Libel Claims - So It IS About The Money

Twenty hours on, and still there is no sign of their legal setback on the Twitter feeds of Countdown numbers person Rachel Riley and her pal, minor thesp Tracy Ann Oberman, although a statement has been offered by their lawyer Mark Lewis. They attempted to sue barrister Jane Heybroek over a Retweet, were then unable to pony up any evidence of reputational damage, and ended up paying some of Ms Heybroek’s costs.

That last is most unusual in a defamation action. What is also unusual is the tardiness of our free and fearless press in reporting the matter. Mail Online, which had been so quick in reporting the earlier “meanings” hearing, to assert that Ms Riley and Ms Oberman had “won” that one, took another four hours to put out a report.

But now that Mail Online, the Guardian (see HERE), and others have reported the collapse of the much-vaunted action, two things have been made crystal clear. Here’s the first, courtesy of the Guardian: “In 2019 Heybroek had retweeted a link to a lengthy blog post by a man called Shaun Lawson entitled ‘Beneath Contempt: How Tracy-Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley harassed, dogpiled and slandered a 16-year-old child and her father’. The article made allegations about the actions of Oberman and Riley towards a young Labour activist who had made comments about antisemitism in the party”.

Although no mention is made of the fact that Shaun Lawson is Jewish (just a little relevant when Ms Riley and Ms Oberman have made their names synonymous with acting against allegations of anti-Semitism), the effect will be to promote, to amplify, Lawson’s comments. That may not be what the pair had in mind when they set out along this particular road.

The second and rather more important clarification comes as a result of Lewis’ statement, which may not be on his Twitter feed, or indeed the website of Patron Law, where he is a partner, but has been given out to the press and reported extensively.

Here’s what he said: “Tracy Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley chose not to proceed further after the Judge had determined that the opinion expressed was capable of being defamatory, in circumstances where Jayne Heybroek claimed that she had promptly deleted her retweet … Their libel insurers did not see any advantage in pursuing a case over the liability of a retweet that was deleted so quickly and therefore the insurer paid a very modest sum”. Continuing the case would mean spending their own money.

Do go on. “Regrettably the defamatory tweeter lives in South America and has no visible assets. There are bigger fish to fry, in the pursuit of those who choose to maintain a serious libel”. No Mark. Just no. That should read “the blogpost author who you claim has defamed your clients”. Now compare with what Lewis said last year.

OH WHAT A GIVEAWAY

“This is not about money … They’re not looking to enrich themselves by taking legal action. They’re looking to stop vile lies”. But they won’t go after someone they can’t extract money from. Also, Ms Riley has not helped matters with a Tweet telling “If anyone comes across any actionable libel about me, my lawyer [Mark Lewis] and I would be most interested. A lot of charities I support could use a few quid and I have no qualms generating it through compensation”. Not about money? It sodding well IS about money.

As in extracting it from others, but not spending it themselves. I’ll just leave that one there.

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

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet6