The case has been in the news this week, but only if you read the outpourings of the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog. There, readers were told in an alleged “Exclusive”, “Oh Carole! Admits Russia Claims Untrue, Agrees To Pay Banks’s Costs … Shocker! Cadwalladr Has: No Evidence, No Defence”.
The abuse is liberally trowelled on, as one might expect from The Great Guido. “Carole Cadwalladr finally admitted what we all knew, there was no evidence to back up her claims that the Russians financed the Brexit campaign or that Arron Banks was involved in shady deals with the Russians … admit it was all bollocks”. And there was more.
“Cadwalladr has avoided the humiliation of appearing in court this morning by submitting in writing an amended defence … Which is legalese for ‘it was all complete cock’n’bull’ … She has not stopped milking the crowdfunding mugs yet, Carole has learnt there are plenty of gullible idiots who still want to believe her fairy tales”. And more.
“Cadwalladr has tried to portray this legal case as some kind of freedom of the press battle, it wasn’t. She has for years made unchallenged allegations, which were motivated out of political malice. Finally she has had to admit they were untrue. A lucrative, prize winning, journalistic hoax”. Complete with the usual Fawkes shonky grammar, too.
But here a problem enters: if Banksy wants to dispel any suggestion that he is a little sensitive when Russia is mentioned, one look at who is running this story shows how not to go about it. For starters, who else has been trowelling on the claims about Ms Cadwalladr? Er, RT and Sputnik. OH WHAT A GIVEAWAY!
Also, as she has pointed out, Ms Cadwalladr has admitted nothing, and so the Fawkes claims are, er, at least partly “complete cock’n’bull”. Let’s consider what Bindmans, who are instructed by her in the matter, have said. “In December last year, the Judge made a decision about the single meaning of her statement about Arron Banks. In light of that judgment, Banks withdrew a significant part of his claim”. And there is more.
“Following clarification of the judgment in relation to the one remaining allegation, Carole has now withdrawn her truth defence, but, contrary to some reporting, has not made any admissions and stands by her public interest reporting. She will continue to defend the claim and we anticipate that the case will be heard at trial next year”.
All of which suggests that the Fawkes massive were briefed by someone not unadjacent to the slimy Andy Wigmore, who plays Sidney Falco to Banks’ J J Hunsecker. And that’s the problem with single sourced stories, especially where that source is, er, unreliable.
That’s quite apart from the gleeful pile-on against women journalists. Another fine mess.
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