Discussion points on Gayford issue

The Clarke Gayford rumour issue has raised a number of issues worth discussing, albeit with care given legal situations. I have mixed views.

The legal gag

Lawyers acting for Gayford effectively gagged the media and some blogs, warning them that publishing details of the rumours could risk legal action.

I have in effect abided by this, in part because I don’t want to take any unnecessary legal risks, but also because I am happy to enforce something I was already doing, discouraging posting of rumours that had no facts to back them up. This is a general principle here.

This is a choice I have made, but it doesn’t prevent ‘free speech’, anyone is free to publish what they like on other public forums like Twitter and Facebook and take their own risks.

Police Statement

In an unusual move the Police issues a statement saying that they had not been investigating Gayford – “While in general we do not respond to enquiries which seek to confirm if individuals are under police investigation, on this occasion we can say that Mr Gayford is not and has not been the subject of any police inquiry, nor has he been charged in relation to any matter.”

It’s fair to question whether the police should have got themselves involved like this.

I don’t think there is any chance that the police did this at the request of the Prime Minister as some have claimed, I think it was a choice they made when they knew the Herald were going to publish their story.

I, general I don’t have a problem with the police statement – there was an unprecedented campaign of rumour mongering that was obviously aimed at damaging Jacinda Ardern and the government. The Police effectively defused the accusations.

Dirty politics

There has been a lot of angst over a couple of words Ardern included in her brief response – ‘dirty politics’.

This was seen by some, with some justification, as trying to link the National Party with the rumour campaign. Some went as far as blaming National – two of note to do this were Labour staffer Neale McMillan, and ex green MP Darien Fenton.

This is unfair as their is no evidence of National involvement. There has been mentions of ‘National supporters’ being involved, but that’s a very loose connection.

But I don’t have any problem with describing this as dirty politics, for two reasons.

It was dirty smearing and there are clear political connections, so it is dirty politics.

And it trashes the claims of some that ‘Dirty Politics’ is a term that can only be used in relation to National Party black ops. I see dirty politics from Labour as well as from National, and also from Greens. And Winston Peters made some dirty insinuations on this issue, as he often does. Dirty dealings with politics involved is dirty politics.

Where there’s smoke…

As son as the rumours were debunked a number of commenters popped up on KB and WO stating ‘where there’s smoke…’ – and a new ID repeated that here yesterday.

This is either disingenuous or ignorant. I have seen no evidence supporting the rumour. There is no smoke, so trying to promote this is just more dirt mongering.

The large mammal in the room.

Someone commented here yesterday:

Yet that is exactly what your post is attempting to do, ie spread the rumour that a hinted at party is behind the rumours and you are attempting to smearing them in a weasely manner with innuendo without any evidence! You really take the cake Pete.

This is nonsense. I have said a number of times that I have seen no evidence that a party ‘is behind the rumours’. I personally don’t think any party was behind them.

SB seems to be showing a bit of anxiety here, perhaps with good reason. There is ample evidence that a particular blog has posted what I see as fairly dirty attacks on both Ardern and Gayford since the election (since before the rumours in question began). There is other evidence that I’m sure a number of regulars here will be aware of that that blog has at least aided the rumour mongering. And then they whine when they get challenged on it.

I’m choosing not to name them and not to present or link to evidence, but there is evidence, and that may well be what has them spooked. Hissy fitting here won’t undo the risks they have taken – risks they should be well aware of given other long running legal problems.


NOTE: no details or hints of the nature of the rumours are to be posted here, or linked to from here.

99 Comments

  1. lurcher1948

     /  May 4, 2018

    [Deleted accusations against a Party with no evidence – PG]

  2. NOEL

     /  May 4, 2018

    Ok so we know that the Twitter Twits unsubstantiated claims was something of a criminal nature.
    With that confirmed by the Police response their declaration no longer needs debate.
    The real interesting one is the gagging order.
    Please,, please some twit publish the original accusations on social media somewhere.

  3. Blazer

     /  May 4, 2018

    from what I read…there is no gagging order,no injunction a la Bennett.
    The way the OP presents the circumstance is quite misleading.

    • Gezza

       /  May 4, 2018

      Strange thing to quibble over. What do you think is the difference? My recollection is that both parties’ lawyers have issued letters threatening defamation proceedings if the allegations are published.

