Freedom of speech is a topic I talked about at last year’s Spring Conference (and got a few laughs for doing so). The Trafigura / Carter-Ruck episode showed how gagging orders on the press are used to suppress embarrassing information. After writing recently about the local Labour Party, I have found myself threatened in a similar way by a PR company (who strangely are paid for out of taxes).
My local authority sold its housing stock to a limited company (let’s call this Company A) which is tens of thousand of properties in the Borough. This company now receives about £43 million yearly in housing benefit. However councillors (including Labour) sit on the board of company A. In 2004 a construction company (Company B) donated £2,000 to the local Labour party (which naturally was declared on the public register of donations).
Company B was then awarded a multi-million pound contract by company A, so naturally I wrote – both on my website and to the council – about this asking for an explanation as to whether councillors had declared an interest and emailed Company B asking for further information. The response from Company B’s PR company was to ignore the questions in my email but to send an email with a link to the article stating it was an extremely serious allegation and that they would sue. After I pointed out reporting based on facts contained in a public register and in the public domain are protected this got changed to “there is the possibility of libel”. Being a member of the National Union of Journalists I had consulted my union and more senior colleague, but I’m sure other less experienced Lib Dems would’ve backed down at this point.
(The Defamation Act 1996 means my article attracts qualified privilege. Reports of court proceedings attract absolute privilege and can’t be subject to defamation proceedings. Reports like mine based on information published by government or of local authority meetings are protected as long as they are “fair and accurate” and “made without malice”. In this case, the facts are not disputed.)
The lesson for others? Take care to check your facts, report events fairly – but then be prepared to stand your ground and seek legal support if someone tries to silence you.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like"
Another Sunday band concert at Magdalen Green #dundeewestend
Beware the white lady
Andrew Melmoth
ANDERS LARSON
John McHugo
Steve Trevthan
William Wallace
11 Comments
Could you link to the article please as it may fill in some gaps here. For instance:
1. What was Company A’s response when you asked if the councillors declared an interest (I may be missing the point here but surely it woul dbe company A they would have to declare it to).
2. What other parties had councillors on the board of company a.
3. Were the directors actively involved etc.
4. Why were company B’s PR people funded by tax payers.
Having looked a bit more closely I found the report including the response from company B.
http://johnbrace.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/lib-dems-deliver-150000-new-affordable-homes-questions-about-wphs-brammall-construction-contract-and-large-labour-donations/
It appears that they were not awarded the contract after the donation 2004 but actually lost the bid. They then received the work based having gone through the procurment process following a contractual issue 2007 with the original winners.
If that had been my company and you had then proceeded to mention Ecclestone and formula 1 I think I may have been slightly miffed…
@John Brace
John it is always worth remembering that there is nothing wrong with libelling or defaming someone if the accusation is correct and therefore ‘veritas’ is an absolute defence.
I would caution of course that facts have to be accurate and the report must be fair and accurate and you have to be very careful of ‘implied’ impropriety through a causal linking of independent factors.
Eg in your article you state that Company B donated £2,000 to the local Labour Party and then say: ‘Company B was then awarded a multi-million pound contract’ by another company which had previously purchased the council’s housing stock.
Now I haven’t see the original article but I would caution that depending on how the article was written that if it inferred that there was a link between these actions then then you start to get into deep-water legally.
Sometimes, and I have experienced this personally, it isn’t possible to write the story because of the possible legal consequences. But there are always ways and what I might have done is get a friendly councillor to raise the matter in public at the council and you can then report fully, with qualified privilege, to your heart’s content.
Of course, there is a question of ethics here – unless I had some evidence that there was skullduggery afoot I wouldn’t pursue it through a planted question. I spent my professional career as a journo being harder on the LP than anyone else just so that there never ever could be an accusation of political bias in my reporting.
Only you know the answer as to what your position was/is but I was concerned to see you state: ‘other less experienced Lib Dems would’ve backed down’. It may be a slip but it would have been more reassuring to me to see ‘Journalists’ rather than ‘LibDems’ used. I have seem more defamation/libel actions succeed because a journo lost objectivity and personal detachment than anything else. And political affiliation isn’t the main problem – usually the journo gets tunnel-vision and build the case by weaving ‘selected’ evidence rather than investigating and assembling all the evidence that might reveal the wrongdoing or may indeed reveal there was no wrongdoing – closed mind syndrome is very dangerous for a journo and btw the older and more experienced you get then the more you have to fight it.
