Bishop Hill North threatens to sue Monbiot
Jun 28, 2010 Climate: WG2 From EU Referendum
Dear Mr Monbiot
Following the publication of your post here, I have written to your newspaper by e-mail, expressing my concerns about the piece, and inviting the newspaper to contact me to discuss it informally, to avoid the need to take expensive and (to you) potentially damaging action in order to protect my professional reputation.
Since your newspaper has not troubled itself to contact me, I am forced to take the step of contacting you and the newspaper more formally, which I am in the process of so doing.
In the meantime, however, I am writing here as the most direct means of contacting you, to ask you to remove from this post all references to myself, as being libellous and highly damaging – the precise details of which will be passed to your newspaper shortly.
You may, of course, leave this message visible or remove it, but you may wish to note that the addition of further comments arising as a result of references to me remaining in your post, and which are also of a libellous or denigratory nature, may form part of any subsequent action which I choose to take.
Commentators who choose to comment on this post may also wish to note that I would be happy to enjoin them in any legal action taken against Mr Monbiot or The Guardian newspaper if they too are of a libellous or denigratory nature. You have been warned.
Yours sincerely,
Richard North (Dr)
Reader Comments (28)
Ouch. But not unexpected with the level of heat (warming) the debate has produced.
Clearly man made too.
Ouch indeed.
Monbiot is a stickler for certain types of accuracy. I'm sure by now he's realized that the WHRC guys have no case.
North's action comes across as amateurish. If North wants to threaten libel, he should have a lawyer send a solicitor's letter. If I was The Guardian, I would laugh at something as like this.
Suramantine - learn to read. He clearly says he is taking the step you say (i.e. "more formally"), but in the meantime, gives an early warning to them and commenters. Given Uk libel law, I'd hurry up with that retraction boys.
"egregious fabulist" will take some defending.
Monbiot just posted his reply"
"Dear Dr North,
Go ahead, make my day.
Yours Sincerely,
George Monbiot"
Smug, dismissive, petulant and, in comparing himself to Dirty Harry, as deluded as usual.
Can I reserve my tickets to the court case now?. Should be fine entertainment. The final showdown...and the public demolition of Moonbat.
go for it
Monbiot can't afford to back down. At least half his activities in support of MMGW consist of playground name calling (they don't even merit the description 'ad hominems') against those who disagree with him, attacking their probity, credentials, motivation, intelligence and anything else he can get his hands on. If he folds on this one, you can guarantee the next time he tries some mudslinging the object of his attention will call on Sue, Grabbit and Runne as a matter of urgency. Monbiot's antipathy for UK libel law is well established.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/15/civilliberties.medialaw
I hope North sues. His fighting fund will have a lot of contributors. My guess is that should North issue proceedings, Monbiot's arrogance will insist he toughs it out, whilst after they've considered the evidence the Guardian's lawyers will want to settle. If they don't, it could be an entertaining trial.
Given the UK's libel and slander laws, which are almost unfairly in favor of the "victim", I believe this will be a very painful experience for Moonbat.
As for the question of intent, which only makes it worse in the UK, Moonbat seems to be going out of his way to prove it.
His arrogance is astonishing.
Stupid boy.
I'm bound to call it as I see it.. I think Richard should have sent a Deed Of Intent rather than submitting a comment on Moonbat's blog. The way he's done it smacks of bat-and-ball. But I wonder if, in the cold light of litigation, Moonbat is any more "scurrilous" than North in their combined histories of altercation.
pete m
Suramantine - learn to read. He clearly says he is taking the step you say (i.e. "more formally"), but in the meantime, gives an early warning to them and commenters.
While I do not know the details of UK libel law, it is always better to take the informal approach first, albeit in a public manner to demonstrate that you are not suit happy. The fact that North tried to get the situation rectified in a "friendly manner" and was rejected will only make Dr North's case the better. Pete M is probably right on. Perhaps if some solicitor out there would comment.
But I would put a tenner on Dr North, for sure. As for he suing, I am sure Dr North could easily get legal fund established. I would love to send that tenner to him.
SimonH
A deed of intent can still be sent. However, to do so requires hiring a lawyer/solicitor to represent you and more important, turning the matter over to said lawyer/solicitor. It is one thing to obtain legal advice and quite another to have a lawyer/solicitor represent you. That is a step I have never had to take, although there have been a few times I spend a couple hundred quid on talking to a lawyer/solicitor.
