In news that should surprise no-one, Arron Banks, the alleged “man who bankrolled Brexit”, has been threatening the Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr once more. This time he has managed to find a lawyer prepared to issue a legal threat on his behalf, although whether they asked for payment upfront is not known. Banksy’s problem is not that he’s issued the threat, but that he has executed a superbly crafted own goal in doing so.
The legal threat has been issued by Kingsley, Napley, which sounds refreshingly upmarket until you remember that Banksy was using the services of Anthony Julius of Mishcon de Reya last year, until they responded to a Letter Before Action from the folks at Byline Media aimed at Banks and his obnoxious pal Andy Wigmore by stating “Please note however that we are not instructed in relation to either complaint”.
Who sacked whom, one has to wonder? But at least Peter Jukes and his pals know where to send their LBA. So now someone has inserted another shilling in the Banksy legal meter, although it’s not quite as large a shilling as before. Moving right along to Banksy’s LBA, it claims it is “Strictly Private and Confidential” and “Not for publication”.
File under fiction, eh Wiggy?
But as Ms Cadwalladr pointed out earlier, “And yes, it does say ‘Strictly Private' & ‘NOT FOR PUBLICATION’, but Bankski had already handed it over to Guido, m'lud, so he obviously didn't mean it literally”. Banksy had, not for the first time, alerted the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog. Well, two things here.
One, The Great Guido might want to tell readers “Banks says he took no money and he has no covert relationship. Now he is going to sue her to prove it or pay up”, but Two, the last time Staines tried it on with Zelo Street, he was sent away with his tail between his legs (post HERE). And as to Banksy’s two grounds for action, I have bad news for him.
One, the Commons DCMS Committee publication “Foreign influence in political campaigns” makes this observation at Paragraph 261: “Arron Banks and Andy Wigmore have misled the Committee on the number of meetings that took place with the Russian Embassy”. “Misled” being a nicer way of saying they lied.
Two, as Ms Cadwalladr has pointed out, the DCMS Committee has also concluded “Mr Banks seemed to want to hide the extent of his contacts with Russia, while his spokesman Andy Wigmore’s statements have been unreliable - by his own admission - and cannot be taken at face value. Mr Wigmore is a self-confessed liar and, as a result, little significance can be attached to anything that he says”. OUCH!
Cooeee Banksy! YOU MISSED THIS ONE
And Three, if Banksy is wanting to remove the taint of alleged Russian collusion from himself, then why didn’t he follow up on his threat of legal action against Guy Verhofstadt? The MEP’s Tweet that so riled Banks - “Europe has a fifth column in its ranks: Putin’s cheerleaders who want to destroy Europe & liberal democracy from within: Le Pen, Wilders, Farage, Orbán, Kaczynski, Salvini use Kremlin money & intel. Like Farage’s friend Arron Banks, who colluded w/ Russians to deliver #Brexit” - is still live.
Worse for Banks, it’s been there more than a year. So I wouldn’t be so sure that Banksy is going to sue anyone. He might, however, be about to get an Arkell v Pressdram.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at
Over my decades there has been a succession of 'up-like-a-rocket, down-like-the stick' characters. Who else recalls John Bloom? Freddie Laker? Asil Nadir? To which, of more recent memory, could be added abstractions and abstractors like Barings Bank, Equitable Life, Northern Rock, RBS, and AIB.
Being a cynic I ever wonder which pillar of the economy could be next, and why-the-hell the Fraud Squad, 'the authorities' and 'the regulators' fail to intervene. Then I read the next issue of Private Eye and recognise the glaring truths.
Oh not the fucking RUSSIANS again.
Despite the fact that Nick "Tuition Fees" Clegg just cleared them of such on Facebook.
Are they "interfering" in Wimbledon this year? And how else to explain Sissoko's hand ball inside 30 seconds?......
When did Clegg gain the authority to “clear” anyone? From whom? In what capacity?
Oh not CLEGG again.
Oh not MONDAY again. We had Monday last week.
Oh not EASTENDERS again. We had EastEnders on Friday.
Oh not the WEATHER again. We had the weather this morning.
As of today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07f142k
Do keep up.
"Nick "Tuition Fees" Clegg just cleared them of such on Facebook."
Nick "Facebook stooge" Clegg just 'cleared' Facebook of not doing what Facebook does.
Nick "Facebook pays me shit loads" Clegg just cleared Facebook of doing what Facebook does.
The defamation letter relates to an alleged claim that the Russian govt offered Banks money. It has nothing to do with mendacity, lunches, reported business gossip or Banks' legal team. That's all circumstantial waffle. If the journalist has evidence that the Russian govt offered Banks money then Banks' suit will fail. If not it will succeed.
@ Anon 21:58
What! Not even a diamond or gold mine?
Even if he wins the case damages would be limited to the damage done to his reputation? Good luck with that!
Facebook has already admitted it was played by the Russians. Clegg is claiming- not "clearing" - that the Russian interference, adverts etc had no effect but how on earth could he possibly know one way oi the other ?. It's a totally nonsense claim but those Russians aren't stupid, they don't spend millions for no reason.
Speaking of Russia I'm always reminded of the philosopher Bertrand Russell who predicted in the 1950s re the USSR & the allies USA / UK that eventually the West would be come more like the East and visa versa.
In that sense he was right: the Stalinist revision of history is alive and well in the UK.
Can an unsolicited letter, which a LBA letter is, even tie you to its terms and conditions? That's like me sending a random rich person a letter saying that by reading the letter he's bound to all its terms and then inserting the clause "reading this letter incurs a fee of 20 million quid payable immediately".
Somehow I don't think such a clause - private/unpublishable - would be enforceable even if the muppet Wanks hadn't screwed his own pooch by handing over the details to Paul "semen" Stains.
