Why yes, yes they have.

Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn, already facing one libel action over his 'Zionists don't understand history or English irony' speech, is now facing, potentially, multiple further actions over his Facebook statement deploring Labour's apology to and settlement with John Ware and the Panorama whistleblowers. Ware has confirmed to John Pienaar of Times Radio that he is taking legal action and defamation lawyer Mark Lewis confirms 'that I have been instructed to pursue cases.' The other litigants are presumably some or all of the whistleblowers defamed in Corbyn's statement, which carelessly repeated the original defamation in Seumas Milne's press release.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-07-22/...whistleblowers



Given that Lewis has been instructed, Ware doesn't mean he's just pondering; he means a lawyer's letter will be sent requiring a retraction and apology, and if that doesn't happen the suit will follow.

Corbyn's obstinacy is well known, but a libel action at the Royal Courts of Justice costs in the region of £2m, and Corbyn's house isn't worth that much. If he lost he'd have to liquidate his pension as well. Unless McCluskey at Unite offers to bankroll him. But Unite took a deep cold bath when they bankrolled Steve Walker of Skwawkbox in the action brought by Anna Turley, and they've only got so many millions of the members' money to chuck away.

It was obvious at the time that Labour would get successfully sued for libel. Milne et. al must have known that but figured sticking two figures up to the Jews was worth it.

Suing Corbyn for his Facebook statement is dangerous. Being a terrible person and offering awful opinions shouldn't be illegal.

It's not to do with his generally awful opinions, it's to do with specific defamatory statements.



In particular:-

And:-

You accuse John Ware and the whistleblowers of 'misleading and inaccurate allegations', when Labour's already admitted that such accusations are defamatory and the party hasn't got a leg to stand on, you get sued. Corbyn has also misstated the legal advice given, and the nature of the Forde inquiry.

Corbyn really needs to have the whip taken away, at minimum.

Oh dear. How very unfortunate.



See also:-

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dar...-tory-funding/

And:-

https://www.businessinsider.com/bori...9-11?r=US&IR=T

And:-

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9202566.html

And:-

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ey-says-labour

And:-

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r...port-z98nqpkx0

And:-

https://www.businessinsider.com/bori...9-11?r=US&IR=T

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Theure so disgustingly corrupt

Can't wait to see how Sunak will handle mass unemployment following these new laws that are coming into place tomorrow (which unbelievably won't be reviewed for six months). If you think it'll have a health benefit, fine, but if anyone seriously thinks that there won't be masses of people who will either reduce the frequency of live shop visits right down, or switch to online completely (if they haven't done so already), with obvious effects on the viability of more or less every B&M outlet, then that seems extremely naive. It's especially ironic seeing how supermarkets were more or less the only places actually hiring anyone over the last few months

Unless of course his magic plan is to somehow tax Amazon following their surprising rise in revenues, good luck with that

They sure are. And of course foreign donors are banned, but the Tories' Russian donors appear to have got their UK citizenship fast-tracked by, erm, opening their wallets.

We really need an effective Opposition, and up to a point we now have one. Starmer seems to be running things well, compared with the negligent incompetence of Johnson-Cummings.



But Labour's still mired in legal problems. Apart from John Ware suing Corbyn, which is now a private matter because Corbyn's out of office, 32 former staffers including ex-general secretary Lord McNichol are suing the party over the leaked Formby document on grounds of defamation and data breach. It's expected this will cost the party £5m-£8m. And that's before the EHRC report lands, now expected in September, which is likely to lead to a raft of further lawsuits.

Mass unemployment, and large numbers of people finding out just how bad Universal Credit really is, including many people who thought they were middle class and OK, is going to give the government quite the headache.

Amazing.

Its not the masks causing the mass unemployment.

Also I think very few people are such epic of the charts **** that the micro nano inconvenience of wearing a mask effects how much you visit the shops.

Strange how quiet the ghouls who said I was making it up have been lately.

Listen to your echo chamber all you like OAFK, but when I hear of people who have legit medical reasons for not wearing one, but won't go into shops going forward from anxiety of potential conflict from Karen on Facebook saying he's killing her grandparents (it doesn't help that the head of the Met is saying they can't be arsed to enforce this and are encouraging vigilantism as an alternative to doing their job), that doesn't strike you as a problem?

