current
incumbents have done worse, and are slinging mud in order to deflect
attention away from their woes.
Why do you say that is a problem?
Post by Spike
Post by Brian
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time there,
as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than
yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
Spike
2025-01-10 14:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Spike
Post by Brian
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
Perhaps the problem with the C&D letter issued on behalf of Ms Truss is
that it could be demonstrated that the economy is now in a worse state than
under her leadership, and if she had ‘crashed the economy’ then the current
incumbents have done worse, and are slinging mud in order to deflect
attention away from their woes.
Why do you say that is a problem?
Because it is, for TwoTier.
Post by The Todal
Post by Spike
Post by Brian
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time there,
as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than
yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
--
Spike
The Todal
2025-01-10 14:43:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Spike
Post by The Todal
Post by Spike
Post by Brian
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
Perhaps the problem with the C&D letter issued on behalf of Ms Truss is
that it could be demonstrated that the economy is now in a worse state than
under her leadership, and if she had ‘crashed the economy’ then the current
incumbents have done worse, and are slinging mud in order to deflect
attention away from their woes.
Why do you say that is a problem?
Because it is, for TwoTier.
But it isn't really, is it? For decades, maybe centuries, it has been
the custom for each political party in the UK to accuse the previous
government of wrecking the economy. Whether there is any truth in the
allegation is debateable - it often depends on which criteria you apply.

Did Truss actually crash the economy in a manner which is different from
anything done by other governments? Most people think so.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/30/liz-truss-uk-economic-crisis

quote

Determined to quickly make her mark, Truss announced a radical new
economic agenda of tax cuts and spending worth tens of billions of
pounds funded by borrowing – the true total of which is still not known.

The move, which appeared to also violate public spending curbs, tore
apart the orthodoxy established by the three Conservative prime
ministers who went before her during 12 years in power that tried to
emphasise fiscal prudence.

Truss’s drive for growth proved too radical for traders. The pound was
sent spiralling to reach its lowest value against the US dollar, an
embarrassing intervention from the central bank – the Bank of England –
was made to avoid a raid on pension funds, and rebukes from foreign
observers, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), were swift.

Government bonds, known as gilts, had also seen a sell-off. And markets
were predicting a sharp increase in interest rates, as the Bank of
England stepped in to offset the inflationary impact of the plans.By
Tuesday, almost 300 mortgage deals had been taken off the market as
lenders reassessed the outlook for rates. Estate agents were reporting
house purchase chains collapsing, as lenders and buyers pulled out.

As the crisis deepened, the vicious increase in yields, which had
already gone up sharply in recent months, was wreaking havoc for pension
funds.

