Monday, 27 May 2013

Defending Sally Bercow

Super-quick blog post this week as I have limited time - as ever - due to work, son, Mum, visiting family (arriving tomorrow and I still haven't done my cleaning!) and the hustle and bustle of general life.

This past week left me a little confused (it doesn't take a lot!) but I just felt I had to post my thoughts.

I'm talking the whole 'Sally Bercow Tweeting Fiasco.'

Now the way I see it (and please don't shoot me down in flames here - remember this is MY blog, MY opinions) - yes, she was possibly in possession of certain information from inside rumours, but at no point did she reveal anything that should have seen her standing up in court to defend herself or paying costs.

An ambiguous tweet  'Why is Lord McAlpine trending?  *innocent face*' is not calling someone a paedophile.  We cannot have people in court for what a tweet MIGHT have implied.

If we can, because of the trickiness of words, the courts will quite simply not be able to cope in the future.

I can think of several people who would like to haul me over the coals for what I MIGHT have tweeted - but, at the end of the day, anything can be read into anything.

Give people the benefit of the doubt, guys, and don't read what you think is written.


  1. "don't read what you think is written"... Well said Amanda!

    All too often I've seen people take the wrong meaning or wrongly interpret something someone has said or done on Twitter and Facebook. And people who think everything said is aimed at them or is all about them. Personally, if something isn't said to me directly, then it's not about me or aimed at me. And if I have something to say to someone, I'll say it to them by whatever means I have available at the time.

    Too many people now hide behind the internet and say stuff they wouldn't dare dreaming of saying face to face.

  2. It was political. She is Labour, He is Tory. As I know full well from dealing with them day in day out here at a local level, they are nasty, bullying and will seek revenge at any chance they get. As you say, it was a 'nudge nudge' but no names. I have been threatened with legal action on several occasions - never pursued because at the end of the day, what I have written has turned out to be the truth! When other 'celebs' were hauled up for the same offence, I read some VERY hardline and damn rude tweets from the likes of Stephen Fry ---- nobody went after him...Look behind the tweet to the politics..that's what lies at the heart of all this.

  3. >but at no point did she reveal anything that should have seen her standing up in court to defend herself or paying costs.

    I don't see why this is still at issue.

    Bercow drew widespread attention to a false allegation, and was therefore spreading defamatory comment about the reputation of an innocent person.

    That this libellous is established in legal precedent for years and years.

    She has picked up costs because she lost, as is quite standard.

    Perhaps she should have spent the money on better legal advice, or developed a slight sense of self-awareness as she moved from a Westminster-bubble circle to being a widely watched media figure, albeit a comic one.

    The line she crossed was from sneering to smearing, eg from calling George Osbrone "mental" to this.

    I doubt if she has learnt her lesson - some of her comments afterwards seem to be attempts at self-justification.

  4. As I stated in the blog, this is my opinion on the issue. I still don't see how her tweet was 'defamatory'. I feel that she has been made an example of, unfairly.