Carole Codswallop

She claims that calling her "Codswallop" is a "misogynists’ dog whistle".

It's not though, is it?

If you called her a Mad Cat Lady that might be, but "Codswallop" is devoid of sexist connotation. 

I do sometimes despair of my fellow Remainiacs.

She is a tool.

Be interesting to see how Banks' defamation claim works out. 

I think it is part of a sexist attempt to undermine her tho would not on its own and absent of andrew neil context be sexist

andrew neil was really ruined for me by that whole thing

Of course it is misogynistic. 

As you well know, she is always right and so she never talks codswallop. The only reason to use that word therefore is to insult her because she is a woman.

I expect the Guardian might defend her with their bottomless tax-efficient Scott Trust, but not sure TED Talks will be so happy to throw good money after bad in supporting her.

She was always going to be the subject of personal attacks and attempts to discredit and undermine her after what she exposed about the illegal activity of Vote Leave and Cambridge Analytica. These people don't like it up 'em.

"Be interesting to see how Banks' defamation claim works out. "

Yeah, especially disclosure.

 

Tool

Also, please link to where she has claimed "Codswallop" is a "misogynists’ dog whistle" rather than the mad cat lady stuff.

What do you think she has left in her pocket for disclosure supes?

What illegality has she exposed?

Go and read her articles.

Supes there will be nothing to disclose on his side and she will on proof to show the allegations are true.

Lady Penelope - what convictions have resulted from her articles? What illegality are you referring to? Genuine question.

Coracle Lolling - I'm not alt-right, I'm a Remainiac like most educated professionals.

I just happen to think Carolle Cadwalladr hinders our cause.

 

And do you believe that something is only a crime if it results in a conviction? How odd.

Lady Penelope - I'm beginning to think you don't have any actual illegality to point to, otherwise you'd just say.

No one who actually voted remain uses the word "remainiac" or "remoaner".

And I'm beginning to think you haven't actually read any of her articles.

Lady Penelope - call me old-fashioned, but as a lawyer I do tend to stick with "innocent until proven guilty". In England & Wales we frown on conviction by accusation and hearsay.

Lady Penelope - some of the most ardent Remain voters are happy to identify as Remainiacs. I didn't say Remoaner, that's hateful. 

https://www.remainiacs.com/ - "REMAINIACS is the no-b*llsh#t Brexit podcast for people who won’t just shut up and get over Brexit. Every week we take an honest look at the unfolding shambles that is Britain’s departure from the EU. Now you can back us on PATREON. Pledge a few quid a month, get cool mugs, t-shirts and other stuff, and #OwnTheRemoan.

So if you witness someone being shot in the head, and then the attacker runs away and is never found, you believe no crime has been committed?

Lady Penelope - you can even get Remainiac merch for those of us who proudly identify that way here.

"...if you witness someone being shot in the head, and then the attacker runs away and is never found..." - what you have likely described there is murder, although as lawyers we'd need a full set of facts to be sure. A crime has been committed, a criminal is yet to be found.

So now you've described that crime, how about you set out the facts from these articles which convince you one has been committed in relation to Brexit?

I see someone has run the Banks doesn't have to give disclosure load of codswallop.

 

If she defends the allegations and if Banks sues, she will plead justification and Banks will be required to give disclosure on the items pleaded as justification. He will also have to give evidence and be cross examined.

It would be quicker if you just read her articles tbh.

Ziffer you misread. I anticipate there will be nothing there to disclose assuming that she tires to justify the statements, not that there won't be a disclosure obligation. 

Until then you should probably also refrain from expressing an opinion, since you refuse to educate yourself about the issue.

Pride that scenario was not even necessarily a cirme. The accused might have a perfectly valid defence .

You refuse to educate me! I've merely asked. What have you got to hide?

Caroline Lucas and some other MPs are event taking the Met Police to court for failure to prosecute. Now I know that means she doesn't understand how prosecutions work in the UK, but nevertheless it does mean she can point to crimes which you seem less keen on sharing.

??? - tbf I did write "what you have described there is likely murder, although as lawyers we'd need a full set of facts to be sure". I appreciate I probably shouldn't have then written "a crime has been committed", and apologise.

