Skip to main content

McAlpine v Bercow

This is the judgment in McAlpine v Bercow. I always expected Sally Bercow to lose this case.

This is the key paragraph
The Defendant does not have any burden of proof in the issue I have to decide. She does not have to offer an alternative explanation of why a peer, whose name and career is known to few members of the public today, might have been trending on 4 November 2012 without her knowing why he was trending. But where the Defendant is telling her followers that she does not know why he is trending, and there is no alternative explanation for why this particular peer was being named in the tweets which produce the Trend, then it is reasonable to infer that he is trending because he fits the description of the unnamed abuser. I find the reader would infer that. The reader would reasonably infer that the Defendant had provided the last piece in the jigsaw.
This was a clear example of jigsaw identification.

THE TWEET
The Tweet reads:
"Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*"

Comments

Jake Maverick said…
really worth going to court over?

so where's the justice?

what can one infer from that....? anything? make something up presumably and probably not even bother to tell me? SOP
11:14 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Six months for recording a court hearing - Norman Scarth

The link is in Russian about the imprisonment of Norman Scarth who is actually 85. He has a complex history including a court hearing which found that he used a chainsaw to fight off bailiffs when he was 75. [a court judgment which is disputed see comments] However, that does not justify imprisoning him for 6 months for recording a court hearing (see the link and ask google to translate it if your Russian is not up to it). It has got into the Argyll News Because he has been held such that people cannot get to him to sign paperwork an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus was made today. This has been adjourned until next week. The English judicial system is really not good at responding to major abuses of human rights by the judicial system.
57 comments
Read more