      • Blazer

         /  May 4, 2018

        not really,…an injunction is a legal instrument.

        • Gezza

           /  May 4, 2018

          “A man is being accused of harassing Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett after he posted a video online alleging she committed a number of serious crimes in her past.

          Lawyers for Bennett have sent a cease and desist letter to the man ordering him to remove an open letter which they say has been shared online more than 5000 times.
          They’ve also demanded the removal of a Facebook Live video with more than 100 shares.

          “Not only do these allegations very seriously defame the Deputy Prime Minister, but she, and we as her lawyers, will regard it as a form of harassment,” the letter says.

          You should immediately remove this content.”

          Her lawyers have declared a “categorical rejection” by Bennett of the allegations.

          Facebook has removed both the letter and the video however the man has posted a series of follow-up videos in response that remain online, while the letter has since been shared on other sites.

          The man has also accused the National Party of hacking his computer to remove the videos.

          Bennett is currently overseas, attending a climate ministers meeting in Fiji.
          The letter also threatens defamation proceedings and a restraining order.”
          Herald

          Was there an injuction issued by a Court? Don’t recall but you may have bored into the matter more deeply … ? Do you have a link?

          • High Flying Duck

             /  May 4, 2018

            There wasn’t an injunction Gezza, but Blazer never lets facts get in the way of his skewed world views.

            • Blazer

               /  May 4, 2018

              ‘So Paula’s legal injunction is now a template letter you can get off the internet’…you are the one downplaying its legal integrity!Nothing to fear….nothing..to hide.

          • Gezza

             /  May 4, 2018

            Still googling, I expect. Sometimes best to google before saying stuff. Got caught out once or twice myself doing it the wrong way round.

            • Blazer

               /  May 4, 2018

              ‘What is CEASE AND DESIST?
              1. In law it is an order to prohibit starting or continuing a specific action stated in the order. Used against a person or an enterprise; usually issued by a court or a government agency

              Injunction-‘a judicial order restraining a person from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the legal right of another’

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 4, 2018

              It was a letter Blazer – not “a legal instrument” or a judicial order.
              It was, in fact, very similar to the letter Linda Clark sent out.

            • Gezza

               /  May 4, 2018

              Aha! Interesting about the “cease and desist” but the article only says it is a cease & desist letter. Can’t see reference in there to a Court injunction. Gotta go out soon. Look foward to any further scholarly analyses.

            • Gezza

               /  May 4, 2018

              * look forward, as well

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 4, 2018

              So Paula’s legal injunction is now a template letter you can get off the internet – she MUST be hiding something!

  4. Gezza

     /  May 4, 2018

    At least I was unofficially awarded an honorary Oracle title so some good has come out of all this disgraceful mess for me personally because until yesterday I was just an ordinary ever so ‘umble nobody who lives next to a stream. 😐

    • hahahahaha…. Oracle of Pukeko’s…… Sage of North Wellington….. Arbiter of Standards for Pete’s posting Emporium…. Potentate of the Stream….

      • Gezza

         /  May 4, 2018

        I’m doing great today. 😀

        Picking up more honorary titles than Hon Shane Geoffery Jones, PrCn, FCOTP in a far shorter space of time! 👍🏼

        • Ya don’t want Shane’s nick name though do ya? Wan…!!!

          • Gezza

             /  May 4, 2018

            He is looking a bit pasty of late …
            Too much ….ing, you think?

  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  May 4, 2018

    I am puzzled at the paranoia about specifying the false rumors. Surely it is not defamatory to say explicitly that X has been falsely accused of Y?

    Please explain.

    • I doubt that it would be defamatory as long as false claims weren’t stated. But I think it suits a lot of media to have an excuse not to give any coverage or credence to the accusations.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  May 4, 2018

        It can not be defamatory to list the false claims noting they are false. That is simply reporting fact truthfully.

        • Blazer

           /  May 4, 2018

          wake up Al….’any gossip that X is a pedophile are completely…untrue’.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  May 4, 2018

            I am awake, B. It is not true that you are just a bad dream of an empty gasbag.