John – I hope you don’t think I’m giving you Journalism 101 – but these areas are difficult and I know how angry I used to get when I knew something was wrong, especially if public money was involved, and I couldn’t get the facts to prove it.
I also note your comment about the Company B’s PR company: ‘who strangely are paid for out of taxes’. You haven’t actually stated the detail of the legal relationship between company A and the council or whether there was any contractual relationship between Company B and the council.
Again with only the minimum of knowledge, the story I would probably have gone for is why a private company’s PR firm is paid out of public money if there was no direct legal relationship between company B and the council.
I can see why a PR firm, acting for the council or for Company A, could be paid by the council as they have an obvious duty to protect the reputations of councillors seconded or whatever to Company A as part of their public duties.
In any case it is part of a PR firm’s job to fire warning shots across the bows of journos – in reality at a national level there is often a grey area as to whether there is sufficient proof to back up libel/defamation and win a subsequent court battle or even if there isn’t whether to go with the story. An advantage in going ahead is that often more info comes flooding in as a result of the publicity. But sometimes it doesn’t and deep hot-water starts to surround you 🙂
I really am sorry I didn’t read the blog before I wasted my time in trying to assist and educate what I took, at face value, to be a young journalist.
However, having read the political attack made by Mr Brace it is clear that holding an NUJ card does not necessarily entitle the holder to the title of ‘Journalist’ IMHO.
Seems he is still smarting by being badly beaten into 2nd place by Labour at the 2010 Bidston and St. James ward.
I have seldom seen anything written that screams out for legal action as this piece does being a naked political attack on a number of people with little regard to the facts and possibly no right to reply. If I had been one of the councillors then I personally would have taken action against Mr Brace.
Any trained journalist would never have written the article on the evidence supplied because they would have known that the councillors concerned had no ‘interest’ to declare. This is so bad I’m beginning to think that the sooner we have gagging laws against such obviously politically motivated cr*p the better.
And the use of Ecclestone and LP convicted MPs is farcical – of course we all know that every LibDem MP is lilywhite and never paid back any expenses – don’t we?
It looks as though the sponsorship took place in 2000 and a bid submission in 2004/5 was rejected. Appears a company who was successful ran into problems and the previously unsuccessful sponsorship company was asked if they were still interested in 2007 and they applied and were subsequently awarded a section of the contract and, seemingly, carried out the work in 2009 and then in December 2010 the LibDem activist came up with his earth-shattering exclusive. He must have been waiting for all the councillors to die off I reckon so he couldn’t be sued.
I winced at the smugness of the comment by Mr Brace in the article that: ‘To be fair (as I always like to be) to Labour’ – might I point out that real journalists, rather than LibDem political activists with an NUJ card, have to be ‘fair’ whether they like it or not – it’s part of their code of conduct and it’s one of the things that stamps them as a professional with principles.
However, I did get a real laugh when I read the exchanges on the Blog after Mr Brace appeared to give the impression that he was elected to public office representing 17,000 people. When challenged by another journo for clarification he explained this was as a Liverpool Guild of Students student rep in 2007 and 2008 and insisted this was a ‘public office’.
Hope he wasn’t a journo then as the LGoS published student newspaper closed down in May 2007, due to fading popularity and mismanagement, to be replaced by the official LGoS publication, the Sphinx, but it folded in 2008 due to rising costs and a lack of advertising revenue.
Is this what the Liberal Party has come to – does any decent LibDem member think this is the correct way to act especially when you obviously are out to hold public office and represent people. Btw I don’t see him getting there any time soon as even with the Tory vote added he would only have 26.2 per cent of the vote compared to Labour’s 63.07 per cent.
Seems the good people of Bidston and St. James know their political activists from professional journalists who gain respect from their balanced, accurate and fearless reporting and who provide up-to-date news rather than 10 year old nonsense.
