Why Sugar is wrong

Anonymous so Sugar can't sue me

Oooh! Who's a touchy little computer salesman then!

salieri

Let's hope he sends back a classic Arkell v. Pressdram reply. (Younger readers may be unfamiliar with Private Eye's most memorable contribution to the literature of litigation: if so, look it up.)

Erik Bloodaxe

There can be no democracy where government ministers cannot be criticised.

Will B

If Sugar wants to be held in any kind of respect this isn't the way to go about it. In fact if he carries on like this he's doomed.

Sally Chatterjee

Sugar's appointment to government is backfiring faster than Delboy Trotter's Robin Reliant.

Andy Leeds

The whole business is proving, if proof were needed, that Alan Sugar is not fit to sit in the House of Lords and Quentin Letts comments fell within the bounds of 'fair comment'.

H&Fer

Well I never did! A bunch of journalists doing two extremely rare things - taking a moral stand, and sticking together. Whatever next?

Verity

This is what happens when you elevate individuals who are totally without merit in public service, like Alan Sugar, to the upper chamber. He's of a piece with "Lord" Ahmad who was going to "send round the boys" (10,000 of them) when Geert Wilders was invited, by a real lord, to show his film in the HoL.

Nasty, vicious bullies. If there's a fund for Quentin Letts, please publish the details. What was that QC's name who won for Paul McCartny against his bullying ex-wife Heather? She'd be a good one.

You won't run this because, no matter what your parents tell you when you're little, in adult life, bullies actually do often win.

Miles Robinson

Quite clearly Sugar is a peer who appears on the telly, & not a very eddifying spectacle he makes. There he regularly displays his intellect (or lack of) the quality of which must be a matter of subjective judgement, possibly inflenced by one's intellect! Indeed, it so ridiculous that such a public figure feels so slighted by such criticism that it seems perfectly reasonable to question his intellect on these grounds alone. Grow up Sugar & withdraw your wholly unjustified action.

The Bellman

Sarah Standing signed? He must be bricking it, and thanking his lucky stars you couldn't get Lisa Hilton to pitch in.

CS

The worst thing about this is the line: "and gives a written undertaking never to criticise him again".

It'd be breathtaking if we weren't well aware of the slanted nature of justice in this country. If you have the cash you can make any ridiculous demand you like, knowing that the other poor sod can't afford to go to court.

Matthew Paris got it spot on today when he remarked that there's more than a little hypocrisy here as Sugar is a man who has built his own media profile on publicly humiliating people on TV.

Publius

I suggest journalists follow Guido's lead and insult the vile creature en masse, on and on and on, louder and louder, and let him sue you all.

Tiberius

Just confirms Sugar's true self. Not that he has the capability to see it.

James

'and gives a written undertaking never to criticise him again.' So, no journalist (or anybody else- including coffee housers) can criticise politicians. Sounds like NuLab all over. Wouldn't they just love the ruling to be against Letts. Shameless and dangerous, the only three words historians will need to decribe this government.

Polly Gamma

He's an idiot.

Flemingcrag

With this bullying tactic of Baron Sugar Lump to sue Quentin Letts personally, it becomes crystal clear as to why Gordon Brown wanted him in his Cabinet.
They are perfect soulmates, this little Lump of nothing is a ready made replacement in Gordon's boys' own club for Damian McBride.
I hope this odious comparison does not offend Damian McBride that much that he would wish to sue me personally.

Nicholas

He's doing it as a trial run for his Labour chums so they can begin shutting down blogs and any other personal criticism - like saying Gordon Brown is a delusional basket case.

Sugar remains the classic example of why mixing politics, business and celebrity tat is such an invidious recipe. Esther take note.

Liz Brown

I have never watched Sralan's programme so I cannot comment on his behavour regarding the people who appear on it, but I can say that from the few times I have cuaght him on Tv or in references to him in the papers, that he comes across as utterly repellent and it would appear is distinctly lacking in any sense of perspective or humour whatsoever. Nor it would seem, does he have even the remotest idea of how he should conduct himself in public and in his new and shameful role as Peer. Good luck to Mr Letts who I gather has not(quite rightly in my opinion) deigned to respond to this ridiculous attack
Incidentally, can we the general public, call for the removal of Sraln's peerage under Jack Straw's latest intervention in the matter of removal of peerages - or is that an enabling action directed for the benefit of"he who must not be named" aka Mandelbum?

