Isabel Oakeshott sues the GuardianPP

Isabel Oakeshott is suing the Guardian after it suggested that the way in which she got her agenda setting diplomatic cables scoop over the weekend was by sleeping with either Nigel Farage or Arron Banks. 

In the print version of an article by the Guardian’s John Crace, the paper published the line “Not least because the only way Isabel Oakeshott, the journalist who got the leaked emails, ever gets a scoop is if Nigel or Arron Banks slips it to her.”

Perhaps she wants a job ...

It was a pretty shitty thing of Crace to do. Amazed that the editors let that line through. Doubt they would have done so if the female journalist being referred to was a lefty. 

I also doubt they would have done so if the journalist being referred to was not female. 

Her work doesn't so much speak for itself but oink.

Elfi perhaps you should work for the guardian? She’s not suing anyone, and there quote you posted is wrong.

Other than that, great post. 

It was supposed to be “the”, I’m blaming my iPhone. 

I don’t blame her, it’s not just defamatory it’s blatantly sexist.  Should never have been published, like her work or not, there is no cause to be accusing a married woman of sleeping with someone to get stories.  Disgusting.

People overlook that John Crace is a self-confessed manic depressive and ex-heroin addict who writes SATIRICAL PARLIAMENTARY SKETCHES that are NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY OR INDEED SERIOUSLY.

The brilliant Marina Hyde has said many far more offensive (though equally funny) things about male politicians and no one bats an eyelid.

 

So I assume she'll be suing the Sunday Times next?

Can't let such blatant defamation stand after all. 

...there is no cause to be accusing a married woman of sleeping with someone to get stories.  Disgusting.

Irony, Non?

Wiki:

Oakeshott is married to Nigel Rosser. They have three children. In 2018, she separated from her husband and began a relationship with businessman and Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice.

>> Smoke

>> Fire

>> Whatever

Also

1. As PM points out there are 3 very similar versions of what is essentially the same message

2. Why didn't the Guardian editors, who presumably knew it would cause *ahem* "comment", cut it?

3. The message is being openly re-printed in the other newspapers, ditto (2) here also.

4. Guardian and other re-printing papers are deemed to have widespread journalist integrity (are not just scandal sheets)

 

So - who might she have p1ssed off so badly for what seems to be an open, concentrated and widespread assassination job on her? 

is it though?  i'm not passing judgment either way, that's for the courts if she takes it that far; but the story may be true just as much as it might not be.

she is loathed pretty much universally in the media community though for her role in naming Vicky Pryce as her source in the Chris Huhne points on the licence/perverting the course of justice story which led to Pryce going to jail.

grassing sources like that is generally seen as an absolute no no in the media (Alan Rusbringer former Guardian editor also did same) so for sure a huge amount of people may be out to get her.

Hands up here, I wasn’t being ironic I was being ignorant to the fact that she had already left her husband.

Mea culpa.

Oops! Bad Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/08/ambassadors-trashing-of-trump-gives-mps-chance-to-enjoy-a-bit-of-deploring

"Note added 19 July 2019: This satirical sketch originally included a comment - fictitious, of course - which could have been interpreted as being of a sexual and vulgar nature about Isabel Oakeshott. Although this was not our intention, we acknowledge the potential for distress and misinterpretation and we apologise to her for any distress this has caused."

In my previous life as a libel lawyer, I wouldn't have accepted that kind of retraction/apology if i had been representing IO.  Looks more like an in-house attempt to make amends rather than an agreed statement as part of a settlement.  Or she just has a bad lawyer. 

No the agreed statement she wanted was supposed to be in an equally prominent position as the original article so looks like they are going to try to fight it.

What retraction/apology and payment would you have accepted, Royal Flush? 

Royal Flush already said that was unacceptable, ???. 

Oh yes ,sorry I see it is the same apology. That's all you ever get though isn't it?

That's what I thought, ???, but Royal Flush seems to think something better than the five figure payout and apology/retraction was available.

Keen to know what.