Carole Cadwalladr, Lawsuits, And Misogyny

The perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog were in jubilant and aggressive mood yesterday, as they trumpeted the headline “Appeal Court Rules Against Carole Cadwalladr”, along with annotating a photo of their target with the one word caption LOSER. Then followed Warby LJ’s ruling allegedly in favour of their pal Arron Banks.

Carole Cadwalladr

The deeply unsavoury Banks had mounted an appeal against his earlier loss, with The Great Guido proclaiming “Warby’s ruling in favour of Banks says that this kind of appeal will ‘rarely’ be disturbed in the absence of an ‘error of principle potentially critical to the outcome’. A high bar, nonetheless the Appeal Court rules Judge Steyn was in error … Banks also won damages to be assessed in respect of publication of the TED Talk”. Sounds like a victory.

This news caused the not at all crafty Darren Grimes, officially too stupid to fill in a form properly, to leer “The Guardian's Carole Codswallop became the darling of the anti-Brexit lobby in Britain when she published accusations of dodgy data, electoral fraud and Russian collusion.” There was more, sadly.

"She was part of a cabal that almost ruined my twenties. Today she was found out”. Given a choice between Guardian and Observer, Dazza chose poorly. As the Tweeter known as My Sweet Landlord pointed out, “That £675,315 you found under your pillow nearly ruined your twenties. As for being a failed YouTuber and a sacked TV presenter, that was all your own work”.

The same Tweeter was there when Banksy claimed “the appeal court found I had been defamed, suffered serious harm & they award unspecified damages. You can’t really ask for more vindication than that. The Russia allegations were always confected lies spread by [Carole Cadwalladr] and others that hated Brexit”. Because that wasn’t all that happened.

“Er, not exactly. You did ask for more than that and didn't get it. Two out of three ain't bad”. Two out of three to whom? Ms Cadwalladr had the answer. “The Court of Appeal has ruled. I've won on 2 of 3 important grounds of principle. Most importantly, the landmark public interest ruling is intact. The judge's findings of fact are intact. The original judgment holds”. Hmmm.

Sounds a bit different to what Banksy and his pals chez Fawkes are claiming. And there was more. “It has ruled that after the NCA concluded its investigation in April 2020, the continued publication of the TED talk caused him serious harm. Only guess what? That 'continued publication' has nothing to do with me! I'm not the publisher. And the court even *acknowledges* this”.

It's cost me how much already? Oh SHIT

Bit more complicated than Banks and his cheerleaders pretended. But do go on. “But this is a technical judgment that concerns just 100k views of the TED talk after April 2020, not the 4.3million who saw it before. But to be absolutely clear: this is a minor skirmish. I won the case. The judge's ruling, on everything else, holds”. Might this be costly for The Bad Boy Of Brexit?

Carole reckons so. “As ever, Banks and his henchmen are desperately trying to clutch victory from the jaws of defeat. Absurd to suggest this is any way a win for him. It's cost him £2m+ to have a judge establish that he'd misled the public over his (extensive) relationship with Kremlin officials”. Banks must have deep pockets. Or he knows someone else who does.

Also, one aspect of this case has to be stressed, and that is the obvious and, indeed, dripping misogyny. The Fawkes mob’s “LOSER”, Grimes’ leering, and Banks’ claim of victory, all allied to Banks’ choice of target, confirm it. As Carole says, “Why didn't Banks sue TED? Or [the Observer] which first published the words?” Because, as the says, the case is a SLAPP.

What that? Wiki definition begins “Strategic lawsuits against public participation (also known as SLAPP suits or intimidation lawsuits), or strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition”.

All backed up with the sneering misogyny of The Great Guido and his pals, including Banksy himself, his slippery and deeply untrustworthy pal Andy Wigmore, creeps like Darren Grimes, and the rest of the unappealing convocation of Brexiteers who would rather no-one shine a light too closely upon what really went on with the various Leave campaigns back in 2016.

And they’re still rewriting history. But not, thus far, with much success.

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 becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton