Not so sweet
Baron Sugar of Clapton is suing journalist Daily Mail journalist Quentin Letts because he said Sugar is a ‘telly peer’ with a smallish sort of brain.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article6740649.ece
Letts said in an interview on LBC that Sugar has ‘been appointed because he’s been on the telly’ and added that ‘when you hear Sugar talking about government he hasn’t got a clue about the way that things are done’. He also said Sugar didn’t ‘much of a brain inside him’.
Sounds about right to me. Brown must have felt it would do him no harm to have someone on prime-time TV in his pack, and he must also have been fairly confident that the Beeb would go along with his wheeze.
As for the charge of political ignorance – consider what the Baron said when asked if he would be taking the Labour whip: ‘I don’t know what that means.’
And the brain thing? OK, that may be unfair (though calling yourself ‘Baron Sugar of Clapton’ does seem to give something of a clue about cerebral capacity).
But a law suit? I had no idea the Baron was such a sensitive soul. It’s…er..not how he comes across on telly.
Small earthquake…not many dead
On the face of it, though, is it such a big deal? We know New Labour isn’t fond of Letts because he’s rude about MPs, especially their MPs. And I doubt Brown and co will be displeased that the Baron’s first act of significance is to sue a Mail correspondent. It’s probaby another reason why they picked him up. So isn’t this just another Nulab shot at its critics?
Easy target
It’s more than that. What is serious is that the Baron is suing Letts himself. This is clearly intimidatory: as this letter in the Spectator points out ‘When journalists have been sued by public figures in the past — particularly by Members of Parliament — the convention has been to sue the newspaper or broadcaster that provided them with a platform, not to pursue the journalist personally’.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/the-week/5244778/letters.thtml
Letts is self-employed. Even if he doesn’t fight the case, he’s being asked to pay the Baron’s costs so far. Every freelance – and there are lots out there at the moment – is in the same boat. Or the same creek. With no legal paddle.
Unless the Baron withdraws his suit, this could be very dangerous.
Baron Sugar of Clapton is suing Daily Mail journalist Quentin Letts because he said Sugar is a TV peer with a smallish sort of brain. This isn’t just a dummy-spitting spat – it’s an attack on press freedom.
Letts said in an interview on LBC that Sugar has ‘been appointed because he’s been on the telly’ and added that ‘when you hear Sugar talking about government he hasn’t got a clue about the way that things are done’. He also said Sugar didn’t ‘have much of a brain inside him’.
Sounds about right to me. Brown must have felt it would do him no harm to have someone on prime-time TV in his pack, and he must also have been fairly confident that the Beeb would go along with his wheeze.
As for the charge of political ignorance – consider what the Baron said when asked if he would be taking the Labour whip: ‘I don’t know what that means.’
And the brain thing? OK, that may be unfair (though calling yourself ‘Baron Sugar of Clapton’ does seem to give something of a clue about cerebral capacity).
But a law suit? I had no idea the Baron was such a sensitive soul. It’s…er..not how he comes across on telly.
Small earthquake…not many dead
On the face of it, though, is it such a big deal? We know New Labour isn’t fond of Letts because he’s rude about MPs, especially their MPs. And I doubt Brown and co will be displeased that the Baron’s first act of significance is to sue a Mail correspondent. It’s probaby another reason why they picked him up. So isn’t this just another Nulab shot at its critics?
Easy target
It’s more than that. What is serious is that the Baron is suing Letts himself. This is clearly intimidatory. As this letter in the Spectator points out: ‘When journalists have been sued by public figures in the past — particularly by Members of Parliament — the convention has been to sue the newspaper or broadcaster that provided them with a platform, not to pursue the journalist personally’.
Letts is self-employed. Even if he doesn’t fight the case, he’s being asked to pay the Baron’s costs so far. Every freelance – and there are lots out there at the moment – is in the same boat. Or the same creek. With no legal paddle.
Unless the Baron withdraws his suit, this could be very dangerous.