Why can’t you name the two companies?
@Al Shaw
If you follow the blog link the companies are named – as a responsible journalist I wouldn’t name the companies as I know the remarks are actionable and also because my professionalism wouldn’t allow me to blacken any reputation when there hasn’t been a scrap of real evidence provided.
Oh, I should have added in my earlier post that Mr Brace stated: ‘The lesson for others? Take care to check your facts, report events fairly …’. I think the facts say it’s time you took a leaf out of a reporter’s notebook Mr Brace.
To be honest, membership of a union doesn’t mean the same as it used to (especially in the case of the NUJ whose Vice President recently tried to censor other journalists practicing freedom of reportage).
I admit I’ve had a long glass of vino on top of an ox-tongue gently fried in butter and leeks, so cannot get my head around this too much. From the links provided, this does appear to be sour grapes at making politically partisan comments of his own, but immediate – or, even, secondary – threats to sue for defammation are over-kill.
Still, comparing himself to those opposing Trafigura or Ecclestone is a bit self-regarding.
Plus, after a discussion I recently had with site administrators about LDV hypersensitivity to potentially libellous comments (when it involved LibDems or non political opponents), I wonder why this was promoted.
@Alec Macph
Well you’ve put me in the mood and as soon as I send this the vino’s getting rattled lol.
I think perhaps if you take a longer look at this – tomorrow – you will see that the post here is under the guise of defending Freedom of Speech when what it really is, is a LibDem activist making what in my opinion are potentially libellous statements – dressed up as a jourmalitic investigation – against Labour Councillors and a whole host of other people for what appears to me to be politically-motivated reasons.
I won’t even go into the standard of journalism used but read it for yourself at:http://johnbrace.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/lib-dems-deliver-150000-new-affordable-homes-questions-about-wphs-brammall-construction-contract-and-large-labour-donations/ – btw the non-story is 10 years old and was dredged-up at Xmas.
@eco jon “might I point out that real journalists, rather than LibDem political activists with an NUJ card, have to be ‘fair’ whether they like it or not – it’s part of their code of conduct and it’s one of the things that stamps them as a professional with principles.”
Ho ho. Very witty.
Commenting reminder: Please remember to respect our moderation policy when commenting, including in particular the references to off-topic comments. We have this policy so that people can choose to take part in the discussions which interest them, rather than finding the same discussions shoe-horned into threads on posts on a wide range of other topics. More details are at https://www.libdemvoice.org/comment-policy Thanks.
@Steve Way
In answer to your questions:
1. I haven’t received a response yet regarding whether the councillors declared an interest.
2. The political parties that make up Wirral Council – Conservative and Lib Dem.
3. I asked this but haven’t received an answer yet.
4. Company A’s main source of income is through social housing (renting to people who are either out of work or in low paid jobs) whose rent is in full or partially paid by Housing Benefit. Company A contracts to Company B to upgrade its properties (new kitchens/bathrooms etc). Company B contracts to a third company company C to deal with its PR and press enquiries on company B’s behalf.
Ecclestone and Formula 1 was mentioned because it’s been previously shown that donations went on to influence government decisions. The link here is the Labour Party. However in that case the donation was returned.
@Steve Way
Thanks for your advice. However this story needs to be put in context in that I have first hand multiple eyewitness accounts of certain councillors accepting money (which they don’t declare as gifts) in order to influence decisions (or persuade their own councillors to vote a certain way).
Although this is not directly related to this case (other than being the same political party), it shows a pattern of behaviour of not complying with the law as it stands which is why (following my questions) the gifts register for councillors is now published, which includes such freebies as football tickets, hotel stays, other gifts etc.
@Steve Way
“Sometimes, and I have experienced this personally, it isn’t possible to write the story because of the possible legal consequences.”
Being married to a diplomat has its advantages. 😉
“But there are always ways and what I might have done is get a friendly councillor to raise the matter in public at the council and you can then report fully, with qualified privilege, to your heart’s content.”
It’s not possible due to internal problems within the Lib Dem Group. At the moment the Tories are friendlier to me than most of the Lib Dems (partly because of ill feeling due to a campaign by some of the Lib Dem councillors directed at me).
