"Dear Mr Boyd, (Yourself v Ken Livingstone) We confirm that we have been instructed on behalf of the defendant in relation to this matter and attach a copy of the acknowledgment of service for your information. We understand that, on this basis, the defence will be due to be served on 6 July 2006."The aforementioned Mr Boyd has a few questions he would like answering.
How can Livingstone afford such an outfit? I don't think his income as Mayor permits for such extravagant expenses.Good Question, I assume Berrymans Lace Mawer don't come cheap.
Would it be correct to assume that the Greater London Authority (GLA) will foot the bill?Bearing in mind what we know about Mr Livingstone's taxi bills, I wouldn't be surprised.
Taking into consideration that my claim is specifically against Ken Livingstone, and not with the GLA as he has falsely and repeatedly tried to imply, and supposing that indeed the GLA will pay for Livingstone's defence, is it lawful that the Mayor of London uses Londoners' taxpayer money to resolve legal issues of a personal nature?I would love to know what the rules are concerning this, and how decisions are made. Bearing in mind that public figures are at risk from spurious lawsuits, there must be some provision. However, seeing as this incident, like so many others, are a case of Ken placing his own foot in his mouth, I don't see why the public should pay the price.