Ha ha ha.
I mean, Nelson Hah-hah, but I can’t help but wonder how a guy manages to be quite successful and then toss it all away like he has. Is it a lack of comprehension? Does he get so shit-faced he can’t help blurting out some twattery on Shitter? Or does he just lack any kind of filter and sense of self-preservation?
He’s from a rich family and has tried acting, singing and politics to get famous. None of it worked, so he’s resorted to playing the ‘right-wing grifter’ game. A decent base believes he should be able to say anything he wants on twitter without consequence, and that’s the base he’s playing to.
The man deserves to have to pay a fine every time he says anything. He’s such a twat.
He was warned about GB news and was incredibly rude about it to everyone who raised concerns, and then when it inevitably turned out that he was wrong and everyone else was right he quit. The whole thing took about a month to descend into Fox news.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The actor-turned-politician lost a High Court case with former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal.
Reclaim Party founder Mr Fox - who said at the time that he would boycott Sainsbury’s - counter-sued the pair over tweets accusing him of racism and attempted to sue broadcaster Nicola Thorp for the same reason.
The judge did not make a ruling on whether describing Mr Fox as “a racist” was “substantially true”, after finding the three tweets in his counter-claim were unlikely to cause serious harm to his reputation.
“They are entitled by law to an award of money, to compensate them for those damaging effects, and to ensure that they can put this matter behind them, vindicated and confident that no-one can sensibly doubt their blamelessness of that disgusting slur and that they were seriously wronged by it.”
The judge said there was “no element” of punishment for Mr Fox in the judgement, with the damages due “purely compensatory”.
Ahead of Thursday’s ruling, Mr Fox described the original judgement as a “bullies charter” and said he disagreed “profoundly” with the result.
The original article contains 420 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 57%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
