Bercow to be sued for McAlpine tweet?

[Gene Vincent]

Missed that, shame as I have a few dotted around the house and still enjoy them.

Have you any of those 'faux' Hogarth prints of various lawyers, briefs and judges in your office?

It seems that almost every office has at least one, but usually more... annoys the hell out of me.

[anonymous-user]

They are not as bad as all the late C19 Vanity Fair lawyer caricatures. My chambers is full of quite groovy contemporary art, mostly belonging to a colleague. I have on my wall a good edition of the Gillray cartoon of Pitt raping the Bank of England, which always makes me laugh.



Also this Daumier study in mutual disdain, which I like:-

http://expositions.bnf.fr/daumier/grand/063.htm

Did you see the big Hogarth exhibition at the Tate? It was marvellous.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 16th December 15:33

[Gene Vincent]

I gave up on London, except by necessity, about 10 years ago, I felt out of place and it didn't feel like home anymore.

[turbobloke]

Gene Vincent said:

I gave up on London, except by necessity, about 10 years ago, I felt out of place and it didn't feel like home anymore.

Having worked there for 4 years from a Surrey A3 commute I was glad to leave a permanent connection behind, but have always enjoyed the place as a visitor.

[Gene Vincent]

turbobloke said:

Gene Vincent said:

I gave up on London, except by necessity, about 10 years ago, I felt out of place and it didn't feel like home anymore.

Having worked there for 4 years from a Surrey A3 commute I was glad to leave a permanent connection behind, but have always enjoyed the place as a visitor.

Not off-topic at all TB, I think we've exhausted the subject matter, now it's Sunday afternoon and I'm just staving off the ennui that comes this time and day.

Mine was an M4 slog, dis-heartening, the worst was for the time around 1999 when I had to also go 'round the M25 to the other side of town... dread-filled times.

[anonymous-user]

I moved to London aged 21 in 1984, and doubt I shall ever leave. I still love it, especially at this time of year.

[Willy Nilly]

Breadvan72 said:

I pass! I don't much care for the vitriol (some of it more than a bit sexist) heaped on Mrs Bercow. She may be silly, but she is hardly a great villain.

I like her. So refreshing from the usual spouse of a famous person that always toes the line.

[don'tbesilly]

Bedazzled said:

I've got a mental image of you guys sitting in a drawing room somewhere, reading the broadsheets with your pipe and slippers, reminiscing as the grandfather clock gently ticks away in the background...

Sounds much like my office at home

Have you forgotten the Cockburns?

[Apache]

don'tbesilly said:

Bedazzled said:

I've got a mental image of you guys sitting in a drawing room somewhere, reading the broadsheets with your pipe and slippers, reminiscing as the grandfather clock gently ticks away in the background...

Sounds much like my office at home

Have you forgotten the Cockburns?

too much information thanks

[anonymous-user]

Willy Nilly said:

Breadvan72 said:

I pass! I don't much care for the vitriol (some of it more than a bit sexist) heaped on Mrs Bercow. She may be silly, but she is hardly a great villain.

I like her. So refreshing from the usual spouse of a famous person that always toes the line.

I don't know why she attracts such negativity here. Several posters are happy to be sanctimonious about her defaming McAlpine, whilst anonymously defaming her.

[audidoody]

Breadvan72 said:

I don't know why she attracts such negativity here.

1. Because without being married to the Speaker she would be a non-entity

2. Because she troughs the considerable and valuable benefits and privileges bestowed on her because of her husband's position without acknowledging the conformities and conduct that are expected and required in exchange for accepting those benefits and privileges

3. Because she is an Attention we of the First Order who has not achieved anything of great merit in life on her own account except for mothering the children of the Speaker of the House

4. Because she adds nothing of intrinsic value to the fabric of public life yet sucks on the teat of the prestige of her husband's position (see 2)

Take your pick.

[Gene Vincent]

audidoody said:

1. Because without being married to the Speaker she would be a non-entity

2. Because she troughs the considerable and valuable benefits and privileges bestowed on her because of her husband's position without acknowledging the conformities and conduct that are expected and required in exchange for accepting those benefits and privileges

3. Because she is an Attention we of the First Order who has not achieved anything of great merit in life on her own account except for mothering the children of the Speaker of the House

4. Because she adds nothing of intrinsic value to the fabric of public life yet sucks on the teat of the prestige of her husband's position (see 2)

Take your pick.

