Complaints have been sent to the Solicitors Regulation Authority by Twitter users who have received £6,000 libel demands from solicitors working for the MP George Galloway.
The bitter legal dispute, which has erupted over accusations of antisemitism, has become more complex after Galloway’s office said the money would only be used to cover his law firm’s expenses and the Respect party leader would not “receive a penny”.
Requests for financial compensation and an apology have already been posted to about a dozen people. The MP’s spokesman said more might be despatched.
The row relates to Galloway’s appearance on BBC Question Time last month, which was held in Finchley – a north London area with a large Jewish population. One audience member asked about a rise in antisemitism but the question included a reference to the MP for Bradford West bearing some responsibility for the increase.
Galloway, a veteran pro-Palestinian campaigner, protested about the way the question had been asked and said afterwards: “To accuse a parliamentarian of 27 years of being responsible for a spike in antisemitism is totally ludicrous.”
The argument took off on Twitter. The Guardian journalist Hadley Freeman, in an online conversation later, said that what the MP had said crossed “the line from anti-Israel to antisemitic”. Galloway responded by tweeting that he was launching legal proceedings against her for defamation. She subsequently deleted the tweet.
Support for Freeman was expressed on Twitter under the link #JeSuisHadley, which was retweeted by a number of Twitter users. Some have now also received letters sent out by Chambers Solicitors in Bradford on behalf of the MP, demanding £5,000 plus VAT – a sum amounting to £6,000 – by a date in early March.
Ron McKay, Galloway’s spokesman, confirmed that the number of letters ran “into double figures”. He said: “I’m told this is normal procedure in a pre-action letter. George will pursue anyone who calls him an antisemite ... [The tweets] are libellous.”
The Respect MP has already recovered money from newspapers for defamation, McKay added. “George doesn’t issue idle threats. If people don’t come to some agreement, I presume it will go to court. George has thousands of Twitter followers, so inevitably [they] found references to him.”
Galloway has been physically attacked three times in the past six months, McKay said. “Calling people antisemitic is fomenting [violence] like that.”
The money requested, he explained, “is all legal expenses. George Galloway won’t receive a penny of the money that goes to Chambers [Solicitors]. It’s down to Chambers [as to] whatever they charge. He’s waiting for apologies.”
One woman, who has received a solicitor’s letter, said all she had done was retweet a comment: “I did it out of solidarity with a fellow Jewish woman. I haven’t slept properly since receiving the letter. It was intimidatory. I suffer from anxiety.
“This is really upsetting. It’s like parking companies sending letters out in the hope of getting money. When Lord McAlpine sued people on Twitter he only asked for £50 to be given to charity.”
Another recipient, a man who does not want to be named, said: “I sent out a tweet about five days before the Question Time took place.”
Several weeks later he received a letter from Chambers Solicitors asking for an apology and £5,000 plus VAT. “There was a deadline of March 10,” he explained. “I’m putting in an official complaint to the SRA. It’s thuggish. It’s clumsy and heavy-handed.”
“I know they how got hold of me. It would have taken less than five minutes’ work. I’m a retired business consultant and my finances are in a dire situation. Handing over the money would be a massive problem.”
Among those targeted is a charity worker. He told the Guardian: “It’s intimidatory. It’s speculative invoicing. I have no money. I just retweeted #JeSuisHadley. I don’t even remember doing it.”
The Twitter user, who has only 70 followers and wishes to remain anonymous, said: “I’m not a politician. I’m not remotely influential. I deleted it. I have been suffering terrible health problems [since receiving the letter]. I’m on antidepressants and suffering from chest pains.”
The solicitor and libel expert Mark Stephens, at the law firm Howard Kennedy, is defending several people who have received letters. The question of whether retweeting a comment amounts to endorsing what was said, or merely taking note of it, has never been tested in court, he said.
“The letters constitute an unfortunate demand for money. .. The definition of anti-semitism is extraordinarily complex to identify. That’s part of the challenge here.”
Most of the tweets, Stephens suggested, may not meet the threshold of warranting legal action. “The law says it has to be substantial publication.” Some of those sent solicitors’ letters had very few followers. “How may people would have seen it?” asked Stephens. “The numbers are very low.”
A spokesman for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said: “We are aware of the issue. If complaints have been made we will look at them and decide on an appropriate course of action.” One of the authority’s rules is that solicitors should not take: “unfair advantage of an opposing party’s lack of legal knowledge” or demanding anything “that is not legally recoverable”.
Asked why the letters were demanding such a large sum for legal expenses and whether they wished to respond about complaints to the SRA, Chambers Solicitors in Bradford said: “We are not interested in commenting.”