Paul B

Another assault on our freedoms, so show me where I can sign or donate to a fighting fund.

HJ

Surely this would never get as far as a court case? Wouldn't any judge just throw it out on the basis that it's not libellous, it's just opinion?

"Baron Sugar of Clapton", indeed. What a prat.

Northern John

Blimey. It didn't take him long to turn into the archetypal illiberal New Labour hypocrite.

For someone who makes his name out of insulting and humiliating people in front of millions, he's showing a remarkably thin skin. Perhaps that's why he needed the ermine coat.

Short the UK

I just don't understand why Mr Sugar is lauded as a "great" British businessman. He is not fit to polish Lord Weinstock's boots.

He seems to me a creation of spin, much like Mr Trump. Chancers and bluffers who love to be notorious. They have a nasty streak and deep down crave love.

Thus they are vindicitive men.

Jane

It is quite the most incredible insight into Lord Sugar.

Here is Letts' Saturday column:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1203505/QUENTIN-LETTS-Should-I-bow-Apprentice-politician.html

Scroll to the bottom of this piece and Andrew Alexander also mentioned it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1204309/ANDREW-ALEXANDER-Green-shoots-black-clouds-rosy-tints.html

Young Mr Paul

Lord Sugar of Bully should be stripped of his title and his boardroom chair lowered by 24 inches immediately.

All journalists should now commence digging into his past to find out exactly why he is so sensitive to criticism and afraid of what might be written

Horse

Perhaps some of the old contestants from The Apprentice could sue Lord Alan for libel? I'm sure they've got agreements with the BBC not to sue, but do they have agreements with Lord Alan and his disturbing cohorts?

Dave

By using his money to throw his weight around and try to stifle freedom of speech, Sugar is proving himself to be an enemy of democracy and a true Labour apparatchik.

Now his mask has slipped do we really want him on our TV screens posing as the straight-talking, no-nonsense businessman?

Moraymint

... I'm not a journalist, but please would you add my name to your list ... and invite Sugar to go to hell. Who is he exactly anyway?

Once again, Brown needs to answer for his characteristically fumbled and ill-judged decision-making in appointing a plonker like Sugar to Government.

chris

What exactly is Sugar's government job? Has he started it yet? Was it necessary to make him a Lord? Is it all a stunt?

Mark C

He really is a small man.

Frank P

The names missing from the list of signatories is revealing

Pete Hoskin

Frank P: Not everyone in or involved with the Speccie was asked to sign the letter. So the "missing names" are probably explained by that, rather than any refusal on their part.

Mr. Moanalot

Does this mean that anyone who complains to the BBC Trust about matters arising from his TV appearances might also now be liable to a libel action from Sir Alan? What about the existing complaints?

Trafalgar

Where are the Beeb journos? If Paxman, Robinson and Humphreys were on that list (no Andrew Neill?) and reported this on the national news, Sugar would have to climb down.

At the very least, ITV or Sky should take this up.

This could well end up as more egg on the face of this mendacious government.

Lady Mondegreen

Nooo! don't ask him to withdraw the threat - please, please set up a fighting fund so Letts can go to court and you can all be witnesses

Jamie

I am not sure what is libellous about Mr Letts's statement. In any event I am happy to make a small contribution to his defence.

The Oncoming Storm

Can give it out but can't take a word back, classic bully.

Simon Stephenson

Sugar's actions are confirmation, if any were needed, of what an exceptionally nasty piece of work he is, and that, as such, he is so well suited to being part of Gordon Brown's government that it's a major surprise that it took so long to get him there.

Dennis Sewell

Could one of our learned friends please explain what could conceivably be defamatory in what Quentin Letts said? "Telly peer"? Hardly likely to lower him in the estimation of right thinking folk to be classed alongside Lords Bragg and Winston, not to mention Lord Clark of Civilization. Not having "an enormous intellect"? Well, unlike the Spectator's editor, Lord S was never a fellow of All Souls, was he? No, nor were most of us. So no vile calumny there either. Or am I missing something?

Hack

Necessity knows no law, and neither do I, but half a lifetime at the sharp end in Fleet St tells me that common abuse is no libel, and if Lord Sugar's lawyers think they can get this one to stick they know even less law than I do.

George Laird

Dear All

Is it not nice to see so many defend Letts?

Could it be that this sudden interest maybe because others don't want to have one eye looking over their shoulders for future reference?

