Cash Tanker

Nevertheless, I do wish I spoke at the launch to highlight a few problems they may have overlooked. Firstly, from my own experience, abolishing the Duke of Brunswick rule without qualification is misguided, particularly in the age of the internet. The internet has actually made it more relevant than when it was first introduced in 1849.

I speak from my own dreadful experience. It is difficult for me to explain the problem with this without going into detail about my own personal story and how I ended up being defamed and libelled in nearly every British newspaper, their websites and even worldwide databases, after the libellous articles were syndicated by British publishers to my home country, America. My story in detail, submitted as a memoranda, can be found on the Parliamentary Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s website page for their Press Standards Inquiry.

My experience is that there needs to be some provision to qualify the archived articles, as eloquently detailed by The Times Newspapers in their memoranda to the Committee. I am sure Alastair Brett will not mind my copying and pasting his excellent proposal below:

“This would basically mean that archival media websites would be protected under the law of qualified privilege, subject to the newspaper being ready and willing to publish, “in a suitable manner, a reasonable letter or statement by way of explanation or contradiction”. This would enable people, who were being dogged by an old article, which maybe long out of date because facts had changed and time marched on, to get the article updated and new salient facts put onto the database alongside the old article. This could be done by an updating letter or statement by way of explanation or contradiction being posted alongside the old article or easily linked to it.”

This is necessary, otherwise people like me will be perpetually defamed and libelled on newspaper websites, long after the allegations may have been withdrawn or disproved, with no follow up article for ‘privacy’ reasons. This is unjust. Then there are those that are removed and then reappear. In my case, most of the articles as first published in the newspaper were not actionable because they were based on a court report that was most unfortunately made up with either false evidence or trumped up allegations.

Another matter I wish I had raised today at the launch is the rather obstinate refusal of the British press to provide rights of reply in the first instance. This is what the American media does with aplumb, acknowledging the abuses that can occur with free speech under the First Amendment. As an American, I can not adequately express my shock and dismay at the refusal of respectable British newspaper to give me a right of reply.

This would avoid many a libel claim and their associated costs. British publishers please take note. It is a simple and cost free remedy. On the subject of damages, I disagree with the proposed £10,000 cap. It will generally be grossly insufficient for the pain and suffering caused by libel in the mostly sensational English press. Maybe on a blog, but not for libel in the press. I strongly disagree with your second recommendation and that the motive of most people who sue for libel is money. Having sat in on many a libel trial, I can categorically say this is not true. We are not all libel tourists.

I have more to say about proving publication and using the human rights ‘privacy’ Article 8 to get private libel court hearings, sealed court files and apparently ‘super-injunctions’. It is truly a dreadful state of affairs.

My libel claims have been hijacked by a few legal professionals out to develop an unjust privacy law that is being intentionally misapplied to protect the reputations of the undeserving. I am not referring to Max Mosley’s claim, which I thought was a just application of Article 8 for a gross infringement of his privacy, as upheld by public opinion. Mr. Justice Eady did not deserve the sensational defamation he was subjected to over this.

I do not think any other country in the world would have allowed their press to get away with what was done to Max Mosley in the name of freedom of expression and the subsequent character assassination of Mr. Justice Eady. It was not just offensive, it was abusive. In America, I believe an equivalent publication would have been slapped with a huge fine.

Let the debate begin.