Liz Truss has sent a legal letter to Keir Starmer demanding he stops making “false and defamatory” claims that she crashed the economy.
The former prime minister sent a six-page “cease and desist” letter accusing Starmer of harming her reputation and contributing to her losing her South West Norfolk seat in the general election.
She is one of the few people I would shout at if I saw her out and about. She should be in prison.
Of all the people to send an unenforceable cease and desist letter to LMAO
I’d think the ex Barrister, Queens Counsel (basically a group of exceptionally talented senior lawyers) lawyer, and ex director of public prosecutions for the CPS would be someone you’d think hm, I probably can’t intimidate him in this manner. Truss never ceases to amaze me.
My mind can’t even begin to imagine how good Starmer’s legal defence team would be.
Of all PMs, he is surely the one you’d be insane to enter a legal battle with.
As PM she was the First Lord Of The Treasury (amongst the many other titles she got as a PM: Queen of the Andals and the First Men, Lady of the Seven Kingdoms, and Protector of the Realm) so how is she not responsible for the economy?
C&D sounds like a good way to scare someone who was wasn’t previously a Barrister, Bencher, Director of Public Prosecutions, and didn’t have a knighthood for services to law and criminal justice.
Imagine how good Keir Starmer’s lawyer must be lol.
Yeah, yeah, he knows some legal mumbo jumbo but the Truster is powered by an idiotic self-belief.
Defamation laws in the UK are a bit silly though.
How so?
They are treated, effectively, as guilty until proven innocent.
This gives a bit of a false impression. Specifically, it is for the defendant to show that a defamatory statement is substantially true, rather than the complainant/plaintiff to show it is false. This is essentially because truth is a defence against defamation in the same way self-defence is a defence against assault.
Essentially, the complainant must prove that:
- the defendant made a defamatory statement (i.e. a statement of a fact that - if true - would harm your reputation),
- you suffered a material loss as a result of harm to your reputation, and
- it was the defendant’s statement that was the cause.
The defendant may argue in defence that:
- it was substantially true,
- they honestly believed it was true and had a reasonably good reason for doing so, and/or
- it was in the public interest to say so.
The burden of proof is still “on the balance of probability” rather than “beyond reasonable doubt” in each case.
This kind of makes a little bit of sense though, right? If I tell the world that you like to put your thumb in your bum and then sniff it, you’d probably feel it should be on me to provide evidence rather than on you to prove that you’ve literally never done that in your life.
We are definitely lacking in anti-SLAPP legislation, but then so are many states.
accusing Starmer of harming her reputation and contributing to her losing her South West Norfolk seat in the general election.
I too hate it when I’m faced with the consequences of my actions.
She clearly was accountable for tanking the economy, but has no other reasonable defence.
Is that the Liz Truss that crashed the economy, or the Liz Truss that deliberately crashed the economy so her fucking posh boy crony cunts could capitalise on it?
Why not both?
He should just mail her back an expired head of lettuce.
I still think of that pretty regularly and I live in the shit show that is America.
Makes me chuckle every single time.
I was actually thinking he should send her a wilted salad.
Lettuce never forget.
She really is the git that keeps on giving.
git
Fitting.
I thought so.
Wasn’t sure as it’s jsust one character.
contributing to her losing her South West Norfolk seat in the general election.
Political opponent says political opponents is bad at job and someone else should have it. Sighting evidence
Sigh why can’t these fuckwits just go away like their constituents asked
Sighting evidence
*Citing
Yeah, but you can see it too.
Thank you. Tried 4 tines to get it to look right. Got bored and had to go back to work
Every time I have to write an email that advises to resync the files. I always spell it resink at first and then I can never remember the correct spelling.
Well, to be fair it wasn’t just her. Kwasi Kwarteng helped too!
Didn’t he just do what she campaigned on? They were her policies.
They were his policies, too. Both signed off on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_Unchained .
He is still responsible though. His entire job is that he probably vets economic policy, he can advise against doing something and if he doesn’t like it he can resign. If he’s just going to do whatever the prime minister tells him, then what the hell is the point in his job?
I’d love to see legal action over this; “No, it’s not defamatory - it’s a matter of record. Jog on.”
It’s the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit. It won’t see the inside of a courtroom except to get kicked out again.
This isn’t the US you can’t just sue for whatever random thing you want you actually have to have a case.
It’s purely about making the government waste money.
Or more specifically, making the government hesitate to allow lettuce to force them to waste taxpayers’ money in court. She knows full well what ever answer is returned. Looks bad to a large % of voters.
If kier is smart. He will stand up in parliament and state that. Something like.
" She is desperate to make a name for herself, having bankrupted the UK. Either by her own reclass economic actions or by forcing the government to fight expensive libel suits, she has no chance of winning.
So the answer is simple. From now on, I will only address her undeniable economic stupidity in parliament. Where the courts have no jurisdiction over the claims of politicians.
If she wants to silence the truth. She will need to convince one of you MPs to stand up for her proven stupid economic lettuce rot. And risk your seats on the claims as she did."
But more eloquently.
As much as I’m not a fan of Starmer (Changes his mind too much and he’s a red Tory), he does have a mature way of dealing with these people. Look at how he handles Musk.
Sorta agree.
Def a red tory. Or more to the point believes in the capatalistic properganda most of the western world dose. But its getting harder to beleave anyone that dosent can win.
Not sure changing your mind is a bad thing. In fact id suggest not being willing to is more of a fault. IE i personally think it is impirtant to describe why the changea are in error. Rather then indicate a strict following of your ideals without following evidence. Is some how advantages to society.
But yeah. Ob the whole I agree. He isnlikely to handle this as well as anyone can.
You’ve got a point about changing your mind. Showing you can learn or accept fault is strength of character. It’s just the number of times he’s done it and the things he’s changed his mind about that bug me. I’d have to look examples up though.
Yeah.
I also thinkjitbis imporrant for government to recognise and id the reasons for changes.
He and his government seem to be ignoring openess. At the same level as the start of the last gov.
But more eloquently.
So maybe something like: “She can shove her cease and desist up her arse and fuck off while she’s doing it!”?
“Perhaps the honourable lady would consider repositioning the ‘cease and desist letter’ about her person, perhaps so as to protect it from sunlight?”
i.e shove it where the sun doesn’t shine
In parliment it would require something like.
She can reverse ingest her letter while procreating with a donkey.
Yes that will do
I’d love it to go to court and backfire so that it becomes illegal to trash talk your opponent. It’d kind of fuck up all political discourse but it would super fuck the Tories since that’s all they do.
In the sky news report about this they basically said just that.
The case cannot happen because a victory for her essentially would require the courts to interfere with politics, and they can’t do that.
Thin skinned Liz strikes again