If you are going to say something in public then have the guts to accept what comes after it.

Letts made allegations so let him stand by them or withdraw them.

I wonder is this sudden concern about Letts is really more to do with his status rather than some noble cause.

Letts opened his yap too far that is the facts of the matter.

A Court of Law will allow Letts to prove his allegations, unless of course he is scared about spending his own money in legal fees?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

mac

"However, Lord Sugar has dispensed with this convention."

Given that Sugar wouldn't sparkle even in a bagful of Baldrickian dull things, one wonders who urged him to do so; his own lawyers or associates of the Brown Tendency?

Stevo

Sugar has shown himself-once again-to be a nasty little bully.

Old P

This is yet again a straight forward case of blackmail by a firm of solicitors - pay us a great deal of money or we will ruin you. Is it not about time an end was brought to such behaviour by the legal profession.

R King

Will the real Syd James stand up please!!!

Were the separated at birth?

Alistair Smallwood

This action by Sugar is very reminiscent of the bullying, intimidating manner of Robert Maxwell. I wonder what other characteristics he shares with that despicable crook.

trevorsden

Sugar is not a 'minister' as one correspondent says.

Its hard to see what he is or what is is meant to do. He has received a peerage to add a bit of supposed glamour to the personage of our Prime Minister.

Basically he is a property developer.

Paul Hughes

Yes, please would someone set up a fighting fund so we can help to defeat this revolting person..

john miller

Blimey Al, yer 'avin a larf intja?

I presume all the contestants in Dragon's Dim sign a waiver so that lil' Al can badmouth them all he likes.

So like the classroom bullies from all those years ago. They love to dish it out, but...

Fearless Frank

Gordon must be SO proud of how his protege is behaving while he's on hols.

Shame, really, I was prepared to like Sugar as the barrow-boy baron, but no, turns out he's just a bully-boy.
Hope I'm right in thinking that the courts can refuse to consider unreasonable claims, as this surely is.

2trueblue

Will it improve peoples opinion of him? Think not.

Austin Barry

From what I remember of law school, common abuse is not actionable. Surely Herbert Smith know this. I think we can all safely opine that Lord Sugar is a tosspot.

Graham Thomas

Who was that other "businessman politican" who had a liking of the courts? Oh of course Ján Ludvík Hoch.

Minnie Ovens

Boy! The truth hurts doesn't it Al?
A malevolent and vindictive barrow boy who got lucky.

EC

Sugar? Things can only get bitter!

Trumpeter Lanfried

I am afraid this is the sort of thing that happens when you allow NCOs into the officers' mess.

David Ossitt

If he ever had it; he has lost it now.

The man is toffee.

Moraymint

Trumpeter Lanfried ... as a retired commissioned officer myself, I'm not sure that the likes of Blair, Brown, Balls, Harman et al would ever have made it into my mess.

Sugar is behaving just like the dismal crew he's been roped in to join: pointless, self-centred incompetents.

And as for the NCO comment. I'm sure you'll agree that the NCOs of the British armed forces make Sugar appear to be what he is: a dodgy little spiv.

Lt Col Rupert Thorneloe: now we're talking officer material. People like Brown and Sugar don't even come close: they're meaningless nobodys, by comparison.

Nick

Quentin, you have my full support, and a significant donation to your fighting fund should that be required.

CH

We can now see why Sugar was so drawn to Labour, he's clearly from the same thin skinned and humourless mold.

George Laird

Dear Mr Hoskins

I wrote a post which did not appear as yet.

Is this entire thread devoted to replies that only support Mr. Letts or is dissent allowed?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Boudicca

Sir Alan was an entertaining reality TV show presenter - he's a relatively successful businessman But the ONLY reason Gordon Brown made him a Lord was to get a few cheap headlines and to appeal to the dumber members of the electorate.

Sugar is no more qualified to be a Lord than I am.

His managerial style appears to be humiliating subordinates and bullying anyone who tries to stand up to him. In that respect, he seems to fit quite nicely with the man in No.10 who appointed him. Other than that, he appears to be a throwback to an earlier time when women in business were there to serve the coffee and type the letters. Hardly the image NuLabour wants to promote, I would have thought.

If Quentin Letts gets sued, I'll be making my contribution to the fund.

Trumpeter Lanfried

Moraymint. I agree, of course.

Just couldn't resist my snide remark at Sugar's expense, but it was not to be taken too seriously.

