Labour’s campaign in Crewe and Nantwich appears to go from low to new low (James Schneider). It is the most unjustifiably bad behaviour I have seen since Birmingham Hodge Hill in 2004 (and there’s been some steep competition, believe me).
I’m fascinated that they are using “con man” on their literature. I’ve always understood this to be a definite no-no on election literature (even when using against a CONservative) as it creeps beyond the garden of mockery and legitimate criticism and into the realm of defamation. But then, I suppose there isn’t much point in suing a political party that is bankrupt.
The use of the “one of us” slogan is interesting. Is Dunwoody comparing herself to Margaret Thatcher here? Or is it intended to evoke memories of this iconic scene from Tod Browning’s Freaks:
It’s not worth suing Labour, but the hypocritical Ms Moyra Tamsin Dunwoody-Kneafsey has sufficient assets to make her worth venturing a few quid in legal fees. As candidate, she is publishing this undoubted libel . I am sure my learned friend Mr Timpson is above it, sadly. I would love to see her under cross-examination by someone better than the hapless journo who could only get her to admit that “The Prime Minister is the Prime Minister”.
Well, the person legally liable is her agent. And according to her website, her agent is “Chris Lennie, Acting General Secretary, the Labour Party”.
You are right. There is past precedent. The exact words “con man” have been found to be defamatory in another post-election libel case.
My professional advice if one of the party’s was my client? The odds are overwhelming that a jury will find these words to mean “confidence trickster” and defamatory. Unless it can be justified (i.e. proved to be true) the damages will be thousands.
Sadly, the use of the ‘one of us’ moniker was intended to play off the ‘Tories weak on immigration’ slant of the Labour campaign; to that extent the ‘Toff’ thing may have been there to provide cover for a slogan fit only for the BNP.