![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
webofevilSIMON 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]
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]
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 03:27 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 03:50 pm (UTC)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.