rod liddle

[atrollope]

The Judge in the Stephen Lawrence trial gave strict instructions to the Jury
that they must not read the current issue of The Spectator magazine.
The Spectator,and the writer Rod Liddle have been referred,by the Judge,
to the Attorney General,for possible contempt of court.

With the cost of putting together this trial,and the many years waiting for
the Lawrence family,and the Country,to see Justice done,why,and to what
end,did The Spectator publish and Rod Liddle set out to predjudice the case?

[Messi_Ten]

What are the Spectator and Rod Liddle saying?

[andrew1707]

Nice try, Messi !!!

But we don't want to see Atrollope also done for contempt, do we!

[Messi_Ten]

The judge told the jury, "I direct you not to read it."

Yeah right.

[emmie]

he is some piece of work, going on the stuff i just looked at you would take him for a right wing member of the BNP.

[jno]

the Spectator likes to push the envelope, and Liddle is a "controversial" columnist. Presumably the judge thought they pushed it too far on this occasion. It can be hard to know in advance what sort of comment is acceptable and what isn't; the judge doesn't tell you until after you're in print. So I doubt they set out to prejudice the case.

(I don't read it so I don't know what the article said.)

[jno]

from the Guardian:

Liddle has been referred to the Attorney General for possible contempt of court.

Which means what?
That a) he might have risked prejudicing the trial of two men charged with the murder of Stephen Lawrence. And b) the Spectator could face a five-figure fine.

What does it say?
[Redacted] and [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted].

What a rookie error. Presumably he hasn't much journalistic experience?
Not much. Unless you count four years as editor of the Today programme. Or his associate editorship of the Spectator. Or his columns for the Sunday Times, GQ, Arena, and, erm, the Guardian. The Independent can count itself lucky.

Why?
In 2010, new owner Alexander Lebedev nearly appointed him editor.

Would that have been a bad thing?
Possibly. At the time, Liddle was accused of casual racism and sexism.

Explain.
It was alleged Liddle – writing under the sobriquet "Monkeymfc" on an online forum pertaining to, but not controlled by, Millwall FC – referred to black people as "on average a little under 10% thicker than whites"; and a black player as a "spearchucking African".

The lawyers would like to know his defence.
He strongly denied posting the comments, saying he had been hacked.

Presumably his character is otherwise unblemished? Come to think of it, no. In 2005, he accepted a caution for assaulting his pregnant second wife – though he later denied it ever happened.

[emmie]

jno, same article i read, he seems to write for quite a lot of papers, magazines.

[jno]

both leftwing and rightwing - I think he's more about stirring it up rather than saying useful things. Which is probably why he's in trouble now.

[Quizmonster]

As a journalist, he reminds me of Jeremy Clarkson, though they come from opposite ends of the political spectrum. That is, they are both controversialist buffoons but they make me laugh. As ever with such writers, they often don't know where to draw the line.

[Messi_Ten]

Liddle seems to be working class left, not PC left. He's a loose cannon, but his aim is usually spot on.