Dirty Euro

He is right to sue him. You cannot hide behind multi million pound papers to lie about people. Letts gets on my nerves big time. Well done Sugar..

Dirty Euro

Basically the journalists are saying please allow me to hide behind a multi million pound company when i insult people to make money. Well tough luck I have no sympathy for the idiot. LOL

Dirty Euro

A few weeks ago Letts did a tv show about the people who are obsessed with Health and Safety, he seems to want a "take risks society". Well he took some risks, and now he will get his just deserts. Tough luck LOL. Now see how he likes it LOL. LOL.
This should teach the smug buffoon some manners.

Pete Hoskin

George Laird: we didn't block your comment at all. Truth is: we've been having techinical problems with comments on Coffee House all day - and we've noticed a gap in comments made between around 1730 and 1900. Apologies.

I've had a look in the system, and your original comment is there, so it should show up soon enough. I stress: we did not censor it out.

Incidentally, I no longer approve comments - my new deputy, David Blackburn, does. So if you ever have a problem with comments not showing, you can always email him on dblackburn @ spectator.co.uk

You're welcome to email me as well, of course. Although note: there's no 's' on the end of my name. It's phoskin @ spectator.co.uk

Dirty Euro

So the moral argument is the bigger the paper the more you can lie about people. On what planet is that morality. Journalists have no right to lie about people. You cannot hide behind a big company. I do not like the way Letts insults people it serves him right LOL.

Why are people bothered about Letts?.

MelJones

If Quentin Letts needs a fighting fund, I will donate, only a small amount obviously this current (but soon to be rid of, please G*d) useless shower in power have made sure of that . But as a deep admirer of of Hogarth, Gillray, Scarfe and all those who seek to pop a pin in to the the arrogance and conceit of those people who feed off of us and yet are too stupid, weak, or afraid to take a bit of p*ss taking in return, I feel i should stand up and be counted. Good luck Mr Letts, I don't always agree with you but your voice should be heard, as for Alan Sugar - respect cannot always be paid for you know, but contempt is free.

Pete Hoskin

George Laird: just to confirm - your original comment is now showing.

gmc

Who is this 'Alan Sugar' anyway?

Oh, you mean the 'Crappy-Products Guy' -

Gotcha.

Alastair

Open a fund to take this to court - I'll donate!

Jeremy

So let me get this straight...

One: It's Sugar against Letts.

Two: It's Labour against The Daily Mail.

Three: It's Labour against the freedom of journalists and bloggers to criticise them.

So the action has two political aspects but only one personal aspect.

It sounds like a typical socialist attempt to "engineer" the law in their own favour. Letts should fight the case because the court, if it has any sense (and that is the gamble), will see the thing for what it is and decide in his favour.

That's my view, anyway.

Ben Elford

In other circumstances the sentiments expressed in the Spectator letter would be entirely fitting.

However, I wonder if such a risible outburst from this preposterous little man merited anything more than an embarrassed silence.

Derek

To elaborate Austin Barry's apt comment at 7:37pm, what does it say about Messrs. Herbert Smith, the firm of solicitors who apparently advised Lord Sugar that he has an action in libel against Mr. Letts based on the comments of Mr. Letts of which we have so far been made aware? And what does it say, further, about the intelligence of Lord Sugar that he would accept such advice and act on it, whether it was correct in law or not? If we English still have the power to make our own laws, one penalizing the threatening of frivolous and vexatious libel suits should be high on the agenda of the incoming Conservative government - after the holding of the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty of course. Laird, in Glasgow, no doubt has a firm grasp of our legal system in opining that Mr. Letts' comments WERE libellous, and we therefore look forward to his organization coming to the aid of Mr. Letts with a fund to allow the latter to bring a libel action against our tame leftist troll, Dirty Euro, for calling Mr. Letts "the idiot" and suggesting that he had been "insulting people to make money". A CoffeeHouser, however, who tops and tails his posts with "Dear All" and "Yours sincerely, George Laird" seems to be a bit of a pompous old Scotch wombat along the lines of our Dear Leader and probably could not be trusted to put his organization's funds where his mouth is. Oh dear, hope this won't lead to threats of action against the Spectator - it might have to increase my subscription or perhaps, like some Chinese website, hand me over to the authorities who would force me to prove that Laird (and possibly the Dear Leader) is (1) pompous (2) old (3) Scotch and,most difficult of all, (4) a wombat. B
By the way, why is it necessary to have a campaign for Glasgow University human rights - are they so under attack at that establishment?