    • Gezza

       /  May 4, 2018

      Possibly this explains it. Saying what they were probably increases the likelihood of people ramping up allegations of where there’s smoke there’s fire, note that the police DIDN’T say… (like some plonker did yesterday ) etc, & the police, the judiciary they’re all in on it, there was COLLUSION ™ what are they covering up, and so.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  May 4, 2018

        That only explains partisan media reluctance.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  May 4, 2018

          To make the obvious point, the statement above asserts a truth that can only be libellous if it is proven false which is exactly what X wants to deny.

          • Gezza

             /  May 4, 2018

            Just needs more road cones.
            I explained above the article in what I thought at the time was a very sound opinion?

    • Actually I doubt that Gayford or Ardrn would be damaged by publicisng the accusations, given that some of which were very specific, and had zero evidence as far as I have seen. It would show how empty the accusations were and would probably increase sympathy.

      It’s funny seeing some left resorting to ‘where there’s smoke’ and ‘Streisand effect’ with media refusing to provide them with anything.

  6. Bill Brown

     /  May 4, 2018

    The Gayford story is one of the best examples of the Stresiend Effect ….. ever.

    • I disagree – I think this has impacted little on Gayford and Ardern apart from winning them sympathy. It is likely to be more of an own goal and more damaging to those who tried to circulate false stories.

      I notice that you are falling back on trying to promote ‘Streisand effect’ now. You have made some very specific claims (absent any iota of evidence) that are now debunked.

      • Bill Brown

         /  May 4, 2018

        Interesting given you had a post last weekend saying rumours might be the end of the PM.

        [Deleted – PG]

  7. lurcher1948

     /  May 4, 2018

    So as i read your post there is an individual who is big enough to spread a rumor this far so fast without a newsgroup or political parties help so i blame GOD, it did it GOD DONT SPREAD FALSE RUMORS because the other party lost out and the PMs partner is an easy target

    • High Flying Duck

       /  May 4, 2018

      Twitter is an easy platform to use for spreading rumours. Post a few cryptic tweets with salacious gossip and let the feeds and retweets take care of the rest.

      • NOEL

         /  May 4, 2018

        Get higer up duck tomorrow is the day.
        What interests me is that Twitter has become the fist souce for media these days. Example Trump. But no media published the baseless accusations. Did they all collectively decide they might be……….?

        • High Flying Duck

           /  May 4, 2018

          You’re not wrong Noel. The standard of Journalism these days is truly dire. The number of media stories based around a few dead beats complaining about something on Twitter is just embarrassing. No fact checking seems to be done.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  May 4, 2018

            If you think it’s bad now, you want to read some of the stuff from previous centuries – and I don’t mean the 20th century,

  8. High Flying Duck

     /  May 4, 2018

    The coverage of this- that is is unprecedented and an attack on the partner of the PM – misses the point that Clarke was a public figure with TV and DJ credentials and a reasonably prominent profile well before meeting the PM.
    He has used his “1st Man” status to further promote his minor celeb status.
    He is also a fairly polarising figure from what I can see.
    As such, there is every likelihood the rumours were an attempt at tall poppy felling or muckraking with no political context at all. This, of course, doesn’t discount the political possibility.
    But without evidence that politics was a motive it simply should not be described as “dirty politics”.

    • Blazer

       /  May 4, 2018

      give us an example of ”dirty politics’ that fits your …parameters.

      • High Flying Duck

         /  May 4, 2018

        Mike Williams going to Australia to dig up dirt on John Key.
        If the PM’s office or other MP’s were providing dirt to WO for the prupose of attacking oposition MP’s that would also fit the description.
        Almost anything uttered by Winston Peters.

        • PDB

           /  May 4, 2018

          Don’t remember Mike Williams being accused of ‘Dirty Politics’ back then? Research wasn’t it?

        • Blazer

           /  May 4, 2018

          so Mike Williams is on record saying…’I’m off to Australia to dig up dirt on Key’….thought not….’Duck never lets facts get in the way of his skewed world views.’

          • High Flying Duck

             /  May 4, 2018

            Is Jason Ede on record as saying “i’m just dishing the dirt to WO to get Labour…”?
            Thought not. You’re a dickhead Blazer.

            • Blazer

               /  May 4, 2018

              not aware of anyone alleging that.Mai mai,the… disoriented duck ,resorts to puerile name calling.Typical.

