In the news

Damien Green, who appears on the leaked Whip's office list as allegedly being 'handsy at parties' = not actionable.

Exactly.

Except that it is actionable., even if "allegedly" is written.

(Per the Defamation Act 1996, Section 1, (1) (a) & (b))

(IANAL etc... & could be entirely mistaken)

[Edit] Also the common law "repetition rule", referenced in the 2013 Defamation Act explanatory notes, Section 2, 15.

There is a long-standing common law rule that it is no defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to prove that he or she was only repeating what someone else had said (known as the “repetition rule”).

Where my son works they had an apprentice who was spotted smoking a joint at lunchtime. They couldn't just drug test him because it would apparently have been victimisation so they tested all of the apprentices and something like 7 out of 10 tested positive and were sacked.

So why, then, when the Observer printed: "The list also includes Damian Green, The First Secretary of State and the Prime Ministers’ de facto number two. He’s accused of being “handy at parties.”." was it not sued?

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.

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.

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.

I'm not sure it is, tbh.

But whether or not it is, literally every national newspaper ran the story at the time and their lawyers presumably took the view it wasn't defamatory and they would not be sued, which is kind of my point.

No he wouldn't - the onus is on the person making (or repeating) the statement to demonstrate that it is true.

That person could simply point at the list and say: "There it is, your honour. Here is his name and next to it is the allegation."

Sure, why not.

Also Liz is apparently looking if they can defer some of the knighthoods as they would trigger up to 8 byelections and suddenly they don't want that for some reason

Do you mean peerages? Because there are loads of knights in the commons, eg the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley, knighted in 2011.

😂

Yes, meant peerage, apologies

Back on the Just Stop Oil protests, some angry drivers out there
https://twitter.com/civilresistorCF/status/1578760840375074818

Looks pretty strong for a guy on chemo.

That would mean I could anonymously write a document saying "Jeremy Corbyn is a pedo" and then put an article on the front page of the Daily Mail saying "Document says Jeremy Corbyn is a pedo" with Jeremy Corbyn having no legal recourse against me.

Newspapers could say absolutely anything as long as they "found" a document saying it beforehand

Same could be said of the sun and liverpool supporters and that is still going on !

Understood that Johnson’s lust predates latest but it’s not as if this is Burns’ first indiscretion - any other form of work you’d be sacked with all the implications rather than rewarded

[Edit - I’m leaving “Johnson’s lust”, attributing it to letters being next to each other rather than Freudian fingers]

I'm not sure it is, tbh.

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...

So you can run any story you want so long as it's attributed to an anonymous document?

I imagine that tactically the Tories didn't want to get into legal action because some of the things were true but eventually someone would break rank and sue if it was repeated enough.

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.

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.

I thought the papers reported the existence of the list (and in some cases linked to places where it could be found), but not the specifics of it, unless the specifics were already known facts, i.e. who divorced then married who, who had an NDA in place yada yada

Exactly that apparently, Guardian article from the time:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/31/who-is-handsy-in-taxis-spreadsheet-of-sexual-allegations-alarms-tories

Tories knew that the ultimate defence against a defamation claim is establishing truth. They definitely don't want that!

when the Observer printed

You mean this article?

That's the New York Observer, no? And not the Guardian Media Observer.

It's likely that it's not worth suing a US publication in the US, as they have different defamation laws than the UK, with their freedom of speech dogma and all. An suing them in the UK would likely go nowhere either.

It's also possible that, given the fact that Damian Green was actually found to be have sexually harassed people by a police investigation, the publishers may have actually had evidence, and could have defended a libel suit.

As @Howard wrote - the UK press would have restricted itself to reporting the existence of the list, and that the list made accusations of sexual activities, impropriety and assault. But not who was on the list.

For example: Who is 'handsy in taxis'? Spreadsheet of sexual allegations alarms Tories