Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Legal dog house

I have been passed an interesting e-mail from a solicitor employed by Dr Ansari, who takes issue with the recent article about his donation to Luciana's campaign.

In the interest of fairness I will list his complaints, as this blog has always allowed a right of reply to humans named here.

1. Dr Ansari claims he made no donation specifically to fund Luciana. (Although Luciana lists his donation in her declaration of interests - so is her declaration a lie? If so I apologize to Doctor Ansari and suggest he takes action against Luciana for defaming him.)

2. Dr Anwar maintains that there was no major scandal associated with him. The proxy donor in question just happened to rent a flat from him. (Well I make no argument either way, however two Labour supporting newspapers linked him to the scandal, therefor it is fair for this blog to report that he was linked to it.)

3. There is no evidence to suggest that the Labour NEC considered Dr Ansari unfit for office. (I make no such suggestion, merely quote the example given in the Daily Mirror by a Labour insider as to why someone might be vetoed by the NEC.)

4. Dr Ansari has not submitted "controversial planning applications" in Liverpool. (Depends on how you define controversial? However the majority of planning applications he has made in Liverpool have either been refused or presumably would have been refused if he hadn't withdrawn them. And as a private landlord making a profit by housing asylum seekers in hostels, he can hardly claim to be in an uncontroversial business)

5. Dr Ansari has very little in the way of property interests in Greater Manchester. (So by "very little" is it accepted that he does indeed have property interests in Greater Manchester?)

So I am glad we could clarify all that for Dr Ansari.


Anonymous said...

Repeating a libel is still libel. The person libelled can always choose who they pursue for damages.

Anonymous said...

Very true, but on the evidence presented there seems to be no evidence of a libel being repeated, unless Ms Berger has fabricated her declaration of interests - and what reason would she have for claiming someone gave her money if they didn't?

And it's hardly libelous to say that someone has been "linked" to a scandal, when two national newspapers have made that link.

Sally The Sheepdog said...

Dear Anonymous, anyone who found a reason to sue me would have a difficult job finding assets worth seizing. How much would they get for my blanket and basket?
Even so, I have always been very careful with what I post here.

The libellous statements I worry about are the dozens of comments by readers that I have to reject every week. These are from both sides of the political divide and make this blog look like a parish newsletter.

Ethical Bill said...

Unfortunately Labour donors are often very sensitive about the reasons why they give to the party. Even spurious libel claims can end up costing a lot to defend, so you should be careful when using provocative language that will wind them up unnecessarily.

You are not trying hard enough, Vicar said...

But you let a dreadful comment about the cabinet member for Community Safety go through unchecked. It is still on the site nearly a month later. You are not able to take the moral high ground with others when you publish and allow remarks like that. It shames you and it shames your supporters, I dont see that you have a hindleg to stand on. Sexist, women hating, demeaning, belittling, need I go on?

Sally The Sheepdog said...

Dear You are not trying hard enough vicar,

I'm not even sure who the said cabinet member is!

Let us know which story the comment is under the comment is and we will have a look at it.

Anonymous said...

It's on Greedy Mini Joe. 4th or 5th one down

Sally The Sheepdog said...

Fairly mild compared to the comments that we reject every day, but agree it probably shouldn't have slipped through. It has been removed. Thank you for pointing it out.

Not trying hard enough, Lou said...

Ah, now its easy to decipher the authorship of the moaning minnie above.

I wish she'd keep her accusatory half-baked conspiracies of woman-hating nonsense on her own blog.