Simon Heffer is an innocent victim of a misunderstanding and a champion of the people

[webofevil]

SIMON HEFFER IS AN INNOCENT VICTIM OF A MISUNDERSTANDING AND A CHAMPION OF THE PEOPLE

In yesterday’s post, someone felt the need to anonymously fire a warning shot across my bows by reminding me that the law says you can libel someone even by telling the truth about them. In the light of this, it has become clear to me that when respected historian, editor and society beauty Simon Heffer [right] repeated the current Conservative canard that Hansard changed its copy because it was leant on by the government, he did not do so in the knowledge that the allegation was false. His part in this was entirely unwitting.

What do readers think could have been the reason for his uncharacteristic lapse in judgment in accidentally printing an untruth?

[Poll #1157413]

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Ha Ha Ha

I meant that the Heffer article was libellous to Hansard. He has brought into question the integrity of the entire Official Report. He has either accused the editor of lying to the Speaker or the Speaker of lying to the House of Commons. He has accused the reporters of breaking the rules that they are employed to work under with absolutely no evidence.

Heffer has accused them of knowing that Balls said “so what” and lying about it.

He has very clearly “published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.”

He would not have a leg to stand on if someone in Hansard, Parliament or the union which represents the reporters threatened legal action and demanded an apology in the evil lying cunt’s next column.

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

Aha! Well, fair enough. Still, it was useful to be reminded anyway in case someone sympathetic to him went trawling and found my intemperate screed.

I would love to see Hansard be as proactive as you suggest, but sadly I suspect the entrenched policy of "remaining aloof and hoping it will all go away" is far more likely to take effect.

[liquidindian.livejournal.com]

the law says you can libel someone even by telling the truth about them.

Does it? My media law books are in a box in my parents' garage, but I'm sure that truth is a complete defence against defamation. Is this something in English law?

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

Here I am prepared to be wrong. I had certainly got the impression that truth was not necessarily an absolute defence for, as my mystery respondent stated, “statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them”—but I am so not a lawyer. Anyone want to set me straight?

[liquidindian.livejournal.com]

Here's how I remember it.

statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them - that's the defamation part of a defamation suit. Defamation needs four things to be actionable - falsity, defamatory, for the message to be communicated, and something else that I can't remember but that's not important. It might be fault, but if it is, it's always assumed and accidental defamation is not a defence.

Veritas, or truth, is a complete defence. It doesn't matter if someone's name is dragged through the mud - if it's true and you can prove it, then no problem. The defamatory part of a defamation suit is interesting. If, for example, I accused a paedophile of being a shoplifter, even if false, I might get away with it - as it wouldn't lower the person's reputation with right-thinking people. This may apply to Heffer - it depends how 'right-thinking' people see him.

[mrslant]

In a civil action for libel, justification - i.e. that the defamatory statement was true - is a complete defence, but the onus is on the Defendant to prove the truth of the statement on the balance of probabilities.

In a prosecution for criminal libel the Defendant would have to show both justification and public benefit, but this has yet to be tested against the Human Rights Act as there hasn't been a prosecution for criminal libel in decades.

I would argue in the alternative that your assertion that Simon Heffer is a liar was a legitimate inference drawn from true facts (and possibly even from matters subject to Parliamentary privilege), and therefore would benefit from the defence of fair comment.

Oh, and calling him a fat fuck is "mere vulgar abuse" and not defamatory.

This opinion provided free of charge is for information only and is not to be relied upon as legal advice. You should always consult a solicitor for formal legal advice. I have to say this to cover my arse. See, I am a real lawyer. Objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are. Not to be taken internally. May contain nuts.