The Aberconwy Funnel-Bebb Spider

"For there is always something down there,
in the dark, waiting to come out...."

(6th August - Devolution : The Failures) : "In fact, blogging's still quite dangerous - even in Wales - and you leave yourself open to getting into disputes when you didn't need to."

I don't like "blogging about blogging", but due to a row between the slightly off-the-wall Conwy County-based blog, Thoughts of Oscar, and the local Conservative MP Guto Bebb my hand's been forced. It's also been covered in depth by National Left and Miserable Old Fart.

From the outset, I doubt myself and whoever's behind the Thoughts of Oscar blog would agree on anything politically. If someone in the Welsh blogosphere is coming under unjustified attack though, we should do everything we can to support each other as we're going out on a limb through doing this. All for one and one for all etc.

Here's a brief overview of what's happened :

• Thoughts of Oscar published an open letter by "C. Thomas" which states (correctly) that Guto Bebb MP is one of the staunchest supporters of Israel in Westminster; had received donations from Russian energy oligarch (and Tory donor), Alexander Temerko; had asked parliamentary questions on Israel; and had a few dealings with pro-Israeli lobbying organisations. The author questioned Guto's commitment to his constituents, and dealings with Israelis due to the Gaza conflict.
• Guto Bebb defended his support for Israel in the Daily Post/Western Mail and Golwg360, and said he didn't wish to "dignify (the open letter) with a comment". Bebb also claimed via Twitter that the Western Mail's political editor, David Williamson, was running a story "based on web libel".
• Cardiff-based Thomas Simon solicitors sent a legal letter to the author of Thoughts of Oscar (and others) – which Guto Bebb published – refuting several of the points made in the open letter such as : denying donations were related to pro-Israeli views; visits to Israel were purely business; that Guto didn't vote to send troops to Syria (he did vote in favour of military action though, which could've resulted in the use of British military personnel in/over Syria); and inferring that four star Israeli hotels aren't luxury.
• The solicitors requested that the open letter be taken down immediately (it's still up as of today) and the author of the letter will have 5 working days to substantiate its content. Thoughts of Oscar believes there's a good chance they'll have to close the blog and Twitter account due to the legal threat hanging over them.

So Guto said he considers the open letter to be potentially libellous - a very serious accusation.There will probably be parallels made with Jacqui Thompson (Carmarthenshire Planning), but – and I hope Jacqui doesn't mind me saying this – Bebb has an even weaker case than Mark James.

Looking at this dispassionately - putting aside views on the Gaza crisis for a moment - the open letter was well-researched. All of the sources used in the open letter were credible : The Guardian, Western Mail, Freedom of Information requests and even Guto Bebb himself.. Most of it was left open to interpretation, with no direct accusations of wrong-doing.

For example, the open letter didn't say the Alexander Temerko donation was specifically related to Bebb's support for Israel, just that Temerko has made donations to pro-Israeli MPs. People were left to make their own minds up, though it's hard to tell if it counts as innuendo or not. It's only seems defamatory if you're deliberately looking for/interpreting things as being defamatory remarks.

Defamation laws were updated in the Defamation Act 2013. Three key defences include :

• Truth – As said, pretty much everything in the open letter was based on information from reliable sources. Guto (or, more accurately, his legal advisers) didn't once publicly deny anything that the letter contained, only disputing the interpretation (what Miserable Old Fart described as "the minutiae") - like the number of stars a hotel has.
• Honest Opinion/Fair Comment – The letter was an opinion piece regarding a highly-contentious issue. You could argue that the final paragraph damages Guto Bebb's reputation as an MP, but you can – and should in a democracy – consider it a constituent expressing dissatisfaction with the performance of their elected representative, and bringing into question some of their professional associations. These are things we should all have a right to know and do. In fairness, it appears Guto Bebb has always been keen to be transparent - except this.
• Publication in the public interest – Of course it was. Anything a politician does in relation to their job or representative role is in the public interest and, as said, all of the details in the open letter were covered extensively by several credible sources, then wrapped up neatly in a single open letter. There were no personal insults and no attacks on Guto's character.

The legal letter was, effectively, an indirect reply to everything contained in open letter – a "right of reply" if you will. However, I don't know why Guto or his staff didn't write the rebuttal of a 450-word letter themselves instead of hiring a group of legal professionals to nit-pick. Surely Guto and his staff know what he has or hasn't done and can explain that on request?

There's absolutely no need to call for anyone to remove any blog or shut anything down. If Guto has a right to express his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so does everyone else.

MPs – especially from Labour and the Conservatives - are rather delicate, big-headed souls struggling to find relevance in Wales since devolution. I'm sure many get a kick from throwing their weight around by using their power and privileged position. They need to keep reminding us that they're there.

Like many people in the public eye, they don't like it when anyone - let alone an uppity blogger - flags potentially embarrassing things up for all to see.

The main thing the open letter did to harm Guto Bebb's reputation is hold a mirror up in front of him. If Guto feels he's been defamed, that's because his own documented actions and associations down the years have defamed himself.

I doubt hair-trigger tempers are considered a useful trait for a politician; so any politician in that position should probably consider taking up a more sedate job, like flower-arranging or dog grooming; perhaps even selling cocktails by the sea in Eilat.

If it were left to the courts to decide who's telling the truth in politics - based solely upon interpreting minutiae and reading between the lines of the statements they pump out - about 95% of British politicians would be dragged through the streets clapped in irons.

Guto Bebb was one of the few MPs I had a high opinion of, and Miserable Old Fart has said himself that he puts the work in at constituency level. He has his good side.

It's a shame really, but toys need to be put back in their pram.