Also the discovery for defence is going to be fun... so many unanswered questions, so many documents, so much damning evidence against Wanks, Wiggy, and Attic girl just waiting to be uncovered openly in a court of law instead of hinted at.
Proper belly laugh!
Hang on long enough and the Russian Embassy will be around to clear all Russian activity. OK?
By the way: as to Nick Clegg's credibility about Facebook: I am currently reporting a page to Facebook (it's the 3rd time in 3 months) also to the police- created months ago that is accessible in the UK that names several protected witnesses from a Family Court matter and for which this year a woman involved in the same matter was jailed for 9 years. The High Court has injuncted anyone in Britain repeating the falsehoods on that page which defames and cruelly attacks innocent people.
I could point out numerous current viscous antisemitic content currently on Facebook but it's not hard to find despite Mark Zuckerberg promising such content would be removed. Clegg is either naive, stupid or making false claims.
Facebook lies and lies repeatedly that it will remove such illegal content. It's bullshit and any claim by Clegg should be treated as bullshit.
I would post the link but in doing so I would be committing the same crime as Facebook.
Ah NOW I see.
It was the Russians, Nick "Tuition Fees" Clegg, Facebook AND YouTube (who last year also cleared the Russians)!
It wasn't Professor Plumb with a lead pipe in the library after all.
The Friends at Vauxhall Cross and the Langley Cowboys are going to be mighty pissed off at this development, as are the gumshoes in the J. Edgar Hoover Building. All that public money pissed up the wall for nothing, plus collective eye strain for bespectacled nerds poring over computer screens.
Oh my aching sides. The surveillance state at "work".
The LBA doesn't tie the journalist into anything, as you say. If Banks proceeds he will apply to the court after two weeks with proof of defamation - an extract from the journalist's talk, I'd imagine - pay the opening court fees and send the defamation forms to the journalist.
I haven't watched the journalist's talk but if the journalist does state that "We know the Russian govt offered money to Banks"...as Banks alleges, I would think a judge would request substantive proof for the claim.
I expect the journalist will take legal advice on whether a court would allow a broad character submission relating to Banks or if they'd insist on seeing specific proof. I think the latter is more likely and I think the journalist will retract.
You forgot Maria Butina, the NRA and THE RUSSIANS. It's so difficult to keep up with all things Manafort, Flynn, Trump and all those tax avoiding and money laundering oligarchs of the US, UK, Russia and beyond isn't it? Let alone those paedophiles let off lightly. Quids pro quo - the game in town isn't it?
Oh yes, let's add Deutsch Bank to the list. But then there are so many banks involved. Passports for various countries used for different purposes. No wonder Professor Plumb wasn't guilty after all. He just couldn't decide which target to aim at (being stuck in a library).
Trump Associates Inc - a multitude of charlatan and grifters/chancers most of whom apparently don't need security clearances (because they would fail the test).
Anybody got any actual evidence of ANYTHING?
Not wishful thinking.
Banks claims he has evidence of defamation.
You can watch the talk and weigh the evidence yourself.
Does the journalist say what he alleges?
Does the journalist have proof to support the claim.
That is NOT evidence of "interference". It is evidence of INTEREST. It would have been unusual to say the least if Russia had shown NO interest in the Brexit issue.
Nor, alternatively, does the "report" anywhere even mention the prospect of falsified Russian IPs - an easy enough operation for anyone with the basic knowledge and cyber assets to do it. And given exposure of US eavesdropping on supposedly allied leaders, plus notoriety of previous false flag proposals, whose to say they or any of their proxies didn't carry out such an operation. Would it really be so surprising if it was UK "intelligence" in full lapdog mode? After all, there are plenty of "dodgy" precedents......
Furthermore, paragraph 240 says this: "However, the Government made it clear that “it has not seen evidence of successful use of disinformation by foreign actors, including Russia, to influence UK democratic processes”. Damned out of its own mouth.
So let's see the EVIDENCE. Page views mean next to nothing. All the rest is boilerplate bullshit. It stinks of the same lies that got us into the mass murdering Iraq war.
'That is NOT evidence of "interference"'
You asked, 'Anybody got any actual evidence of ANYTHING?'
I had no idea that it was about "interference".
btw Success is irrelevant.
You are again referred to paragraph 240.
Which renders your sophistry irrelevant.
You don't get it. Fail.
btw Your English grammar is in need of improvement and your conspiracy theory is utter crap.
It'll be interesting to see your next effort at "evidence".
Especially if you "succeed" where MI5, MI6, the CIA, the DIA and the FBI have failed.
You troll people never learn. It's part of your "charm".
Please respond, in detail, with the points in Kingsley Napley's 'Letter Before Action' you think that you've addressed.
Got any EVIDENCE?
But good look with your "search".
The article is about lawyers for Arron Banks issuing a Notice Before Action and a 'foul up'.
It is not for me to gather evidence and I've no intention of doing what you do, i.e. post crap conspiracy theory.
Given your posting name, gathering EVIDENCE would be too inconvenient for you.
But a truly just and democratic society requires it in any search for truth. PRECISELY at times like this and especially in view of a public record which shows lies and deception by governments on both sides of the Atlantic over many years. Deception responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent lives and the destruction of whole nations. There's nothing "theoretical" about it.
Cavorting lawyers mean nothing until truth is established. Not, it appears, that you are bothered by that either.
Off you go then.
Only when you provide EVIDENCE.
In your own time.
Looting With Putin - Private Eye
So you have NO EVIDENCE, then.
OK that's enough.
Enough comments already.
I'm all in favour of having lots of comments, but this one is being driven round the houses to no purpose whatsoever.
Comments on this post are now closed.
Post a Comment