Derek

@ salieri. Arkell v. Pressdram? Spot on! Stare decisis et non quieta movere.

Ray

It's just as well Michael Martin didn't sue Quentin Letts for libel over all the 'Gorbals Mick' jokes he has told. The erstwhile Speaker could then have bought his grace-and-favours mansion on the proceeds rather than just having it re-wallpapered.

Andy Leeds

Matthew Parris The Times says 'welcome to politics, Lord Sugar. Ever heard of common abuse, you pathetic ninny?' Quite so.

I hope Quentin Letts doesn't back down. Let it go to court and I am sure it will be thrown out as frivolous and an abuse of the court. Sugar should grow up. He certainly has no place in public life.

Pete Wass

It's a rare cause which unites Rusbridger and Staines, and in this case a good one. Sugar is nothing more than a pathetic bully (speccie feel free to provide my email address if he wants to make contact to sue me) who discredits he peerage and should be sent back to the rock he crawled from forthwith. (minus the title.)

EC

Sir Alan probably won't enjoy the satirical mash-up of "The Apprentice" which is on YouTube at present. You can find it by typing "Bloody Apprentice" into the YouTube search box.

It is only 6 minutes long but must have taken 100's of hours of tele-watching and video editing.

Peter Laing

@ Graham Thomas - had to look that one up - the Bouncing Czech! (For younger readers Robert Maxwell, notorious bully who resorted to writs to muzzle critics)

In Sugar's case its striking how someone so fearless in dishing out vulgar abuse 'on the telly' should be so thin skinned when on the receiving end. And one does wonder at The Dear Leader relying on the advice of someone who declared in 2005 that the iPod would be 'dead within a year'......

Old P

If it goes to court it is very unlikely the judge will throw it out, he will at least hear it through. In fact there will likely be pre-trial hearings where many judges go through the motions only to defer it to a later day. At each hearing Sugar will be represented by a team of solicitors and a barrister. All in all the costs will run to many hundreds of thousands even before the trial itself starts.

If Sugar wins he gets nothing, the only winner in this is his solicitor who put up Sugar to it all (good legal advice blah blah blah)

Being the only beneficiary (other than possibly a charity) they are effectively using Sugar for purposes of blackmail in order to gain a very large sum of money.

The biggest fool is Sugar himself for allowing his reputation to go down the drain for no better reason than to line the pockets of the legal profession - the man must be half-witted or crave publicity at any cost.

Count me in for a donation.

Ivy Eileen

@ Derek @ 6.41 re: George Laird -

Bravo. This has been needed to be said for some time.

Regarding Sugar - what an intellectual pigmy. Where's the fighting fund ?

Fearless Frank

Is it possible that Lord Peter of all those places will have a word in his ennobled fellow's cauliflower-like?
He seems to be bringing the Lords, the party, and politics in general into disrepute - three feats which had looked impossible.

skingers

Write to Lord Sugar at:

The Lord Sugar
House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW

Tel: 020 7219 5353

Jane

I am disappointed at many of the names of journalists I respect have supported the odious Mr Letts. He is a nasty, vindictive little man who continually crosses the line of good taste in his writing. I hope Alan Sugar (I am not a fan)takes action and also wins.

George Laird

Dear Derek

I appear to have rattled your cage.

"A CoffeeHouser, however, who tops and tails his posts with "Dear All" and "Yours sincerely, George Laird" seems to be a bit of a pompous old Scotch wombat along the lines of our Dear Leader and probably could not be trusted to put his organization's funds where his mouth is".

Disappointed that you have decide to play the race card.

I am not "scotch" that is the generic term for whisky; I am Scottish.

Also as the Coffee house team has asked me not to go into details regarding my campaign you can visit my blog and read for yourself.

When people start with the racism it goes too far.

Will you be attacking Jane @10.42 am or will you take a view she is English?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

George Laird

Dear Peter Hoskin

Sorry for the misspelling of your name.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Frank P

EC

Thank you for You Tube link "Bloody Apprentice". It should do more good (harm)to Lord Spiv of Spittalfields than the somewhat flaccid letter quoted above, as he seems to be vulnerable to lampooning. It captures his persona perfectly.

Jane

Ooo-er! A friend of Hattie Harpserson I presume?

skingers

"Write to Lord Sugar ..."