Amid fears that panic-selling of bonds would create a self-fulfilling
“doom loop”, and some funds warning they were in effect at risk of
becoming insolvent, the Bank rode to the rescue.
Post by Spike
Post by The Todal
Post by Spike
Post by Brian
What is more, similar opinions are normally expressed about political
opponents. Reeves is currently in the firing line. Sunak spent time there,
as did Brown, and countless others.
Truss needs to accept, in politics, you get criticised. Often it is
deserved. Even if your critic’s performance / behaviour is worse than
yours, it may be hypocritical, but reacting like this is madness.
Spike
2025-01-10 15:28:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Spike
Post by The Todal
Post by Spike
Post by Brian
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
Perhaps the problem with the C&D letter issued on behalf of Ms Truss is
that it could be demonstrated that the economy is now in a worse state than
under her leadership, and if she had ‘crashed the economy’ then the current
incumbents have done worse, and are slinging mud in order to deflect
attention away from their woes.
Why do you say that is a problem?
Because it is, for TwoTier.
But it isn't really, is it? For decades, maybe centuries, it has been
the custom for each political party in the UK to accuse the previous
government of wrecking the economy. Whether there is any truth in the
allegation is debateable - it often depends on which criteria you apply.
Did Truss actually crash the economy in a manner which is different from
anything done by other governments? Most people think so.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/30/liz-truss-uk-economic-crisis
quote
Determined to quickly make her mark, Truss announced a radical new
economic agenda of tax cuts and spending worth tens of billions of
pounds funded by borrowing – the true total of which is still not known.
[…]
Post by The Todal
As the crisis deepened, the vicious increase in yields, which had
already gone up sharply in recent months, was wreaking havoc for pension
funds.
Amid fears that panic-selling of bonds would create a self-fulfilling
“doom loop”, and some funds warning they were in effect at risk of
becoming insolvent, the Bank rode to the rescue.
The extant state of affairs is that the current government’ economic
strategy has resulted in bond investors seeing little reason to hold
longer-dated UK bonds, and are selling them. This had pushed up interest
rates with consequent concern for mortgage rates. It has also all but ended
the hope of a surplus from which the government hoped to invest in
long-term projects. This is known as a vicious circle, or ‘doom loop’ to
use a term used to refer to the Truss era and mentioned above. The Truss
issue was short-lived, this one will run and run.
--
Spike
Pancho
2025-01-10 16:28:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Spike
Post by The Todal
Post by Spike
Post by Brian
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/
post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
Perhaps the problem with the C&D letter issued on behalf of Ms Truss is
that it could be demonstrated that the economy is now in a worse state than
under her leadership, and if she had ‘crashed the economy’ then the current
incumbents have done worse, and are slinging mud in order to deflect
attention away from their woes.
Why do you say that is a problem?
Because it is, for TwoTier.
But it isn't really, is it? For decades, maybe centuries, it has been
the custom for each political party in the UK to accuse the previous
government of wrecking the economy.  Whether there is any truth in the
allegation is debateable - it often depends on which criteria you apply.
Did Truss actually crash the economy in a manner which is different from
anything done by other governments? Most people think so.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/30/liz-truss-uk-economic-
crisis
quote
Determined to quickly make her mark, Truss announced a radical new
economic agenda of tax cuts and spending worth tens of billions of
pounds funded by borrowing – the true total of which is still not known.
The move, which appeared to also violate public spending curbs, tore
apart the orthodoxy established by the three Conservative prime
ministers who went before her during 12 years in power that tried to
emphasise fiscal prudence.
Truss’s drive for growth proved too radical for traders. The pound was
sent spiralling to reach its lowest value against the US dollar, an
embarrassing intervention from the central bank – the Bank of England –
was made to avoid a raid on pension funds, and rebukes from foreign
observers, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), were swift.
Government bonds, known as gilts, had also seen a sell-off. And markets
were predicting a sharp increase in interest rates, as the Bank of
England stepped in to offset the inflationary impact of the plans.By
Tuesday, almost 300 mortgage deals had been taken off the market as
lenders reassessed the outlook for rates. Estate agents were reporting
house purchase chains collapsing, as lenders and buyers pulled out.
As the crisis deepened, the vicious increase in yields, which had
already gone up sharply in recent months, was wreaking havoc for pension
funds.
That is a market adjustment.
Post by The Todal
Amid fears that panic-selling of bonds would create a self-fulfilling
“doom loop”, and some funds warning they were in effect at risk of
becoming insolvent, the Bank rode to the rescue.
That is funds not being managed/regulated properly.

At the end of the day she didn't really do anything. I think it is a bit
unfair to blame her for long term consequences.
Brian
2025-01-10 18:12:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Spike
Post by Brian
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Obviously as an ongoing legal action, it would be inappropriate to
comment on the specifics here in the event the matter goes before the
court.
However it would be interesting to discuss in the round if there is any
precedent for an incompetent Prime Minister whose actions caused
quantifiable economic harm to use legal threats to silence critics ?
Link to the full letter.
< https://bsky.app/profile/twright-law.bsky.social/post/3lfclmpczys2w >
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
That aside, surely those who claim her Government crashed the economy are
simply expressing an opinion.
Perhaps the problem with the C&D letter issued on behalf of Ms Truss is
that it could be demonstrated that the economy is now in a worse state than
under her leadership, and if she had ‘crashed the economy’ then the current
incumbents have done worse, and are slinging mud in order to deflect
attention away from their woes.
That would be decided on the basis of whether the economy under Truss
was in a worse state than now.


I suspect some would argue it isn't (I'm not one of them). Just today
two of Reeves allies tried to convince the Commons that things weren't
nearly as bad as it seems, quite the converse ;-)

There is a very amusing report in the Telegraph.
Jethro_uk
2025-01-10 12:33:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian
[quoted text muted]
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
or *more* foolish ?
Ottavio Caruso
2025-01-10 12:37:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian
I can’t help thinking she has made herself look foolish.
How can one lose fame[1] if they don't have any?


[1] By using the word "fame", I mean "positive fame".
--
Ottavio Caruso
Ottavio Caruso
2025-01-10 12:35:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Aren't MPs and PM's protected from accusations of defamation and slander?

I know that "elected officials" in Italy have absolute immunity from
prosecution from slander and defamation charges. Is there anything
similar in UK?
--
Ottavio Caruso
The Todal
2025-01-10 14:14:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ottavio Caruso
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Aren't MPs and PM's protected from accusations of defamation and slander?
No.
Post by Ottavio Caruso
I know that "elected officials" in Italy have absolute immunity from
prosecution from slander and defamation charges. Is there anything
similar in UK?
Really? That's rather appalling.