As Gandhi said, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
Let's hope so! I think I would have talked to a lawyer first - but, maybe Dr North has and mabe the lawyer suggested an informal chance for Moonbat to climb down - as it is, his reply with two fingers might help a legal fight. Of course, getting a fair court hearing could be tricky.
SimonH. They are both pretty scurrilous, but I think Monbiot has made a bed for himself and will have to lie on it, or back down. Given that he (monbiot) is telling the world that the sceptics are "well-funded" he seems surprisingly blase. Maybe he knows there's no money, and Georgie's telling porkies.
Sue, sue, sue.
Just to clarify : you cannot threaten to sue ; it is not a threat, it's a right.
Between the two of them, I would anticipate that Moonbat's language has been the more inappropriate. While North's commentary may be a bit flush with the adjectives (but would tend towards fair comment in a country where fair comment were legally recognised), I think Moonbat's language more directly breaches libel laws. He's Moonbatted out of bounds and is much more defamatory.
While, by the letter of the law, I think Moonbat could well be in trouble, the CACC-handers and their corporate underwriters shouldn't be underestimated. Between them, they have a lot of money riding on CAGW, alternative energies etc, and have all of it to lose. The collective history of the alarmist engine is not what one would describe as honourable. In fact it's far from that.
Ian E
Of course, getting a fair court hearing could be tricky.
All it takes is money -- just ask any lawyer and he/she will tell you that we have the best legal system money can buy. Thus my suggestion of a legal fund.
Ian E : Of course, getting a fair court hearing could be tricky.
Don Pablo : All it takes is money -- just ask any lawyer and he/she will tell you that we have the best legal system money can buy. Thus my suggestion of a legal fund.
Never heard of any judges involved in government whitewashes? I don't think North would get to choose the judge somehow, but our government (hardly disinterested in this matter) might easily skew choice of judge!
It may boil down to whoever engages Schillings first. Meantime, I'm stocking up on popcorn and beer, and my money is on North.
I think both sides would be better off setting out a joint statement on what they CAN agree on - and then see what is left. As an arbitrator, who better than Lord O himself?
He shouldn't go to court. He should go to the PCC. Less expensive and more sure of a win.
Rod Liddle made some hyberbolic comments about race last year and was castigated by the PCC. It wasn't the facts of the matter (which have since been repeated without problem) it was the flourishes he used.
And similarly George Monbiot's downfall will be the artistic flourishes which he really can't stand up. Richard North and Christopher Booker responsible for more falsehoods than any other living journalist? Can he back this up? Has he read the Daily Mail?
He's toast.
Caroline: And similarly George Monbiot's downfall will be the artistic flourishes which he really can't stand up. Richard North and Christopher Booker responsible for more falsehoods than any other living journalist? Can he back this up? Has he read the Daily Mail?
I'm sure you're right but the law is nuts if it squashes such flourishes (not sure about the 'artistic'). North shouldn't be doing this. Even if he fails, he's conspiring to prop up a daft and dingy corner of the law.
Latest from Richard North
Thus, I am still minded to resolve this issue informally and to that effect am preparing a letter to send to the newspaper. This is clear enough from my posting on Monbiot's site, but to my latest post he responds: "Woohoo! I'm quivering with fear." This really needs little comment - it largely speaks for itself. This is the calibre of person we are dealing with.
Latest post from Richard North in full is here:-
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/06/its-war.html
FYI: information on the WWF...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/#comment-298859
"Since your newspaper has not troubled itself to contact me.."
I should have wanted to write: "I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received.." :-)
Perhaps I missed it: what did Monobot say that was untrue? Even in the UK, is not the truth a perfect defence for libel?
June 29, 2010 | Commenterpinkr
He basically called Richard North a liar and that's defamation.
He also said that 'Richard North and Christopher Booker responsible for more falsehoods than any other living journalist?' Which, for all I know, may be true, I haven't read every word of every living journalist. But in our courts George Monbiot would have to prove it to be true, which I think would be difficult.
A strange thing. In the Guardian, the same place where Mr Monbiot is saying 'bring it on sunshine', Alan Coren's daughter is moaning about how easy it is to fall foul of libel laws and how ruinously expensive it is to defend yourself against even a simple mistake.
One of them is wrong.