Television presenter Rachel Riley has told a High Court judge she was subjected to a “concerted attack” two years ago after an aide to then Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn described her as “dangerous” and “stupid” in a tweet.
Ms Riley, 35, who appears in Channel 4 show Countdown, told Mr Justice Nicklin that she received an “onslaught of abuse” following Laura Murray’s March 2019 tweet.
She said a “campaign” had been initiated to “get me fired from my job, as being someone who had advocated violence”.
READ MORE: Photographer slams editing of his Jeremy Corbyn picture in Rachel Riley row
Ms Riley, who has sued Ms Murray for libel and wants damages, said the tweet caused “serious harm” to her reputation.
Ms Murray, who no longer works as an aide to Mr Corbyn, has mounted a defence.
She says what she tweeted was true, and reflected her honestly-held opinions.
Mr Justice Nicklin on Monday began overseeing a trial at the High Court in London.
Ms Murray had posted the tweet on March 3 2019, after an egg was thrown at Mr Corbyn, then the Labour leader, by a Brexit supporter when he was visiting Finsbury Park Mosque in north London.
She had been responding to a tweet posted by Ms Riley, Mr Justice Nicklin heard.
Ms Riley had initially posted a screen-shot of a January 2019 tweet by Guardian columnist Owen Jones, about an attack on former British National Party leader Nick Griffin, in which Mr Jones had said: “I think sound life advice is, if you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi.”
She had added, “Good advice”, with emojis of a red rose and an egg.
Later, Ms Murray had tweeted: “Today Jeremy Corbyn went to his local mosque for Visit My Mosque Day, and was attacked by a Brexiteer. Rachel Riley tweets that Corbyn deserves to be violently attacked because he is a Nazi. This woman is as dangerous as she is stupid. Nobody should engage with her. Ever.”
Mr Justice Nicklin had ruled at an earlier hearing that Ms Murray’s tweet was defamatory.
The judge had concluded that the tweet meant that: Ms Riley had “publicly stated” that Mr Corbyn had been attacked when visiting a mosque; that he “deserved to be violently attacked”; by doing so, she had shown herself to be a “dangerous and stupid person” who “risked inciting unlawful violence”; and, that people should not “engage with her”.
He has now been asked to consider whether serious harm was caused to Ms Riley’s reputation, and, whether Ms Murray had a “truth” defence, an “honest opinion” defence, or a “public interest” defence to Ms Riley’s libel claim.
Ms Riley said she was being “sarcastic” in her tweet and had not called Mr Corbyn a Nazi.
“The response to the defendant’s libel of me was a concerted attack on me and my career,” Ms Riley told the judge, in a written witness statement.
“My career is in the public domain.
“A concerted campaign was initiated to get me fired from my job, as being someone who had advocated violence.
She told the judge that she had received “a great deal of abuse” and said “most of it” was caused by Ms Murray’s tweet.
READ MORE: How to set up emergency SOS messages setting on iPhone and Android
Ms Riley added: “Unsurprisingly, people thought very badly of me because they took what the defendant had said about me at face value.”
She said she had been afraid that the “false allegation” that she had “encouraged a violent attack” made her a target for reprisals.
Ms Riley told the judge of an “onslaught of abuse” and said she had taken steps to improve “personal and home security”.
“I feared that the defendant’s tweet would encourage vigilantism against me,” she said.
“I was very concerned that I could be easily tracked down because I am a public figure.”
She added: “The volume of abusive and threatening messages was all-consuming.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article