...but post it without a stamp. Better still, don't waste your time. It will only further feed the already gargantuan ego of this short-arsed little barrerboy.

Bide you time folks, this pantomime of a government is nearing the end of its run. However, I dunno about you lot but I've yet to book my ticket for the next production. On current predictions, the script (and the cast) seems terribly lightweight.

Captain Ahab

George, you arent writing a letter, you are replying to a forum post. Putting Dear X and signing every post makes you look like pompous.

CJ Lucey

Maybe, by breaking precedent and threatening Letts alone (rather than the media outlets in which his story appeared), Sugar is revealing that he is not so dim-witted as Letts might think?

SelfAppointedSpokesmanForThePeople

What a remarkable display of toy throwing.

Everyone knows he is just a short arsed idiot who looks like a troll so why bother?

Nick Kaplan

Once again George Laird demonstrates just how far his campaign for ‘human rights’ actually goes. Not only has he again seen fit to suggest that we have no right to free speech, but now he seeks to display his disregard for a right to a fair trial by stating “a Court of Law will allow Letts to prove his allegations.”

Of course Letts will not have to ‘prove his allegations’ because, fortunately and probably against the wishes of Laird and his fellow travellers in our government, British courts are still bound by the principle ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ It is thus Lord Sugar who will have to prove the falsity of Letts’s allegations and not vice versa.

Also, I was always led to believe that Scottish was a nationality, not a race, but I suppose that George Laird is just one of those people who are professionally offended (most often on behalf of others), a purpose for which it is quite useful to invent new races on whose behalf he can take offence. Grow up George, and get over yourself you pompous arse!

Scottish Cheeselog

@ George Laird: race card? Scottish or Scotch (equally valid - look it up) is not a race, it's a nationality. Do grow up a bit, you're getting us a bad name.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, libel is defined as: "the publication of a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation". I can't see how Quentin Letts’ statement is libellous. Impolite, certainly, but not libellous. Miles Robinson in the comments above puts it perfectly.

As to Baron Sugar of Clapton, if he can't take abuse, he shouldn't dish it out. He’s damaging his own reputation far faster than Quentin Letts can possibly manage.

Verity

George Laird, you're wrong. The term for the race/nationality is Scotch or Scots. Scottish is also used by pedants like your good self, but the correct word is Scotch or Scots.

logdon

The Campaigner for Human Rights at Glasgow University now posts over on Guido.

Anyone interested in how this 'man for all seasons' ferret operates will see his mask of correcteness drop as he attempts to get down with the boys over there.

Off goes the educated uni pretence and on comes his inner Glaswegian sheet metal worker.

Which is Jekyll and which is Hyde?

The man is in need of medication.

Many of the Guido fans agree.

Verity

Y'all are right about Scotch/Scots being a nationality, not a race, in a sense, but Celts (which includes the Bretons, the Irish and Welsh) are a separate branch of Caucasian, though, I think. Differing from the Anglo-Saxons, for example.

Archie

Verity: the last time I looked they were agitating for a fighting fund to deal with the ghastly little vulgar prat over on Guido. Moraymint: spot on!

salieri

@Nick Kaplan,

Er, mille scuse but you're not quite right here (in the first 2 paragraphs). A defendant in a libel action does have to prove the truth of his comments in order to escape liability (there is no guilt or innocence in civil courts) but only of course once the words are found to be defamatory. As many contributors have pointed out (pace the human rights movement for the Scotch industry) suggesting a lack of intelligence is not defamatory. He can also, regardless of justification, plead qualified privilege in reporting a matter of public interest.

Surely the newspaper will cover his costs anyway?

Two fingers, then, all the same.

David Ossitt

Dirty Euro

I am getting more than a little annoyed with your badly written left wing rants.

This time you attack Quentin Letts for lying about that most objectionable shyster
and TV personality Alan Sugar.

The facts are that “Lord Sugar is threatening to sue Quentin Letts for calling him stupid and for suggesting that he only got his peerage and government job because he is a TV personality”

The charge of him being stupid; is born out as a fact by him threatening to sue, only a very stupid man would sink to such depths.

The suggestion that his peerage was as a result of him being a TV personality, can neither be proved nor disproved, but the majority would think that this was just another example of our great leader trying to harness the popularity of an other for him reflect in the glory of.

Ask yourself just one question; what possible use can the questionable talents of this man Sugar be put to for the public good?