There is bound to be some disclosure about the Russian gold deal. If she justifies by reference to one or more of the various Banks' companies, then there will be disclosure there. 

 

I imagine emails about their Collins Cmte excursion also went too and fro. 

I don't have anything to hide, I'm just not going to waste time arguing the facts presented by Carole Cadwalladr in articles that you have not read. What would be the point?

What she uncovered is a serious piece of investigative journalism. Has our democracy been bought and manipulated, and if so, how and why and by whom? It's the most serious and pressing question for our generation that I can think of apart from how to reverse man made climate change, but hey, you'd rather sneer.

I watched the video where the CC makes the claims that Banks is suing her for. 

It such a weird and rambling speech that I think CC may get away with it on the basis that it is very difficult to understand what she is actually specifically claiming. 

If you have not already, I recommend you go and watch it and try to figure out what concrete claims about Banks she is making. 

The two statements Banks objects to are:

1. “We know the Russian Government offered money to Arron Banks.”

2. “And I’m not even going to go into the lies that Arron Banks has told about his covert relationship with the Russian Government.”

I think 2 is the easier case. She is claiming he is a liar which I suppose could be argued is clearly defamatory. 

The charitable interpretation of 1 is that she is referring to the gold / diamond deal she mentions earlier in her rambling speech.

The uncharitable interpretation is that she is claiming Banks was offered money by the Russian state in order to influence the Brexit campaign.

Charitable interpretation is almost certainly a false claim (and not one she could prove) but is it defamatory?

Uncharitable interpretation is likely false and, in my view, very obviously defamatory, and there is certainly no way she could prove that unless she is able to hack the Russian security services. 

 

LOL! Posing the question is not the same as proving a case.

What sort of law do you do?

My last comment was for Lady Penelope's attention.

But then she'll probably ignore it, like when I pointed out we Remainers do call ourselves Remainiacs and like when Supes didn't acknowledge Carole Cadwalladr did cite "codswallop" as dog whistle misogyny.

What ever sort of law LP does, she should probably knock it on the head. 

I think 2 is pretty easy. The Bad Boys of Brexit says one meeting a lunch with the Russian Ambassador. Banks now admits there were more contacts than that which were not disclosed. Plus Banks said he lied to journalists to wind them up.

 

On 1, if those are the words at issue - why could they not refer to the gold deal which was true.

 

Both allegations have been repeated by other press sources and not on the allegedly etc basis - so someone somewhere will have legalled this. Similarly I would imagine the Guardian was waiting for this. Certainly CC seems to be trying to goad Banks to sue her on Twitter

Lady Penelope - I don't think you have read her articles, or you'd just cite the crimes here. Sadly I think Cheesetoastie has a point.

Agreed re 2. 

Re 1, it really is unclear from the video what on earth she is banging on about. She does say it in the context of Brexit (the references to the gold deal are much earlier) though so I think on balance it makes more sense to say she is referring to him taking money in relation to Brexit. 

I don't think any papers have claimed that Banks took money from the Russian gov as part of a scheme to manipulate the referendum. 

I still think there is a chance a judge says "It is impossible to understand what you are babbling about you mad cow so you are off the hook. Now please go away" and chucks it out. 

Although I'm a Brexiteer and a massive Farage fanboy, I r8 Carole.

Proper old skool investigative journalist. Not like the gobsh1tes who write the 'Comment' pieces. 

At least she is trying. Not hard enough mind given the amount of retractions and corrections, but trying nonetheless. 

I have read her articles. They are long and frankly terrifying. And to go through and cite from them I would have to go back and re-read them and copy and paste the most relevant parts, which would probably take me longer than it took to read them in the first place.

Why would I take the time to do that for someone who can't be bothered to read them in the first place?

LP, it really shouldn't be that hard to remember a specific crime you think she has uncovered.

I don't have to go back and read all the articles written on OJ Simpson to tell that you he was accused of murder.  

You're right Cheesetoastie - no one seems to have said it in terms - ie Russian money to influence referendum - though a lot have implied that was the case whilst saying it all stinks to high heaven.

But literally everybody knows that was the subject of her exposé...don't they?