Breaking News from the Worm Has Turned Department!
In a stunning decision issued by the UK Court of Appeals (Civil Division) earlier today, Mark's former colleague at GB News Laurence "Lozza" Fox has been delivered a sweet victory in a five year long case involving three individuals who falsely accused him of being racist.
As a result, Lozza will be owed some serious money (seven figures) as well as receive his day in court against his defamers. Here's what he had to say about the court's ruling:
I am delighted and grateful that the Court of Appeal has ruled in my favour on my appeal today, ruling that the trial judge was wrong to find that I had not suffered serious harm to my reputation as a result of Blake, Seymour and Thorp's false slurs that I was a 'racist'.
Of... https://t.co/J3wAM513Hc
— Laurence Fox (@LozzaFox) October 17, 2025
Mrs Fox - the delightful @CaliforniaFrizz - adds:
Knowing and witnessing the impact this has had on my husband, I can say with certainty that the process itself has been the punishment. Five long years of standing firm while enduring cancellation, personal attacks, and the negative effects on his life.
Now, at last, there is a... pic.twitter.com/UIpl1K2iWr
— Mrs Fox 🕊️ (@CaliforniaFrizz) October 17, 2025
Predictably, the mainstream media has buried the lede and portrayed this - quite misleadingly - as a loss: "Laurence Fox loses appeal bid on 'paedo' libel defeat but can argue he was damaged by being called a racist."
The court helpfully explains:
~ On 1 October 2020, the supermarket chain Sainsbury's Plc ("Sainsbury's") published two tweets on its Twitter account @sainsburys.
(1) The first tweet, at 10.11, displayed a graphic "Celebrating Black History Month" with the words:
We are Celebrating Black History Month this October. For more information visit [website link given]. #blackhistorymonth
The hyperlink included in this tweet linked to a page on Sainsbury's website which was headed: "Celebrating Black History Month". Under a sub-heading, "What we have been doing to support our colleagues", this included: "Recently we provided our black colleagues with a safe space to gather in response to the Black Lives Matters movement" ("the Sainsbury's Website BLM Statement").
(2) The second tweet, at 15.22, contained a graphic with the words:
We are proud to celebrate Black History Month together with
our Black colleagues, customers and communities and we will
not tolerate racism.We proudly represent and serve our diverse society and anyone
who does not want to shop with an inclusive retailer is welcome
to shop elsewhere.~ On 4 October 2020, Mr Fox posted a tweet about this ("Mr Fox's Sainsbury's tweet"). This quote-tweeted the second Sainsbury's tweet and added the following:
Dear @sainsburys I won't be shopping in your supermarket ever again whilst you promote racial segregation and discrimination. I sincerely hope others join me. RT. Further reading here [website link to the Sainsbury's Website BLM Statement.]
~ Each of the claimants saw and read Mr Fox's Sainsbury's tweet on the day it was posted. They responded by posting the following tweets ("the racist tweets"):
(1) At 16.45, Ms Thorp tweeted:
Any company giving future employment to Laurence Fox, or providing him with a platform, does so with the complete knowledge that he is unequivocally, publicly and undeniably a racist. And they should probably re-read their own statements of 'solidarity' with the black community.
(2) at 17.11, Mr Blake quote-tweeted Mr Fox's Sainsbury's tweet and said: What a mess. What a racist twat.
(3) at 17.19, Mr Seymour quote-tweeted Mr Fox's Sainsbury's tweet and said: Imagine being this proud of being a racist! So cringe. Total snowflake behaviour.
~ A little later on 4 October 2020, Mr Fox responded to each of these tweets by posting a tweet which quote-tweeted what had been said about him and added the word "paedophile" ("the paedophile tweets"). The words he used were:
(1) at 17.29, in response to Mr Blake's tweet: Pretty rich coming from a paedophile.
(2) At 17.30, in response to Mr Seymour's tweet: Says the paedophile.
(3) At 17.51, in response to Ms Thorp's tweet: Hey @nicolathorp Any company giving future employment to Nicola Thorpe (sic) or providing her with a platform does so with the complete knowledge that she is unequivocally, publicly and undeniably a paedophile.
Later Lozza tweeted:
Language is powerful. To accuse someone of racism without any evidence whatsoever to back up that accusation is a deep slander. It carries the same stigma and reputation destroying harm as accusing someone of paedophilia. Here endeth the lesson.
And, by the following morning deleted the tweets saying:
If the game nowadays is to throw baseless insults and accusations about, then we should all be free to participate. Having said that, I had deleted the tweets posted yesterday, in response to being repeatedly, continuously and falsely smeared as a racist...
Blake, Seymour and Thorpe sued. Lozza countersued. The original court found in favor of Blake and Seymour while tossing Thorpe's and Lozza's claims, assessed 180,000 pounds in damages (split between Blake and Seymour) plus seven figures in legal costs - which has been held in escrow whilst the appeal was heard.
We understand that seven figures - plus interest - is to be returned to Lozza in addition to the 90,000 pounds the appeals courts shaved off the original award in this same ruling.
Lord Justice Warby:
I am not convinced, first of all, that the judge was right to discount these
republications when assessing serious harm. Mr Fox's aim in sending these replies was to reach those who had already seen the claimants' accusation that he was a racist and to undermine or mitigate its effect on readers' attitudes to him. The judge was in no position to find that this, in itself, was an illegitimate or unreasonable thing to do. She had reached no conclusion on whether the allegation of being a racist was true. If it is not, then Mr Fox's response to Ms Thorp may have been a legitimate reply to an unjust attack; and it may also be arguable that he was entitled to reply to the other claimants' tweets... [emphasis added]
Indeed.
It is quite obvious to the reasonable reader that Lozza's rhetorical device was simply to argue to the effect of: if I'm a "racist" - you're a "pedo" or alternately, if you're not a "pedo", I'm not a "racist"!
Thus, the very same arguments used to support their damage claim will now - with today's ruling - be able to be used against them. Bravo to their lawyers for walking them into this trap!
~ In echoes of Mark's trial in DC, it was noted by Warby that Blake and Seymour had similarly tried to big up their "damages" with false claims:
Mr Blake had pleaded that the paedophile allegation had several specific
professional consequences involving Stonewall and MHFAE and an application for a post with an NHS trust. The evidence showed, to the contrary, that his position had not been jeopardised in any of these ways. His application for the NHS Trust role had succeeded. MHFAE had expressed support for Mr Blake. Stonewall's statement about him was similarly positive. Yet paradoxically the judge used that statement "to found an inference as to Stonewall's opinion, in order then to reach a finding that other people would have thought badly of him".Mr Seymour had not pleaded any professional consequences. He had brought up the subsequent drag queen controversy in a belated attempt to bolster his case on serious harm. This was case that relied on inadmissible evidence and "came crashing down" in cross-examination. The judge's treatment of the issue was unfair and inadequate. She should have taken it into account against Mr Seymour, as had been urged on behalf of Mr Fox. [emphasis added]
Perhaps, Lozza's tormentors should try to settle quickly so as to avoid having to pay another seven-figure sum...
