Laurence Fox. The twat.

[Voley]

Looking forward to seeing him describe this as a victory.

 

[Pickman's model]

Looking forward to seeing him describe this as a victory.

it could have been a lot more. he's pissed away any inheritance he was hoping to get from uncle edward

 

[Lurdan]

Full judgement is here (PDF file) (The original judgement against him is here)

In addition to the damages an injunction against repeating the libel is made. The reasons for this include his behaviour since losing the case.

38. The first is the established pattern, set out in a degree of detail in the liability judgment (see for example at [17]-[31] and [151]-[157]), of Mr Fox generally exercising his rights of public free speech in two distinctive ways.

39. The first of these is characterised by impulsiveness, theatricality, a disregard for or uninterest in impact on others, and an unfastidiousness about objective factuality as a potential restraint on his commentary and claims (as to the latter, see for example the controversy of his commentary on the casting of the Sikh actor in the film 1917 discussed at [21]-[23] of the liability judgment, and the comments he made, including in oral evidence, about a dance school dropping ballet teaching as ‘too white’ when in plain and obvious fact what it was doing was not that at all, but dropping ballet as a compulsory pre-entrance requirement to enhance access; the factuality was a second-order consideration to the impulse and rhetoric in each of these cases).

40. The second relevant feature of Mr Fox’s public utterances might be recognised as a more systematic programme for experimenting with the extreme boundaries of free speech or what he called ‘free speech absolutism’. He has acknowledged as much in his own evidence, and has accepted mistakes or transgressions in this respect (see for example his withdrawal of his advocacy of liberty to incite violence discussed at [155] of the liability judgment, and his regret at posting pictures of his children in blackface). (...)

42. The second general contextual factor is the clear and sustained animus Mr Fox has exhibited, up to and including the present (and notwithstanding the obvious way in which his own interests as a party to this litigation are engaged by his own continuing conduct) against all the original Claimants, even though his only material connection with them is his own random libelling of them and their commencement of these proceedings in response. Specifically, that animus is exhibited against Mr Seymour in particular, and most of all against the former Defendant to his counterclaims, Ms Thorp, who is now no longer a party to these proceedings and in respect of whom no present prospect of legal restraint of Mr Fox is live. He has since, among other things, labelled her a racist and defied her to sue him (again). He has subjected both of them to a degree of further humiliating commentary. He has exercised his rights to free speech, and wielded his megaphone, to denigrate publicly the Claimants and their efforts to achieve justice and vindication in these proceedings. He continues to prosecute by these means his grievance at being labelled a racist, but that does not exhaust his public commentary on the Claimants.

43. One specific development since the liability trial occupied a certain amount of attention at the remedies hearing in this connection. On 31st January 2024, Mr Fox quote-tweeted a Daily Mail headline from July 2023, above two pictures of Mr Seymour performing as Crystal. The headline read ‘EXCLUSIVE Family theme park apologises for drag queen act that left parents ‘horrified’: Boss confirms it will not take part in any future Pride celebrations after RuPaul’s Drag Race UK Star used angle grinder on crotch during show’. The act had been billed as ‘family friendly’ and had involved Crystal using an angle grinder to make sparks fly from a metal plate incorporated into her costume. Above this quotation, Mr Fox had tweeted ‘Angle grinder on cock in front of kids. Totally normal. Hero to many. Babysitter to (hopefully) none.’ I regard this, a couple of days after hand-down of an adverse libel judgment on his having branded Mr Seymour a paedophile and with a remedies hearing hanging over him, as material evidence of the risk Mr Fox continues to pose to the Claimants’ rights established in these proceedings unless the reciprocal legal limits on his own rights are explicitly reinforced by court order.

 

[andysays]

Full judgement is here (PDF file) (The original judgement against him is here)

In addition to the damages an injunction against repeating the libel is made. The reasons for this include his behaviour since losing the case.

TLDR: he's behaved like a right cunt

 

[Storm Fox]

TLDR: he's behaved like a right cunt

Yeah, that is one pissed-off judge.

 

[cupid_stunt]

And, he's off...



/over to LeytonCatLady.

 

[DaveCinzano]

And, he's off...



/over to LeytonCatLady.

Perhaps we can club together and pay for an amputation of one dickhead above the neck

 

[two sheds]

Or he could simply pay for the judgement by having both legs amputated below the knee.

 

[T & P]

And, he's off...



/over to LeytonCatLady.

