Noel Clarke

[Hollie Day]

Earlier, completing his evidence on day four in the witness box, Noel Clarke said: “I think the world has changed. I think things that were acceptable 10, 20 years ago are just no longer acceptable and throwing a blanket lens of 2021 on them is just not fair on anybody.”

Can't believe what I'm reading. Its never been acceptable to threaten, intimidate, and bully people or to be a sexual predator. No wonder the judge threw the book at him

 

[EmpressMaud]

Earlier, completing his evidence on day four in the witness box, Noel Clarke said: “I think the world has changed. I think things that were acceptable 10, 20 years ago are just no longer acceptable and throwing a blanket lens of 2021 on them is just not fair on anybody.”

Can't believe what I'm reading. Its never been acceptable to threaten, intimidate, and bully people or to be a sexual predator. No wonder the judge threw the book at him

"Your Honour, I could have gotten away with being a gross abuser and predator 20 years ago"

 

[Harlot O'Scara]

I'm a bit bemused by the judge saying he thought he was just being "cheeky".

It's not like he was just cracking a few dirty jokes or calling all the women "darlin'".

 

[Reverend]

'Let's just remember, Your Honour, that the Vikings used to grape and pillage villages so what I did really isn't that bad'.

 

[Dinate]

Noel Clarke has been ordered to pay at least £3 million of the Guardian's legal costs:

Noel Clarke ordered to pay at least £3m of Guardian publisher’s legal fees

At a High Court hearing on Tuesday, a judge said the actor must pay £3 million ahead of a detailed assessment into the total costs to be recovered.

www.standard.co.uk

He represented himself at the costs hearing because his legal team has resigned as he couldn't pay the costs of the hearing. They'll likely not see their own fees paid which serves them right for agreeing to represent him and present such a ludicrous defence which the Court called 'far-fetched' and 'false'.

In an amusing aside, he apparently used ChatGPT to help prepare his case - who said AI wasn't helpful! And the fool asked for the payment of the costs to be held pending an appeal. Seriously? An appeal? The Judge obviously refused that request.

 

[Ametrine]

Noel Clarke has been ordered to pay at least £3 million of the Guardian's legal costs:

Noel Clarke ordered to pay at least £3m of Guardian publisher’s legal fees

At a High Court hearing on Tuesday, a judge said the actor must pay £3 million ahead of a detailed assessment into the total costs to be recovered.

www.standard.co.uk

He represented himself at the costs hearing because his legal team has resigned as he couldn't pay the costs of the hearing. They'll likely not see their own fees paid which serves them right for agreeing to represent him and present such a ludicrous defence which the Court called 'far-fetched' and 'false'.

In an amusing aside, he apparently used ChatGPT to help prepare his case - who said AI wasn't helpful! And the fool asked for the payment of the costs to be held pending an appeal. Seriously? An appeal? The Judge obviously refused that request.

Mr Clarke, who represented himself at the hearing, asked the court to “consider both the law and the human reality of these proceedings” when ordering costs.

In written submissions, he said his legal team had resigned after he had been unable to provide funding for the hearing.

He also asked the court to hold payment of costs pending an appeal.

The actor, who told the court he used ChatGPT to help prepare his response to Mr Millar, described the proposed costs order as “excessive”, “inflated” and “caused by their own choices”.

He said: “I have not been vexatious and I have not tried to play games with the court.”

He added: “I have lost my work, my savings, my legal team, my ability to support my family and much of my health.

“My wife and children live every day under the shadow of uncertainty. We remortgaged our home just to survive.

“Any costs or interim payments must be proportionate to my means as a single household, not the unlimited resources of a major media conglomerate.

“A crushing order would not just punish me, it would punish my children and wife, and they do not deserve that.”

Mr Clarke must pay the £3 million within 28 days, Mrs Justice Steyn ruled.

BIB - ah Noel, there you go using your family as a shield again. Classic abuser tactic.

You should have thought about your family before you 1) assaulted or harassed all those women, and 2) decided to sue the Guardian for libel, knowing that what they printed was the truth.

 

[Hollie Day]

Oh woe is me, noel!! If he hadn't been such an unbearable wanker and slimey old predator in the work place he wouldn't have any money worries. What his family is going through is all HIS fault. Lets see how long the wife stays once the house is repossessed.

 

[Harlot O'Scara]

BIB - ah Noel, there you go using your family as a shield again. Classic abuser tactic.

You should have thought about your family before you 1) assaulted or harassed all those women, and 2) decided to sue the Guardian for libel, knowing that what they printed was the truth.

You sued them, ya clown!

Libel actions are expensive af, but he pursued one anyway, knowing full well that what the Guardian printed was the truth.

He's made his own bed, now he can bloody lie in it.

 

[Dinate]

This article from the Guardian gives more detail on yesterday's costs hearing. I've posted it mainly because apparently Clarke's lawyers were working mainly on a 'no-win, no-fee' basis. That explains why they were happy to put forward such a wild defence: they were essentially gambling and hoping to get lucky along with Clarke. That's really poor behaviour from them and I hope they get none of their costs back.