    • Gezza

       /  May 4, 2018

      We went over this yesterday & I pointed out why it was dirty politics so just because the man is a well-known vacuous socialite doesn’t mean that exempts anyone opposed to his wife’s person, party or politics pushing vile rumours about on blog sites and Local pubs n yacht clubs and Koru lounges from being described as indulging in dirty politics.

      • High Flying Duck

         /  May 4, 2018

        That post made no sense whatsoever?
        However, There is no evidence the attack was motivated by anything other than dragging Clarke Gayford down a peg. It could, as many rumours are, have simply been “I bet he’s…” and run from there in Chinese whispers to become a grand conspiracy.
        It is you who has unilaterally decided it was started by someone opposed to his wife party or politics with no evidence that that is the case.

        • Gezza

           /  May 4, 2018

          Yes it did. I’ll summarise though.
          You’re wrong. Imo.
          Gotta go. Later. 👏🏼

        • Patzcuaro

           /  May 4, 2018

          If Gayford hadn’t been Arderns partner it would have been a storm in a teacup and been of little interest to most people.

          But he is the Prime Minister’s partner which meant the ramifications of its continued circulation were magnified and a distraction to the government when there are many other matters of greater importance needing attention.

          I don’t recollect such an attack on Bronagh Key. And while Gayford has a higher media profile, the families of politicians should be off limits. We need good people in parliament, targeting their families will only discourage them.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  May 4, 2018

            I agree with all of that Patz. I just think people are jumping to conclusions as to the motive for this.

  9. PDB

     /  May 4, 2018

    A couple of side issues that interested me surrounding yesterdays announcement;

    *Part of the problem here was someone getting name suppression and then a whole bunch of people on twitter speculating (wrongly) as to who this person was. Name suppression for high profile people is given far too easily (compared to the rest of us) and as in this case innocent people are then suspected and accused on social media.

    *This from Whaleoil today – Cam Slater: “People who are associated with me had notified Jacinda personally on February 12 of the seriousness of these allegations.”.

    And he posted yesterday: “I sent Ardern a text last Thursday outlining what was being said (as if she needed to be told) and suggested she or her partner should address them and offered her a media platform to do it. The only reply came from her chief press secretary, insisting that the rumours were false and saying she wouldn’t be commenting on them. He appeared convinced they’d go away.”

    • Gezza

       /  May 4, 2018

      “He appeared convinced they’d go away.”

      Well then, if that’s Cameron’s opinion, it must be true because he said so.

      • PDB

         /  May 4, 2018

        Good Samaritan that Slater………….nice to see he has the PM’s back

        • PDB

           /  May 4, 2018

          Even sent Ardern a ‘text’, as we all do from time to time.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  May 4, 2018

            I can’t wait to hear the Prime Minister questioned on her texts with Cam Slater…

            • PDB

               /  May 4, 2018

              Sorry – should have clarified that Whaleoil was reporting what Soper said in that second quote.

            • Gezza

               /  May 4, 2018

              Well if Cameron says that’s what Baz said then what Baz said his impression was must be fact.

    • NOEL

       /  May 4, 2018

      Gee I agree with PDB on name suppression.
      Long been of the opinion everyone gets name suppression from the time they are charged until the sentence is passed.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  May 4, 2018

        That would kill #metoo.

    • PDB

       /  May 4, 2018

      Slater today (take note when commenting on this blog): “Yes, there were terrible and false rumours out there, but likewise, it was terrible, false and defamatory for the prime minister, Winston Peters, the NZ Herald and David Fisher to suggest who was behind these things by inference and innuendo. Labour played their own dirty politics, and now, as a result of that, the prime minister, the deputy prime minister the NZ Herald and David Fisher (and their cartoonists with suggestions of oily-ness) are exposed to a potential defamation action. We know the inference was there because I was called by Radio LIVE to address the allegations made against me.”

      “Two blog sites have as good as named me and they will be in the gun too.”

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  May 4, 2018

        Slater’s litigation record doesn’t inspire confidence in his chances.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  May 4, 2018

          I think he’s just busy protesting too much.
          Clarke must feel a right fool, knowing he was just a pawn – mere collateral damage – in the great scheme to get Cam!

          • Blazer

             /  May 4, 2018

            very cute…spelling porn…as pawn to muddy the..waters.

        • PartisanZ

           /  May 4, 2018

          I STILL don’t get how you can say dirty politics without saying “dirty politics”?

