The court has decided that Sally Bercow's infamous tweet did indeed libel Lord McAlpine.

The judgment has, I think, great relevance to those who post in social media and might serve as a salutary warning of the potential consequences.

[url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/1342.htmllink to full judgment[/url

Well I actually read the whole thing and I think the judge is a bit of loon and his findings about who will have read the tweet, what they knew before doing so and what the implication of ending the tweet with *innocent face* was rather unrealistic.

I follow her but then I read twitter once in a blue moon. I didn't see the Newsnight program and as the judgment points out the issue only got blanket coverage after his name surfaced in the week following the offending tweet.

I am certain had I seen that tweet my reaction would have been at most "I don't know why is he trending?" but far more likely I would have simply ignored it because he means nothing to me. And I lived through the Thatcher years. It's comments about people like Tebbit from that era who pique the interest not him.

The idea I would because of that tweet, associate him with the Newsnight report seems ridiculous because I am pretty certain I wouldn't and the idea it was innuendo or a rhetorical question doesn't really hold with me either.

I think the biggest thing that determines this is that usually if you want to know why something is trending, you click on the trend and look what people are actually saying about it for it to trend. She's either really lazy or it was innuendo as the link says.

I can't stand the woman. But yes, I probably would.

That's all that really matters, isn't it?

A fair point but if she could find out the answer by clicking on the trend wouldn't that mean there were people out there libeling him directly not via innuendo and it also begs the question why go after her and not other Tweeters? It was accepted it was trending before she tweeted what she did. So shouldn't plenty of others be in the dock?

I don't think she was the only one who heard from McAlpine's lawyers. There was [url=http://www.monbiot.com/2013/03/12/my-agreement-with-lord-mcalpine/George Monbiot, for one[/url. Anyway, following the decision, she's now settled the claim for an undisclosed sum.

I think if she had simply asked, "why is Lord Mcalpine trending" she wouldn't now be 15k the poorer.

Still, in her vacuous world, I suppose all publicity is good publicity.

made an example of someone in the public eye(ish)?

Opportunity to go after someone in the public eye, to make others think twice. Plus, Sally Bercow is a complete and needed bringing down a peg or two.

I suspect most people who use Twitter do not have sufficient funds or assets to meet 5 figure court judgments.

Rule 1 of civil legal action - make sure the person you are pursuing has money or assets.

And yet McAlpine and his lawyers have left David Icke alone.

I wonder why?

Me too coddy, any ideas? i accept PM's

It's wrong to pick on the mentally unstable?