To pick one random example, Jeremy Corbyn whilst an MP and Labour Party
leader was sued for defamation by Richard Millett.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/1848.html

quotes

This is a claim for defamation arising out of a statement ("the
Statement") made by the Defendant, The Right Honourable Jeremy Corbyn MP
("Mr. Corbyn") during an interview on the Andrew Marr Show ("the
Programme") on 23 September 2018. The Programme was thereafter made
available on BBC iPlayer and can still be viewed on that platform.

At the time the Statement was made Mr. Corbyn was the leader of the
Labour Party and led the Opposition.

By this claim, issued on 10 June 2020, Mr. Millett alleges that the
words spoken by Mr. Corbyn in the Programme (as underlined above) were
defamatory of him and their publication caused and is likely to cause
serious harm to his reputation.

Mr. Millett was being accused of abusive behaviour in relation to a
public speaker on a controversial topic. This is an accusation of a type
of conduct which is contrary to the values of a modern democracy where
freedom of speech is a cherished value. ..... To summarise my rulings on
the preliminary issues, I find that the words complained of referred to
Mr. Millett; that they bore a meaning defamatory of Mr. Millett as
identified above; and I find that the allegations were factual.
Ottavio Caruso
2025-01-10 16:34:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Ottavio Caruso
I know that "elected officials" in Italy have absolute immunity from
prosecution from slander and defamation charges. Is there anything
similar in UK?
Really? That's rather appalling.
It's in the Italian constitution to prevent the government from
arresting opposition MP's, which was what Mussolini did earlier.
--
Ottavio Caruso
JNugent
2025-01-10 20:01:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Ottavio Caruso
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Aren't MPs and PM's protected from accusations of defamation and slander?
No.
Post by Ottavio Caruso
I know that "elected officials" in Italy have absolute immunity from
prosecution from slander and defamation charges. Is there anything
similar in UK?
Really? That's rather appalling.
To pick one random example, Jeremy Corbyn whilst an MP and Labour Party
leader was sued for defamation by Richard Millett.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/1848.html
quotes
This is a claim for defamation arising out of a statement ("the
Statement") made by the Defendant, The Right Honourable Jeremy Corbyn MP
("Mr. Corbyn") during an interview on the Andrew Marr Show ("the
Programme") on 23 September 2018. The Programme was thereafter made
available on BBC iPlayer and can still be viewed on that platform.
At the time the Statement was made Mr. Corbyn was the leader of the
Labour Party and led the Opposition.
By this claim, issued on 10 June 2020, Mr. Millett alleges that the
words spoken by Mr. Corbyn in the Programme (as underlined above) were
defamatory of him and their publication caused and is likely to cause
serious harm to his reputation.
Mr. Millett was being accused of abusive behaviour in relation to a
public speaker on a controversial topic. This is an accusation of a type
of conduct which is contrary to the values of a modern democracy where
freedom of speech is a cherished value. ..... To summarise my rulings on
the preliminary issues, I find that the words complained of referred to
Mr. Millett; that they bore a meaning defamatory of Mr. Millett as
identified above; and I find that the allegations were factual.
He'd have been safe if he'd uttered the alleged defamation in the House.
Or even while giving evidence (in any case, ralated or unrelated) in court.
JNugent
2025-01-10 19:59:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ottavio Caruso
Post by Jethro_uk
I read that Liz Truss has instructed lawyers to inform the whole world
that she feels being called "incompetent" and accused of "crashing the
economy" is damaging her reputation and amounting to a slanderous libel
(is that a tautology ?).
Aren't MPs and PM's protected from accusations of defamation and slander?
I know that "elected officials" in Italy have absolute immunity from
prosecution from slander and defamation charges. Is there anything
similar in UK?
Whilst speaking in the relevant House, yes.

Not out on the street.

Even an ordinary citizen has some immunity whilst giving evidence in
court. Hence the famous case some decades ago of a campaigner who
deliberately failed to pay domestic rates / Community Charge / Council
Tax in order to be summonsed to the local mags and to be sworn in to
give evidence.

Wish I could remember more details - the case might have involved the
death of one of the person't relatives.
Jethro_uk
2025-01-11 15:24:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Following on from this, I have seen countless memes* on my FB feed
repeating "Liz Truss crashed the economy" in increasingly humorous
settings. My own favourite (thus far) being a sign towed by an aeroplane
(probably AI generated or modified).

Is there anything interesting legally about this development ?

Does the fact that Meta has now declared that Facebook is fact-free have
any bearing on the matter ?
Loading...