          • PDB

             /  May 4, 2018

            Simply unsubstantiated rumours from persons unknown.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  May 4, 2018

            You can’t. But this wasn’t dirty politics, it was a rumour, that may or may not have originated from a mistaken belief stemming from a suppression order that then got out of hand in the Twitter sandbox.

            • Gezza

               /  May 4, 2018

              I have already ruled on this. Sorry.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 4, 2018

              Unless you have evidence you’re just making unsubstantiated claims with no merit.

            • Gezza

               /  May 4, 2018

              It is not a requirement that my ruling must be popular.

            • Gezza

               /  May 4, 2018

              I can even cite an appropriate authority on the issue:

              But I don’t have any problem with describing this as dirty politics, for two reasons.
              It was dirty smearing and there are clear political connections, so it is dirty politics.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 4, 2018

              I have yet to see the “clear political connections”. There was a clear political effect to it, but that doesn’t mean it was originated for that effect.
              It is still more likely to be a joke or misunderstanding spread as fact through the distortions of the twitter-sphere.

            • Gezza

               /  May 4, 2018

              The fatal flaw in your argument, imo, is that you ‘think’ it might have originated for some “innocently nasty” purpose means it was not dirty politics.

              Ignoring the fact that it got picked up & gleefully spread & alluded to – privately & publicly, by others – including here – clearly politically vehemently opposed posters – to create trouble n strife n suspicions about the PM’s wisdom re choice of baby’s dad, & about hints of Labour political interference in judicial processes, police investigations, yada yada.

              Your opnion is of course nonsense. Let us hear no more of it. Everyone else is moving on except those who are still on attack.

      • Patzcuaro

         /  May 4, 2018

        Whaleoil, a has been trying to appear relevant.

  10. High Flying Duck

     /  May 4, 2018

    Manhire has a good write up…

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/media/03-05-2018/the-wildest-takes-on-the-clarke-gayford-rumours/

    The Bradbury ending is a classic.

  11. duperez

     /  May 4, 2018

    The reaction to having ‘dirty’ and ‘politics’ in the same sentence has been quite funny. Earlier I’d posted “When I heard Ardern say “dirty politics” I thought she was saying dirty politics not ‘Dirty Politics’.

    Audrey Young determined that Ardern had said the latter, with evil intent, and was no better than those who’d indulged in sordid rumour-mongering. That seemed to become an invitation to leap aboard that particular vessel.

    Some National supporters immediately took umbrage. “You can’t say that, that’s not right, you’re wrong, it’s not the same as the Hagar/Slater/Ede thing.” The way they took ownership of “Dirty Politics” was quite heart-warming and the indignation at having that relationship stained by some link to this latest thing quite lovely.

    Of course as PG says, it is unfair to link the National Party to a rumour campaign. There is no evidence of National involvement and the party would not be so stupid.

    As for “mentions of ‘National supporters’ being involved being a very loose connection”? Visits to the Trade me Messageboard would have to be long and strenuous to undo the really tight bows tied there over recent weeks.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  May 4, 2018

      They didn’t “take ownership” of it – they were tarred with it by Labour and Hagar.
      And if you take Jacinda’s comment in conjunction with Winston’s it becomes clear where they were trying to sheet it home.

      • Gezza

         /  May 4, 2018

        • High Flying Duck

           /  May 4, 2018

          Yeah yeah – you think stuff so everyone should agree. We get it.
          It doesn’t make you any less wrong.

          • Gezza

             /  May 4, 2018

            That’s Hagar. He hasn’t a clue why he keeps getting slagged off in some tiny little Pacific Country he’s never even heard of. That’s probably why he became horrible.

          • Gezza

             /  May 4, 2018

            you think stuff so everyone should agree
            Nonsense. Sometimes I just like to pontificate for effect.

            Aren’t you whingeing because you think stuff that everybody doesn’t agree with. Would you like some time to consider this fully before responding?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 4, 2018

              No – I’m just putting forward my point of view and asking for facts to the contrary, which don’t seem to be forthcoming. You are then posting that your fact-free opinion trumps mine.
              But I don’t mind your pontifications mostly. Variety is the spice of life and all that. At least you have a semblance of reasoning behind your posts unlike some others who spray vitriol and are not very good at maths.

