Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Lib Dem supporter at Mayoral Debate an actor?

This evening they've just finished filming the London Mayoral candidates in a debate to be screened on the television on Thursday night. As to be expected the Mayor had ensured that his people were in the room to ask nothing but personal attack questions of Boris Johnson. This included raising the whole Darius Guppy incident from eons ago.

The Lib Dems joined in with attacks too of course. Well all apart from one of their number that is. Word reaches me that sitting at the back near James Cleverly was one gentleman wearing a yellow rosette who wasn't a Lib Dem at all. He was in fact an actor roped in because the Lib Dems couldn't muster a fall compliment of supporters for the debate.

The actor was apparently rather upset that he was forced to wear a yellow rosette and was subjected to some mild piss-taking from some of the people sitting around him who kept on reminding him that he just had to be a method actor and it would be alright. Isn't it good to see that Brian Paddick enthuses his own side so much they can make it to the TV studios to support him?

Update: According to "Grant from ITV" in the comments, the audience member in question wasn't an "actor", he was just a random person in the building for something else who they used to fill the seats and gave a yellow rosette too. No forcing of the rosette was involved.... it wouldn't be very liberal after all!

21 comments:

Kevin Davis said...

Acting has always been a part of being a Lib Dem.

How else can they get away with saying one thing on one door step and another on the next?

Anonymous said...

do you have any evidence for this dizzy? if not, i'd take it down sharpish as it is libellous to paddick

dizzy said...

Which bit would that be then? What is libellous?

dizzy said...

Better sue James Cleverly too.

Anonymous said...

Dizzy, Dizzy, don't get all defensive. I'm not interested by what Mr Cleverly has to say. I'm talking to you. And as you ought to realise, saying 'someone else said it first' is no legal defence. The libel here is clear – that Paddick lacks support in his own party to the extent that they're employing people. This is an allegation of professional incompetence, basically, and might damage his prospects, leading to loss of earnings, status and future prospects. It's very basic media law and if you're going to run a bloody good blog, like you do, you need to make sure you're as good at this stuff as the hacks you're writing alongside.
And before you start to say you're only doing this as a private citizen, that's no defenece in the law either.
Best,
A WellWisher
(who happens to be a solicitor, too)

Anonymous said...

by the way just cast eye over cleverly, and it doesn't actually libel anyone, and though there'd probably be grounds for some complaint or redress, certainly not for damages. For your info, he'd count as an opponent of paddick, too, should anyone worry about your source.

dizzy said...

"The libel here is clear – that Paddick lacks support in his own party to the extent that they're employing people."

Errrr what a crock of shit. I didn't say Paddick employed anyone, go back and read it again with your solicitor's eye.

I said that one of the men wearing a Lib Dem rosette was aactually an actor who was roped in because the Lib Dems could not muster a full compliment of supporters for the debate. Fact.

I then pointed out that it was "good to see that Brian Paddick enthuses his own side so much they can make it to the TV studios to support him". What I did not say was it's "good to see that Brian Paddick enthuses his own side so much they can make it to the TV studios to support him so he has to employ actors".

So stick that up your legal pipe and smoke it. Learn the difference between your inference and the reality of what has been written.

dizzy said...

As for the "private citizen" defence, I wouldn;t dream of using it because there is nothing to defend. I did not say what you have said I said. Simple as that really.

dizzy said...

Just for clarification again in case you're not sure. I mentioned Brain Paddick _once_ and simply said:

"Isn't it good to see that Brian Paddick enthuses his own side so much they can make it to the TV studios to support him?"

How that translates to "Brian Paddick employed an actor to sit in the audience because he has no internal party support" is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

you're in the wrong, legally, dizzy. inference, if desired by the author, is still no good, and you should remember that too.

dizzy said...

I'm not talking about my inference, I'm talking about yours. Read it again s l o w l y ... what you say I have said I did not say. You have inferred a meaning that simply does not exist in the words I have written.

You claim that the libel is "Paddick lacks support in his own party to the extent that they're employing people." I did not say that> I said Paddick failed to enthuse his own party enough to fill the studio. I did not say Paddick or the Lib Dems employed the actor, period.

If you're so fucking confident then quote the part that says either the Lib Dems or Brian Paddick employed an actor. If you can't then go fuck yourself with a broom handle.... slowly.

Trixy said...

And wouldn't it be up to Mr Paddick to prove otherwise? That would be an interesting case to watch!

Grant said...

I work for ITV and I was at the recording of the debate last night.
Having spoken to the production team I can clarify the situation regarding the audience member being discussed.

He was not an 'actor' and was not 'upset' and was not 'forced' to wear a rosette.

He was at the studios as an audience member for another debate also being recorded later last night.

Because a Lib Dem supporter was unable to attend at short notice, he was asked if he would sit in the spare seat among the Lib Dem supporters, purely to fill the empty space in the studio audience.

He did not contribute to the programme other than filling a space that would have otherwise been empty.

dizzy said...

Marvellous, so my use of the word "actor" was wrong, but the non-Lib Dem nature of the guy and the fact he wore a rosette whilst not being a supporter because the Lib Dems left a spare seat was right.

Lucky thing I didn't say anyone was paid even if some idiot solicitor reckons I did.

Anonymous said...

Employed doesn't mean that you have been paid, Dizzy my friend.

dizzy said...

That would be a valid point to make had I said someone was employed accept.. oh look.. I didn't! Next!

dizzy said...

Incidentally, was that anonymous the same anonymous crap solicitor or a different anonymous?

Goddard deceased said...

Dizzy FFS dont get involved with that junior articled clerk who is playing Paddick's white knight whilst no doubt debiting some poor client for time spent on threatening you. He is a silly tosspot. Sadly true of many who support his party.

Anonymous said...

dizzy darling, you didn't say 'employed', i did. then you said 'lucky thing i didn't say anyone was paid, even if some idiot solicitor reckons i did'. And I said 'I didn't say paid; I said employed', not the same thing.
I do think you might try to keep up if you're going to bother fighting a losing corner on a sticky wicket.
- oh and goddard, i'm making a packet, yes!

dizzy said...

What anonymous solicitor says he said - "And I said 'I didn't say paid; I said employed', not the same thing."

What anonymous solictor actually said - "Employed doesn't mean that you have been paid"

Anonymous solicitor then said - I do think you might try to keep up if you're going to bother fighting a losing corner on a sticky wicket.

Something tells me it is not me that needs to keep up. After all, I am not the one that is misquoting myself in the same thread. If you do really make lots of money you must be a good con artist because frankly if you were my solictor I'd be shitting myself.

Let's look at the evidence. First of all you say the post is libelous and then cite content that simply didn't and doesn't exist as being the part that is actionable. Then later on you state that you said something that you did not whilst the evidence of your own words is above for all too see (unless you delete them out of shame and embarassment of course).

At this point it is worth noting that the challenge to quote the libelous content of the original post still remains open to you, but you seem to have entered the thread once more and ignored that point. So just in case you missed it the first time. Quote the libelous section which illustrates that I said Paddick or the Lib Dems employed an actor or go fuck yourself with a broom handle slowly.... darling.

doncha hate money-grubbing lawyers said...

To anonymous solicitor
Piss off you boring twat.