He clearly is unaware the damages include a Cunt Surcharge, hence the seemingly high amount awarded.

 

[gosub]

I'll rephrase. I think he'll stand and rant, and insist that he's going to appeal. And then he'll go on Twitter and double down on the hate speech.

Good guess. Appalling...is the word

 

[gosub]

He clearly is unaware the damages include a Cunt Surcharge, hence the seemingly high amount awarded.

High amount? It didn't cost him an arm and leg

 

[nogojones]

Is this the case he claimed that he won?

Would hate to see what the damages would've been had he lost...

No, that was the one he dropped (and paid all the legal fees of the person he was suing) after loosing this one.

Do keep up

 

[LeytonCatLady]

And, he's off...



/over to LeytonCatLady.

 

[existentialist]

an unfastidiousness about objective factuality

 

[danny la rouge]

And, he's off...



/over to LeytonCatLady.

“Will be appealing.”

There’s nothing else appealing about him.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

No, that was the one he dropped (and paid all the legal fees of the person he was suing) after loosing this one.

Do keep up

My bad, hard to keep up with the racist-homophobe.

 

[Dogsauce]

Full judgement is here (PDF file) (The original judgement against him is here)

I think this judge is aiming for a spot in pseuds corner with this rather wordy way of calling fox a liar:

an unfastidiousness about objective factuality as a potential restraint on his commentary and claims

 

[Voley]

Full judgement is here (PDF file) (The original judgement against him is here)

In addition to the damages an injunction against repeating the libel is made. The reasons for this include his behaviour since losing the case.

Enjoyed this:

characterised by impulsiveness, theatricality, a disregard for or uninterest in impact on others, and an unfastidiousness about objective factuality

 

[Raheem]

He clearly is unaware the damages include a Cunt Surcharge, hence the seemingly high amount awarded.

The figures he's presumably found somewhere on the internet are probably going to be a ballpark range for general damages, which will almost always be only a part of the award. Things like medical expenses and loss of earnings go on top of that, and could easily be millions if the accident has happened to a premiership footballer, for example.

 

[Karl Masks]

Does he even have £180k?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Does he even have £180k?

Can't even pawn his kids' ipads

 

[Raheem]

Does he even have £180k?

Has a sugar daddy, I believe.

 

[Dystopiary]

Does he even have £180k?

The guy bankrolling him does, and a lot more:

The _johnbye x-twitter account illustrates just how much Loser (and Andrew Bridgen) are being subsidized by their patron Jeremy Hosking.


Short thread archived here as a webpage. -- [original x-tweet link]


Hosking's cash is clearly being well spent:

Spoiler: Text of screencapped x-tweet and links

Richard Bartholomew @Barthsnotes

Millionaire Jeremy Hosking pays for vanity wraparound advert featuring his creature Laurence Fox.

7:13AM - Apr 25 2024 -- x-tweet link


Includes screencap of a Laurence Fox x-tweet:

Laurence Fox @LozzaFox

Give ordinary people a voice against the diminutive dictator on a regular basis.

Time to vote.

Put a [fox emoji] in the [box emoji] on May 2nd and I’ll see to it that London is heard.

I’ll make sure @SadiqKhan hears you too.

He’s got rich from controlling you!

[Includes a picture of News Shopper freesheet with paid Fox election advert].

6:38PM - Apr 24th 2024 -- x-tweet link

Put a 'Fox in the Box' eh. From Viz 1982

 

[Elpenor]

How many bags is £180k; I don’t suppose he buys it by the key

 

[WouldBe]

Perhaps we canclub together and pay for an amputation of one dickhead above the neck

Amputate his dick and watch him explode as he goes apoplectic.

 

[Pickman's model]

The guy bankrolling him does, and a lot more:

he won't be bankrolling him much longer given the scale of legal fees and damages fox has run up. he won't be a millionaire much longer if he continues the relationship

 

[Yossarian]

Hosking reportedly has a net worth of £375 million, enough for Fox to call around 4,000 people pedophiles

 

[PR1Berske]

 

[Karl Masks]

The guy bankrolling him does, and a lot more:

Can't imagine having to underwrite losses like this is particularly sustainable surely, or even desirable? What are they getting out of this? Fox isn't getting anywhere

 

[Raheem]

Hosking reportedly has a net worth of £375 million, enough for Fox to call around 4,000 people pedophiles

The new metric for wealth.

"Elon Musk's wealth fell today to a little under 1.1 million paedophiles."