            • Gezza

               /  May 4, 2018

              Very well. It is a fact that Hagar is not the same person as Hager.
              Do you dispute this?

      • duperez

         /  May 4, 2018

        Who first used the term dirty politics? The questioner to Ardern at the stand-up in Parliament asking “Is it dirty politics”?
        Arden replies “It doesn’t matter what you call it ….”

        Barrell? Tar? Let’s jump in and say we were pushed. 😱

        • High Flying Duck

           /  May 4, 2018

          The journo in front of parliament was asking the question to clarify JA’s earlier comment that it *was* Dirty Politics.
          JA used the term first.

  12. Gerrit

     /  May 4, 2018

    Does the letter from the layers cover all Gayford rumours or only the specific ones out in the public domain today?

    Wonder if someone started another rumour about Gayford, got the cease and desist letter from the lawyers and than asked,

    Is this the same rumour as the first one and could you prove it please?

    If not the same rumour, do the lawyers have to draft another letter or does the first letter cover every rumour henceforth to eternity and beyond?

    If it does, it would be a good way to silence critics long term. Nice shield to hide behind?

    Wonder if every politician has a legal cease and desist letter ready in the filing cabinet?

    • Gezza

       /  May 4, 2018

      These questions you raise. Why not put them to the test yourself (not here, of course) and report back on the results?

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  May 4, 2018

        Am I imagining it, or is the Gayford crime story an old one that’s had a resurgence for no good reason except to let his ever-loving partner squawk about dirty politics ?

        Is anyone really, seriously interested ? I can’t say that I am…..

  13. Gerrit

     /  May 4, 2018

    Who says I haven’t. Just say IF one was going to spread another rumour, would the first letter cover the second?

    • Gezza

       /  May 4, 2018

      Well, if you have, how long do you expect it to be before you report back on what happened? Also, your plan for spreading it. How robust & comprehensive is it? If you just leave it up to a few halfwits & incompetents we could be waiting here for ages & learn nothing.

      • Gerrit

         /  May 4, 2018

        Think I would be as stupid to report back to you IF one was to spread a second rumour?

        And give you the methodology on how to spread a rumour?

        Dont think so, do your own investigate work.

        Was asking a simple question. Does the layers letter cover ALL current and potentially future rumours?

        If it does not, than the letter would have to list the current rumours for clarification.

        Better go and check my mail box to see if my letter has arrived yet.

        • Gezza

           /  May 4, 2018

          Think I would be as stupid to report back to you IF one was to spread a second rumour? And give you the methodology on how to spread a rumour? Dont think so, do your own investigative work.

          I don’t know how stupid you are. These are test questions to help me work that out.

          I don’t want to spread a nasty rumour about anyone, so I don’t need to research it.
          Seems to me the intent of the actions taken to close this down are intended to put the wind up people planning to spread nasty rumours & in the hope that would prevent any that were clearly intended to be politically damaging.

    • Griff

       /  May 4, 2018

      Dont need no letter to sue for defamation ya just file proceedings in court .
      A lawyers letter is a warning shot .
      Often designed to frighten you into desisting more than an actual precursor to legal action.
      Taking Legal action for defamation is costly and time consuming with the chance you will fail and end up being out of pocket or worse have to pay the opposing persons legal fees.

      • Gerrit

         /  May 4, 2018

        Question is Griff, does the desist letter have to specify the rumours in the mill? if not it could pertain to anything. I take your point on the letter being a warning shot,

        Not a lawyer or solicitor but I would suggest that the letter at least has to list the complained about rumour.

        And IF I get the letter can I publicize the letter’s content and thus spread the rumour further?

        • Gezza

           /  May 4, 2018

          The thing i, why do you actually want to spread a malicious rumour? If you don’t, which most people don’t, it’s just not an issue. If you do, and it’s actually true, & you can prove it, just go for it I reckon. Truth is an absolute defence to a defamation action. Just go for it, Gerrit. See what happens.

          • Gezza

             /  May 4, 2018

            * is

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  May 4, 2018

              What if someone said that the pooks were being trained by the Pookmaster to fly into 1st floor windows with chest cameras to show where the valuables are ?

            • Gezza

               /  May 4, 2018

              I would say that “this is nonsense, of course, but I would be very interested to see the videos showing them doing it”.