Shooting, moi?
Sir: We act for Cherie Blair.
We are instructed with regard to an article… The Spectator’s Notes by Charles Moore (28 November). It alleged that our client attended a shooting party at Lord Rothschild’s house in Buckinghamshire with ‘Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan dictator, and the man who escorted the Lockerbie bomber, Al Megrahi, home to a hero’s welcome in Libya in August.’
Plainly, this article is highly defamatory of our client as, in suggesting our client was at this shooting party with Saif Al-Islam Gaddaffi [sic], you have alleged that our client was, socialising or ‘rubbing shoulders with’ an individual who, in your words, is ‘a member of the family responsible for the biggest terrorist atrocity ever committed against British citizens.’
Contrary to what you suggest, our client was not present at the shooting party and was not at Lord Rothschild’s house at any time whilst Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi was in attendance. Indeed, our client has never attended a shooting party in any location nor has she ever met Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi.
In light of our client’s well known position as a leading human rights lawyer and also being married to the UN’s special envoy to the Middle East, the suggestion and direct inference you make is clearly very damaging to her professional and personal reputation. The allegation you made has caused considerable upset and embarrassment for her.
If you had contacted our client before publishing the article, she could have informed you that she had not been present at the shooting party attended by Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, and had only dined with members of the Rothschild family.
Within 14 days, we require your confirmation that you will agree to the following:
1. An Apology to our client to be published in your Magazine and online, the terms and the prominence of which need to be agreed with us in advance;
2. An undertaking not to repeat the allegations or similar allegations to that effect;
3. An undertaking that you will take all necessary steps to procure the removal of any online repetition of the allegation complained of;
4. You will make a proposal to pay compensation to our client for the damage that has been done to our client’s reputation, both personal and professional; and
5. Payment of client’s legal costs,
We look forward to hearing from you by the deadline stated.
Atkins Thomson Solicitors
London WC2
Charles Moore responds, page 11
No complaints
Sir: I must take issue with Toby Young’s sweeping statements concerning public sector employees (Status Anxiety, 28 November). As a retired civil servant I am perhaps a little biased. But in the past few years I have had to deal with a number of public sector employees, including at HMRC, the DWP, Jobcentreplus, the pension service, the NHS, as well as local government staff in two different councils. I have encountered nothing but friendly, helpful staff who were able to sort my problems out quickly.
Jerry Emery
West Sussex
Trusting the consensus
Sir: We must be thankful that Mr Rifkind is just a ‘writer for the Times’ and not in a position to take decisions. By extension, for the same reasons that he gives for agreeing with the ‘climate change consensus’, he would have approved the plans for the Scottish parliament building (‘I know nothing about architecture, and it is by an expensive architect’); collect modern art (‘I can see nothing in it, but a lot of experts say it is profound’); be a fervent religious believer (‘all those priests cannot have been wrong for so long’); be terrified that he might catch Aids from a woman (‘the experts say everybody is equally vulnerable’), or avian flu (‘they say there will be a pandemic’). Unfortunately there are people like Mr Rifkind in government, unwilling to come to unfashionable conclusions, and ready to follow the herd, at public expense, rather than examine the evidence.
Roderick Adams
Dalkeith, Midlothian
Warped analogy
Sir: I was interested to read Professor Philip Murphy’s letter about the benefits of hindsight (21 November). His analogy between 1970s-1980s South Africa and the Soviet Union illustrates how warped the thinking of the ‘intellectual class’ can still be. Does he forget that throughout apartheid, the International Committee of the Red Cross did have access to political prisoners? If he likes analogies, Professor Murphy should find out how often Solzhenitsyn, Bukovsky or Father Dimitri Dudko met the ICRC in the Gulag. But the dishonesty in Professor Murphy’s analogy goes deeper. Does he mean to imply that, in the same way Labour muppets returning from the Kremlin dreamed of applying Soviet splendour to Her Majesty’s Government, so the Conservatives coming back from Pretoria yearned to institute an apartheid-style regime in Britain?
Basile Kotschoubey
Belgium
I have been warned
Sir: James Delingpole is right to identify the English horror of appearing racist which seems to have replaced our previous overwhelming anxiety — that we might be suspected of enjoying sex (‘You know it makes sense’, 28 November). This was brought home to me when, as a sole practitioner solicitor, I was required to submit an ‘Anti-Discrimination Policy’ to the Legal Services Commission. My first draft, ‘I will never wear my Klan robes in Court’, was vetoed by my wife who, probably correctly, thought that the New Puritans might not be amused. I was allowed the following po-faced alternative. ‘On the first occasion I find myself discriminating, I will send myself a written warning; on a second occasion, I will dismiss myself.’ Not only was this passed without comment, but has been adopted by several similarly placed colleagues. We have moved beyond parody.
Martin Sewell
Kent
Comments