Although, having said that, I take Clarke's statement with a pinch of salt as he also says that he used his life-savings and re-mortgaged his house to fight this case, so he obviously has paid them something. And their fees wouldn't be as anything like as much as the Guardian's as they were just throwing around baseless accusations which forced the Guardian to waste time and money defending them,

https://www.archive.is/oldest/https...costs-to-the-guardian-after-losing-libel-case

 

[Reverend]

This article from the Guardian gives more detail on yesterday's costs hearing. I've posted it mainly because apparently Clarke's lawyers were working mainly on a 'no-win, no-fee' basis. That explains why they were happy to put forward such a wild defence: they were essentially gambling and hoping to get lucky along with Clarke. That's really poor behaviour from them and I hope they get none of their costs back.

Although, having said that, I take Clarke's statement with a pinch of salt as he also says that he used his life-savings and re-mortgaged his house to fight this case, so he obviously has paid them something. And their fees wouldn't be as anything like as much as the Guardian's as they were just throwing around baseless accusations which forced the Guardian to waste time and money defending them,

https://www.archive.is/https://www....costs-to-the-guardian-after-losing-libel-case

To be fair to Clarke (yuk), a little, he did try a few last-minute attempts to stop the trial happening on technicalities but the judges pointed out that he'd started the process so had to go through with it. He presumably thought the threat of it happening would be enough to intimidate witnesses and cause the Guardian to settle. The difference between this case and the phone hacking....is that The Guardian was in the right and damned well knew they were in the right. And the women who were targeted by Clarke had the courage to attend court and tell their truth.

 

[Popcornshovel]

How stupid can one man be?

To bring a massively expensive case like this and lose, and now he's got to pay £3m within 28 days.

It's great seeing justice prevail.

 

[kev1974]

How stupid can one man be?

To bring a massively expensive case like this and lose, and now he's got to pay £3m within 28 days.

It's great seeing justice prevail.

You can bet he'll have hidden all his money weeks or months ago in anticipation of this. Doubt the Guardian will see much.

 

[Harlot O'Scara]

You can bet he'll have hidden all his money weeks or months ago in anticipation of this. Doubt the Guardian will see much.

They've got the clout to go hard after him, though. Debt collectors don't duck about.

 

[PineappleQueen19]

He’s been arrested


Doctor Who star Noel Clarke was arrested during a five-hour raid of his house today today after his sex abuse libel case.
Officers raided the 49-year-old actor's family home in Kensington, West London, just before 9am, with a specialist dog unit used in the search.
Clarke's arrest this morning follows his failed libel case against The Guardian newspaper. It is not known why he was arrested.

https://archive.ph/MUyNH

 

[bignellie]

he's been arrested, five hours search of his house, laptops etc seized. perhaps he is going to be prosecuted for sexual assault?

 

[kev1974]

Guardian: Hey pal, court says you owe us £3m. Can we have it please?
Noel: duck you, it would punish my children and wife, and they do not deserve that, you've robbed me of my health, made me remortage, woe is me etc etc, duck you.
Guardian: Ooops how silly of me, accidentally emailed some of the other stuff we found when researching our story on you to the police, sorry about that pal

 

[Limey]

He's been nicked? Couldn't have happened to a nicer fella etc etc.

 

[Dinate]

He’s been arrested


Doctor Who star Noel Clarke was arrested during a five-hour raid of his house today today after his sex abuse libel case.
Officers raided the 49-year-old actor's family home in Kensington, West London, just before 9am, with a specialist dog unit used in the search.
Clarke's arrest this morning follows his failed libel case against The Guardian newspaper. It is not known why he was arrested.

https://archive.ph/MUyNH

I remember the police looked into some of the allegations against him when the Guardian story first broke but decided that there was no criminal conduct. I wonder if some of the details in the defamation case have led them to think otherwise in respect of some of his actions?

For example, there were the naked pictures he took of someone he slept which which he then forwarded to his former friend. Clarke initially denied having shared any pictures with him but the former friend then found the folder which Clarke had sent him with the photos and he then testified in the trial. Forwarding intimate pictures without consent is a criminal offense.

It's almost as if Clarke just decided to burn everything down by pursuing this reckless and futile case - including himself as it turns out.

ETA: I wrote the first paragraph before remembering about the forwarding of the intimate pictures.

 

[Tabitha D]

Lawyers can resign from a case for conduct reasons too - for example, if they discover their client has lied to them, concealed something, or misrepresented something.
Not saying that’s what happened here, but …

 

[Blurp]

I remember the police looked into some of the allegations against him when the Guardian story first broke but decided that there was no criminal conduct. I wonder if some of the details in the defamation case have led them to think otherwise in respect of some of his actions?

For example, there were the naked pictures he took of someone he slept which which he then forwarded to his former friend. Clarke initially denied having shared any pictures with him but the former friend then found the folder which Clarke had sent him with the photos and he then testified in the trial. Forwarding intimate pictures without consent is a criminal offense.

It's almost as if Clarke just decided to burn everything down by pursuing this reckless and futile case - including himself as it turns out.

ETA: I wrote the first paragraph before remembering about the forwarding of the intimate pictures.

Dogs being there is interesting. Drugs, cadavers, explosives... Any other uses for specialist police dogs?