Tuesday, June 21, 2011

You won't like me when I'm angry...

That's a quote, not a threat, LOL. But those who impugn the integrity of my barrister should be equally quick to apologise in a very flowery manner.
When my barrister is at work, "on the clock", then of course her duty is to argue my case to her best ability. And she does.
However, when she makes personal statements on Facebook giving her view of me, it is not at my request and not in her professional capacity.
Being called a "professional liar" probably comes with the territory for a barrister...but being slighted as a liar in personal life is another matter. Stop it.
PS. And surely libelling a barrister is a very risky enterprise??? Just a thought...


  1. I am fairly sure your barrister does not derive much comfort from the fact that you're threatening other folks on her behalf. And, of course, barrister or not, this person may or may not have excellent qualities of character judgement. Who knows. But merely being a barrister goes no way towards thinking that could be true. Just a thought.

  2. Oh come off it. Give it a rest will you?! Libelling a barrister* IS a risky thing to do. That isn't a threat: it's a fact.

    * and accusing someone of lying is almost invariably libel because you have to prove intent to deceive and that is virtually impossible.

  3. I have to say, this post suggests a loss of temper that whilst entirely human, is not a good example of intellectual debate. I have not seen the posts in question, but the tone of this post suggests that your response Ben is not very thought out.

    As for the risk, it is pretty much non existent. Lawyers are thick skinned, and the insane cost of suing someone in libel means the courts are closed to the broke (who can represent themselves and can't be hit with a costs order) and the super rich.

    And in answer to the obvious, no she won't represent herself in such as case, as she is unlikely to have even looked at the subject since University, and would lose weeks of work doing the preparation work.

  4. I agree with tallguy, this is silly getting all upset over someone calling your barrister a liar in personal life on face book, so what? Sticks and stones man, Ben get a grip.

  5. Get a grip?! Easy to say, but not so easy to do when in solitary confinement, I would imagine.

  6. Sure life is tough especially if you're in solitary confinement in a jail, I can understand Ben losing it a bit like this, but if something is wrong, it should be said.

  7. When the prison authorities imply to Ben that he is not necessarily helping himself by this sometimes rather startlingly improvident blogging ...they in my view are right.

    He would probably say that their concerns are self-serving and designed to protect themselves ----others watching here might sometimes think it's to protect Ben (and facilitate an eventual release).

  8. Tallguy,

    The post starts with a "LOL"; I am sure it is in light-hearted and in jest (although no doubt somewhat also in earnest as Flo is Ben's friend), it certainly doesn't suggest a loss of temper to me. I think you are reading through the filter of your own preconceptions.

    You have the problem with the libel courts completely backwards. It is the cost of DEFENDING a libel claim that the little people are unable to meet and that is currently chilling open debate, not bringing the action.

    Lawyers are no doubt thick-skinned, but that doesn't mean they have will let unfounded and libellous allegations pass unchallenged, and they are also uniquely well positioned to take action; even if Flo doesn't do the work herself, I have no doubt she knows people who would help her out. Are you really willing to base your comments on an assumption of ennui?

    But this debate about whether Flo could or would bring action is silly and not really the point. The point is that so many commenters here seem determined to see anger and violence and misbehaviour in every post Ben writes, however innocent, and that is starting to get on my wick.

    Ben is in prison, that results in a loss of a number of important liberties, but it does not result in a loss of his free speech, which this blog provides him with an outlet for.

    He put up a few words taking issue with the treatment of a friend of his by the commenters here (quite rightly in my opinion, because the comments about Flo were daft), and all he gets is a load of the same old "you aren't helping yourself with your attitude" comments.

    Ben is often a cantankerous fool. He will blog if he wishes and that may cause him further problems, but that is his decision to make and I am certain hill will be thinking deeply about it (we know he is because he's mentioned it in some recent posts).

    The hectoring from no doubt well meaning people trying to shut him up isn't quite as tiresome as the sexism debate, but it's getting very close.

    You think Ben should start jumping through all the hoops in order to progress, including not blogging, or only blogging on the most uninteresting and characterless of topics: we get it. You don't have to KEEP saying it.

  9. The advice I gave to ben is advice I would give to anyone I care about, it is not worth fighting someone else's battles for them, especially when its not face to face.

    People who throw insults at you over the internet out of personal reasons or spite or through wholelly negative emotions like 'hate' are not worth bothering about, and, face book has its own safeguards against hate speech, so there really is no need for Ben to use his public blog to leap to his barristers defence.

    Ben must know that putting something as edgy as this would get a response and not necessarily one that agrees with his sentiment, lol or not.

    One thing you are right about here Wigarse is that a debate about it is boring, I see it in simple terms as outlined above; people should fight their own battles or refer to the hosting agency for advice if things are amiss.

    More often I only stick my neck out and disagree with people I care about if in my view they are going about things wrongly, and are likey to cause problems to themselves or others.

    Ben says it, others say it, he is only human and we all need others, and not just to agree with us no matter what.

  10. @wigarse

    Ben normally writes in a fairly coherent manner. This post is not in that manner. This is what indicates to me a loss of temper.

    Use of LOL does not detract from that, and merely indicates passive aggression rather than "I'm going to get out of bed and beat your skull into a wall aggression."

    And the legal costs in pursuing a libel claim are not less than defending it, so not sure were the idea that suing in libel is cheap and easy comes from.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.