Michelle Donelan- should the taxpayers foot her libel bill?

Surely there should be a separation between family/personal legal bills DrWatson - I don't see breaking the law as "debts from office" as the ones you describe are.

It's beginning to look rather Trumpish to me.

For anyone thinking this syndrome is a special feature of THIS deadbeat Govt, well, guess again, they would all do the same.

Were Major and Heseltine invited to pay back what they cost this country on 'Black Wednesday'? Or Gordon Brown when he 'sold off' (actually almost gave away) about half of our Gold Reserves? No.

Govts routinely use the country's resources to try and keep themselves in power, this should hardly be a shock to anyone?

He would say that wouldn’t he. It’s an age old custom that should be abolished

I believe Rishi Sunak was asked the question and his reply that this is an old age custom to pay on behalf of MPs.

no, smacks of corruption or should I say, further corruption?

NotSpaghetti

No! She should pay it back!
I can't believe we paid this - it was her personal account apparently as well.

As to partygate legal bill - this just makes me fume! 🤬

Agree completely. Absolutely NO to paying either

No

MaizieD

According to the Financial Times

Alexandra Jones, a government representative on the UKRI board, was involved in writing Donelan’s defamatory letter that she retracted this week as the government paid a £15,000 settlement, according to emails released under transparency laws.

Apparently this was known about at UKRI and it is claimed that Jones involvement was to 'tone down' Donelan's original 'inflammatory' comments. Goodness knows what it would have been like without Jones' intervention. As it was, according to the Guardian,

On 28 October, Michelle Donelan, the secretary of state for science, published a letter expressing her “disgust and outrage” that two academics who had been appointed to an advisory group had been “sharing some extremist views on social media”.

'Disgust and outrage'

'Disgust and outrage'

Takes me back to the 50s and those letters of incensed moral outrage that allegedly appeared in The Times and the now defunct Tunbridge Wells Advertiser, by the eponymous and acclaimed Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

But, on a more serious note, the definition of "extremism" seems to be in the eye of the beholder these days.

For example, if you criticise the current government - some (on here) will automatically assume you are a Left-Wing-Extremist-in-the-making... and most certainly, by default, you must be at least a Leftie.

At the same time, some Tories are described as Right-Wing Extremists when any research will show that they are rigid in their belief, rather than extreme.

However, there is a definite trajectory towards very Right-Wingery-Conservatism... but is it 'extremism'?

Some thought Corbyn an extremist - my friends in Norway just thought he was run-of-the-mill Left-Wing (because they are keen to learn English they take an interest in our media, both entertainment and news related).

There's one poster on here (I mean on GN not actually on here today - yet) who has on more than one occasion called me a Left-Wing Extremist. And that, I am most definitely not. But, espouse a particular view and that's it - you're pigeon-holed.

I wish we knew the content of those two academics' posts - we've only got Donelan's POV. And she's part of a Right-Wing 'think tank' apparently, so not exactly an impartial judge.

According to the Financial Times

Alexandra Jones, a government representative on the UKRI board, was involved in writing Donelan’s defamatory letter that she retracted this week as the government paid a £15,000 settlement, according to emails released under transparency laws.

Apparently this was known about at UKRI and it is claimed that Jones involvement was to 'tone down' Donelan's original 'inflammatory' comments. Goodness knows what it would have been like without Jones' intervention. As it was, according to the Guardian,

On 28 October, Michelle Donelan, the secretary of state for science, published a letter expressing her “disgust and outrage” that two academics who had been appointed to an advisory group had been “sharing some extremist views on social media”.

'Disgust and outrage'

Holding views that don't align with the government's narrative does not make you a terrorist sympathiser and that is a claim that should not be made lightly.

So true

Dickens No 10 refused to say what advice officials had given her and whether she actually followed it

The material point here is that There is an established precedent under multiple administrations that ministers are provided with legal support and representation where matters relate to their conduct and responsibilities as a minister (from inews).

And Donelan received the appropriate advice from relevant officials at all times (also from inews).

Apparently, she claimed the two academics shared posts that appeared to support Hamas.

I don't think we know what was in those exchanges, so we can't be the judge. But, 'appearing' to support is open to interpretation, and actually "supporting" is a matter of fact.

She had, apparently, requested information on several academics.

So yes, the taxpayer has to pay the costs because the government approved her accusations. Maybe the government should foot the bill?

The sum was paid without admitting any liability. So basically the money was paid to prevent the costs of an extensive legal action that would probably have ensued had it not been awarded.

Holding views that don't align with the government's narrative does not make you a terrorist sympathiser and that is a claim that should not be made lightly.

If what is implied in the press is true, then she should pay the costs.

If true she should say so, imo.

We do know that she is closely Linked to a right wing think tank “policy Exchange” and she vowed war on “wokeism” in the academic world.

The action she took in libelling a couple of academics came as a result of information supplied by the think tank.

This definitely had nothing to do with government policy or day to day work. She has a close civil servant friend who helped her draft the libellous accusation.

It is only a supposition, though. It need not be a fact. I suspect we will never know the truth.

Yes I read that🙄

According to a lawyer I follow she may have been given bad legal advice by her departmental lawyers before publishing her libellous letter on social media. If that were the case then it involves her department and justifies the payment of the settlement out of public money. Apparently....

What is it with this government who seems to think that the tax payers money is there to do with as they wish including for their own personal gain?

No we should not, she is at fault so it's her responsibility to sort it !

Definitely not. She did a wrong thing falsely accusing people, so she alone should bear the cost then perhaps in future she will do her research before opening her mouth.

No! She should pay it back!
I can't believe we paid this - it was her personal account apparently as well.

As to partygate legal bill - this just makes me fume! 🤬