“I spent my professional career as a journo being harder on the LP than anyone else just so that there never ever could be an accusation of political bias in my reporting.”
I’ve been hard on the Liberal Democrats too in previous articles. Everyone has a bias though. However when I write stories for the local Focus if I was hard on the Lib Dems they would be rejected or rewritten by the editor.
“Only you know the answer as to what your position was/is but I was concerned to see you state: ‘other less experienced Lib Dems would’ve backed down’. It may be a slip but it would have been more reassuring to me to see ‘Journalists’ rather than ‘LibDems’ used. I have seem more defamation/libel actions succeed because a journo lost objectivity and personal detachment than anything else. And political affiliation isn’t the main problem – usually the journo gets tunnel-vision and build the case by weaving ‘selected’ evidence rather than investigating and assembling all the evidence that might reveal the wrongdoing or may indeed reveal there was no wrongdoing – closed mind syndrome is very dangerous for a journo and btw the older and more experienced you get then the more you have to fight it.”
I will give an example going back to 2003 and my local branch. The Labour MP Stephen Hesford (a barrister) wrote a letter to the branch secretary stating the Focus (which I had no part in writing) had libelled him by saying he had voted in favour of tuition fees. He threatened to sue and demanded an apology.
An apology was then duly printed in the next Focus. However when the matter was looked into at the branch meeting it turned out he had voted in favour of tuition fees (and also against tuition fees). He decided not to stand for reelection this year and the seat was lost to the Conservatives.
“In any case it is part of a PR firm’s job to fire warning shots across the bows of journos”
The person working for the PR company worked for 4 years for the Labour government and states “in some ways a privileged role to be close to New Labour and involved in promoting some very succesful (and some not so succesful) millennium projects.” I may have a blatant pro-Lib Dem bias, but they have a pro-Labour bias!
@EcoJon
“Seems he is still smarting by being badly beaten into 2nd place by Labour at the 2010 Bidston and St. James ward.”
No, I’m not as it’s our highest number of votes here for about 2 decades. Isn’t 2nd place better (and 400 or so votes more) than the 4th place we achieved in 2007? The year before the Conservatives came second.
“And the use of Ecclestone and LP convicted MPs is farcical – of course we all know that every LibDem MP is lilywhite and never paid back any expenses – don’t we?”
No, there are Lib Dem MPs who have paid back – eg Chris Huhne and the trouser press, although this is about ethics in relation to donations/gifts not an allowances/expenses issue.
“When challenged by another journo for clarification he explained this was as a Liverpool Guild of Students student rep in 2007 and 2008 and insisted this was a ‘public office’. ”
It is a public office if you check into your facts. I was also the returning officer for a number of other elections to public office.
“Hope he wasn’t a journo then as the LGoS published student newspaper closed down in May 2007, due to fading popularity and mismanagement, to be replaced by the official LGoS publication, the Sphinx, but it folded in 2008 due to rising costs and a lack of advertising revenue.”
Nope I never wrote anything for the LGOS newspaper the Sphinx or its predecessor. I was a little too busy doing my day job, studying, serving on staff-studetn committees and other matters to be writing stories for the student union publication too.
“Seems the good people of Bidston and St. James know their political activists from professional journalists who gain respect from their balanced, accurate and fearless reporting and who provide up-to-date news rather than 10 year old nonsense.”
Check your facts, the donation was made 7 years ago, not 10. Yes I am a political activist and if you check my blog you’ll find up to date news on it. Restoring trust in our elected representatives is not “nonsense”.
@Al Shaw They are named in the linked article.
@Eco Jon
“Oh, I should have added in my earlier post that Mr Brace stated: ‘The lesson for others? Take care to check your facts, report events fairly …’.”
Unfortunately I didn’t write that Eco Jon it was added by the editor Mark Pack. However don’t worry I won’t sue!
@Alec Macph
“Still, comparing himself to those opposing Trafigura or Ecclestone is a bit self-regarding.”
True, but what other references to PR companies trying to gag journalists or donations would you have used instead?
Still, comparing himself to those opposing Trafigura or Ecclestone is a bit self-regarding.