-
You might want to go away and educate yourself on libel law...
I might.
So in this instance, the papers either knew they'd be able to substantiate the allegations or gambled they wouldn't be sued because the Tories knew most if not all of the allegations might well be true and they didn't want to have the story run and run. Because I'm guessing their lawyers looked at the reporting and gave it the green light.
ketsbaia-
Particularly because there's no legal aid for defamation! It's an old fashioned law designed to protect the rich and powerful.
Yep, I can't say what the papers legal teams were thinking but I can imagine the Tory party not wanting a trial where the allegations would be raked through if there was any truth to them at all.
-
Tories knew that the ultimate defence against a defamation claim is establishing truth. They definitely don't want that!
Fox
owl
It is. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. In other words, in defamation cases you are guilty until proven innocent.
I think you'll find that the fact someone else has already said it - such as your newspaper and pointing at a list examples - is no defence either.
If it was, Sally Bercow's tweet "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? innocent face" wouldn't have cost her £150k.
You might want to go away and educate yourself on libel law...