You ask; "Why are people bothered about Letts?" you silly man the answer is simple.

Letts; is one of the good guys.

logdon

Verity
August 7th, 2009 5:31pm

Reminds me of a story of when Richard Burton, drinking in a Scottish hotel was pestered by a drunk who proclaimed, pronouncing with the S of Glasgow Celtic,'I'm a Celt too'.

Burton's riposte, pronounced with a K, No, I'm a Celt, but you are an total sunt."

Much better in the telling. As they say, you'd have had to be there.

Derek

George Laird. Actually, I was playing the wombat card.

David Ossitt

Jane.

"He is a nasty, vindictive little man who continually crosses the line of good taste in his writing. I hope Alan Sugar (I am not a fan)takes action and also wins.

Your post is a thoroughly disgraceful, you accuse Quentin Letts of being a nasty little man, when in fact he is the exact opposite, he is nice, he is kind, and he is honest.

Sugar is the nasty little man.

You say Quentin is vindictive; when the facts prove quite the opposite, it is that stupid little man Alan Sugar who is being vindictive in that he is disposed to seek revenge.

Fearless Frank

Jane and others taking Sugar' side on the grounds that they don't like Letts:

If Sugar were to win this case, it would effectively outlaw commentary of any kind - on politics and anything else.

Derek

What if Lord Sugar and Messrs. Herbert Smith's tactics are more devious and sinister than we give them credit for. After all, without a deeper motive, it is hard to believe that any serious solicitor would give the time of day to his client's request to bring an action for libel based on the quoted comments of Mr. Letts.

Sugar and Smith, let us suppose, know that the accusation of libel against Mr. Letts' is not good in law, i.e. rubbish; but their aim is not to obtain damages from Mr. Letts, it is to break the convention that only the publisher of the alleged libel be the target of the action rather than the journalist whose comment is published. They wish, perhaps, to curtail free speech, in particular criticism of government ministers or the corrupt actions of party members etc,but in the least expensive most low-profile manner available. They therefore seize on a statement of "common abuse", as another poster has it, knowing that the threat of an action will have to be abandoned, since if it were pressed, Sugar would be made a laughing stock, but knowing also that the threat itself and the breach of the convention will provoke hesitation among writers when drafting articles robustly critical of the authorities. The writers will then, as in China for instance, become "self-censoring" to a degree. Meanwhile, the stage will have been set for a substantial action at some later date on more arguable grounds against a more important target(sorry Mr. Letts)without the fuss which has attended this initial breach of the convention. The ground will have been prepared. The convention has been broken; people will not react so strongly the second and third time; the next action might even be brought, argued, and in front of a compliant judge (were any such to exist in the future) won or the defendant cowed into settling for substantial damages because he could not afford the legal fees for a full hearing.

If this is the real aim of the outrageous threat by Lord Sugar, then Mr. Letts should consider how he might get the matter into court to establish a precedent which would transmute what is at present only a convention into a binding principle of law, namely that anyone bringing an action for libel in respect of comments in a publication by a writer MUST bring the action against the publisher and cannot bring it against the writer individually? Perhaps a lawyer up to speed on the present position in English law on this point could comment?

George Laird

Dear All

It seems that Nick Kaplan has over done himself; he must think this is a Melanie Phillips thread.

“Grow up George, and get over yourself you pompous arse!”

Is the Spectator now competing with Guido by allowing posters to throw abuse?

He must still be upset from when I put his 'heroine' in her place by tearing down her outpourings.

Go back to the lovefest blog that bans free speech Kaplan that is all you are good for, cheerleading.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Roy Bohan

So, why don't all the signatories to this letter repeat the Quentin Letts allegations, word for word, in print. Sugar and co wil then either have to choose to pursue one person, ie Quentin Letts, or everyone that has said the same things. IF it goes to court and Sugar is only pursuing an action against Letts then he would have to explain why he is only going for one. If the allegations are said by many many others is he really going to send a letter to each and every one threatening the same thing?

It will be like the end of Life of Brian when he gets his pardon and everyone is suddenly called Brian.

Lets see if the signatories to the letter have got the guts to say the same as Quentin Letts and see where we go from here.

Thomas Rossetti

I'm delighted to see so many people come out in support of Quentin Letts. I just hope that the case does go to court so that Lord Sugar can be exposed as the vile man he genuinely is. How do I contribute to Letts's Fighting Fund?