Posts
Libdemologists: Why Is Huhne Threatening A Blogger?
Although I took down the link to the Chris Huhne attack site at Huhne's personal request word has spread with Mr Huhne's campaign manager now stating publically that legal action will be taken if they trace the progenitor.
Business and property details appear to check out so it must be the analysis of the circumstances of and fall out from Huhne's wife's divorce which they consider "highly defamatory". Or at least to be subject to a Alisher Usmanov/Schillings campaign of writ-happy repression.
Huhne's team declined to answer a series of factual questions I put to them on the business and property details which remain in my initial post and it is noticeable that these are now asserted to be "inaccurate" or "silly" rather than "nonsense".
As it would have taken five minutes or less to answer the questions I can't think they are seriously denying anything.
5 comments:
I have read this blog, and the comments on it are in my opinion libellous. Laws that exist over libel have not been repealed by Labour, and Chris is entitled to look at the legal options he may take. On that matter, I do not see that you are making a serious point.
On the property details, this is something I have no idea about, but I am curious to understand why you think you are so important that Chris Huhne should inform you personally of his financial dealings, which are none of your business.
Of course if anyone has any evidence that he has broken the law, they should raise the matter with the appropriate authorities.
Oh dear.
No-one has said Chris is breaking the law. Just having holdings that are inconsistent with his or Lib Dem stated views and principles.
Mr Huhne's team have stated that various purported facts about his investments and/or his property holdings are inaccurate - though they seem to have appeared on a good few occasions in serious papers and in historic registers and the like.
We gave Chris the chance to go through the various investments claimed and state where any inaccuracies lie and he has chosen not to do so.
We have relayed that fact to readers.
Oh dear indeed! You have nothing at all to say about my assertion that Chris is entitled by laws that Labour have not changed to take libel action against a blogger. Either I am right, in which case you should apologise for linking to that website in the first place, or I am wrong, and you should say why and put the case for changing the law to ensure this does not happen again.
On my second point you did not answer my point about why you are so important that Chris Huhne has to answer your questions about his business dealing that are none of your business. Although I notice that "I" becomes "We". Who do you mean by that?
Again if you think there should be greater transparency about MP's business dealings, then you should talk to your Labour chums about changing the law. I am not sure how enthusiastic they will be in doing so given that some of them have their own dubious business dealings, it would be interesting to compare the parties on this.
For the record I would be concerned if Chris Huhne has been unethical in his business dealings, but as far as I can tell the basis for believing this is based on no more than innuendo. I am not aware that any serious publication has made these allegations.
As we have already maade verey clear - there is no secret about any of Chris's financial interests past or present. Details of them have been made public via his own website when he was an MEP and through the Register of Members' Interests since his election to Westminster. If something doesn't appear it's not because anything's being hidden but because it doesn't/didn't exist. Criticise his policies by all means but please don't just pass on malicious and fictitious rumours.
Anna Werrin
Anna: What malicious and fictitious rumours? I have taken down the link though I have no compelling evidence on whether the material there is true and fair comment or untrue and highly defamatory. The information about business interests appears to check out and has appeared - contrary to Left Lib's assertion - in all manner of serious papers.
Having investments in properties, in CCTV, in mines, in arms, in tax avoidance vehicles, in any legitimate company is not illegal.
The point surely is that these things may not be consistent with being left wing or being a committed environmentalist or whatever?
I have no idea why you or Chris did not answer the direct questions on each of the investments. That would have been clearer.
And the question about threatening bloggers is one of tactics as much as anything. Whoever would think that threatening legal action would be a good way to avoid attention for something?
Post a Comment