-
It's because it's a statement of fact. He appears on the list as being handsy at parties. You can't argue that he doesn't. Whether or not he's handsy at parties is not what's in question here.
He could argue in a court that constant repetition of that fact is defamatory, but he presumably realised that might open him up to having to prove he isn't, which may not have gone as well as he would have liked.
ketsbaia-
Whether or not he's handsy at parties is not what's in question here.
Except that it is. That's what the law states. Both in statute and precedent.
He could argue in a court that constant repetition of that fact is defamatory
Which would be correct.
he presumably realised that might open him up to having to prove he isn't
No he wouldn't - the onus is on the person making (or repeating) the statement to demonstrate that it is true.
NotThamesWater
I don't know. That sounds like a question for Damian Green.
Just because something is actionable doesn't mean that it will be actioned.