Most shops are a slight downturn from busto, this was a fact before covid, even the slightest disincentive to use anything will result in lots more job losses than there's already been. It's incredibly easy to envisage the public doing one larger less frequent shop (if they don't simply go online) rather than bother with this mask bollocks, heck, while I'd normally have popped round the corner to grab a four pack during peak coronaplague, I've simply ordered a couple of crates online that are cheaper anyway (for the times I'm not just going to the pub anyway)

Its not a ****ing echo chamber, its called actually wearing a mask, its nothing.

Ive been doing all along, its not even close to being a ball ache in anyway. Only a massive snowflake would be bothered by.

Ok, so their might be a tiny tiny subset of people who might experience problems wearing one, please elucidate on said conditions so I can fact check, but that subset is not going to damage the economy.

The irony being that of course these people will 100% benefit the most from everyone else wearing them, that does not need fact checking. Pre existing conditions, especially those that effect breathing, that is the highest risk category.

All being bothered by masks indicates is that you are a well programmed right wing jump bot, responding to the latest how high command.

In reality its an absolute non issue, the most ridiculous thing ever to become politicised and only ridiculous people respond to that politicisation.

The last real journalist in the UK Peter Hitchens says it best

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

Peter Hitchens is basically Katie Hopkins for people who dont want to admit they like Katie Hopkins.

Turns out Thomas Gardiner, one of Corbyn's own placemen, warned Formby that her bizarre 'report' was illegal due to defamation and data breaches.





I don't think a political party can legally go bankrupt, but it can go broke. Labour may have to sue Corbynite individuals over this. And the 7,000 idiots who've donated £140,000 to Corbyn's legal crowdfunder don't realise that, given Labour's admission of libel, the money will probably just go to John Ware and his lawyers. They're making Corbyn a bigger, fatter, juicier target and preventing him from claiming lack of means and settling quietly.

He's mad.

That reads like a betdwetter screeching about not wanting to wear a mask and doing his best to sound clever by dressing it up in flowery language.

As regards which individuals Labour should sue (and may have to sue):-

Anyone complaining about a mask who is a healthy adult is basically a bed wetter.

While you may disagree with his perspective it's an objectively well written, well researched piece.

Objectively its the absolute opposite of that.

Really? The healthy adult nurse who saw to my grandmother in law for a home visit rocked up with a mask on. Grandmother in law asked her what it is like to wear it all the time, she said its "bloody awful" but the employer forces them to do it. The receptionist in the surgery I was in was masked up - no patients allowed in of course (I was waiting at the entrance) rendering the ritual entirely useless anyway - she had to remove the mask to speak to me, her exact words "I can't breathe". Rather ironic isn't it. Just 2 examples I am aware of where people have complained about masks. There are many more I am aware of indirectly. Bedwetters are they? These NHS heroes are bedwetters yes?

For clarity before you go and "fact check" all of the required "conditions", you do not need to have a "condition". If the act of wearing a mask would cause "severe distress" then you are exempt as it is a "reasonable excuse" under the statutory instrument.

Also for your information, GPs are advised by PHE not to write exemption notes for patients, leaving very vulnerable people extremely anxious about simple tasks such as obtaining basic food supplies. Are they bedwetters too, or are they genuinely exempt according to your list of valid excuses?

Yea lets base a national policy on a few anecdotes from billyshears.

People who think like this are such a drag on humanity.

Also none of them relate to wearing masks in shops, so even that is a fail.

I remember you now, you were/are are the flue is worse guy.

You stated "Anyone complaining about a mask who is a healthy adult is basically a bed wetter." nothing specific to shops. Are the nurse and the surgery receptionist bedwetters or not?

Ah yes "the flu" argument. Was it you or someone else who claimed I wouldn't find a single expert stating that Covid19 was similar to the flu in terms of IFR? Well I have plenty. One of the most cited researchers in his field prof John Ioannidis "the IFR is in the ballpark of seasonal flu". That was some time ago. Now we have constant testing, many more cases identified and yet the excess mortality is back to around, or below the 5 year average for this time of year. At this point the IFR is yesterday's news but it should be headlines - good news, not a deadly virus at all! But it isn't.

And re national policy, interesting isn't it that the WHO advised against masks until the recent u-turn ahead of UK govt policy shift. I learned about this in the well researched Hitchens piece, full of useful information.