1/. She has her own political allegiance and has tried to be a candidate but had 3 children instead, so without the support of a spouse this is nigh on impossible, but made totally impossible if that spouse is also running for office, she took the ambition 'hit'. Not an easy thing to accept in totality and not lose your own persona in the process. Margaret Thatcher would not have been anything without Dennis and his complete support, imagine if Dennis was instead an ambitious left-wing minded soul who wanted office himself...

2/. She doesn't behave like the 'loving and obedient conservative wife' because she isn't at heart a conservative, my opinion is that she doesn't appear to be making the best fist of this, but I'm not sure that you can actually make a good fist of such a situation.

3/. She decided not to be smothered by her circumstances, the slightest thing will attract someones ire as we have seen, for those who have no ability to place themselves there will be swayed by the faux horror at her behaviour, political manipulators rely on this fact to do people down.

4/. It seems she wants to, but because of that very position her only outlet available and stay true to herself will lead to what we see of her portrayed in the media.

[anonymous-user]

audidoody said:

1. Because without being married to the Speaker she would be a non-entity

2. Because she troughs the considerable and valuable benefits and privileges bestowed on her because of her husband's position without acknowledging the conformities and conduct that are expected and required in exchange for accepting those benefits and privileges

3. Because she is an Attention we of the First Order who has not achieved anything of great merit in life on her own account except for mothering the children of the Speaker of the House

4. Because she adds nothing of intrinsic value to the fabric of public life yet sucks on the teat of the prestige of her husband's position (see 2)

Take your pick.

What are these rules about "comformities and conduct?" What privileges does she get?

"Attention we"? I am not sure that answering the question "why is a person subject to so much insult?" with more of the insults is very helpful. Is this some sort of uppity woman thing?

[Gene Vincent]

There is an element of chauvinism on PH.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&am...

[audidoody]

Breadvan72 said:

What are these rules about "comformities and conduct?" What privileges does she get?

"Attention we"? I am not sure that answering the question "why is a person subject to so much insult?" with more of the insults is very helpful. Is this some sort of uppity woman thing?

I am all in favour of uppity woman. As long as they have achieved uppitiness through their own abilities, intellect, and achievements. Not because they married a bloke who runs Parliament.

[FiF]

Haha, High Court ruling that it was libellous.

Silly cow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22652083

BBC news said:

The High Court has ruled that a tweet by Sally Bercow about Lord McAlpine was libellous.

A subsequent hearing will determine the damages she now owes him.

Mrs Bercow, the wife of Commons Speaker John Bercow, published a tweet two days after a BBC Newsnight programme had wrongly implicated a "leading Conservative politician" in sex abuse.

Amid widespread speculation about his identity, she wrote: "Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*."

[Andy Zarse]

FiF said:

Haha, High Court ruling that it was libellous.

Silly cow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22652083

BBC news said:

The High Court has ruled that a tweet by Sally Bercow about Lord McAlpine was libellous.

A subsequent hearing will determine the damages she now owes him.

Mrs Bercow, the wife of Commons Speaker John Bercow, published a tweet two days after a BBC Newsnight programme had wrongly implicated a "leading Conservative politician" in sex abuse.

Amid widespread speculation about his identity, she wrote: "Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*."

She dug her own grave with her big fat gob, and she just couldn't help herself.

"John, can I borrow your chequebook love, you can run it through on expenses later".

[pmanson]

Excellent news!

[ukwill]

Gene Vincent said:

There is no libel in the text.

Never mind Gene. Now we can draw a line under you being wrong all along.

[Du1point8]

ukwill said:

Gene Vincent said:

There is no libel in the text.

Never mind Gene. Now we can draw a line under you being wrong all along.

No no no... obviously the judge is wrong with this one... Bercow is not a fault for anything, its all a blame tactic... I feel sorry for Mr Bercow, as no doubt he will be footing the 6 figure bill, wonder if he has banned her from social media yet?