Never mind Reg..
Perhaps you can pay your legal bills for this case by being the wedding singer for another extremist neo-fascist homophobe like Rush Limbaugh.
Must be amazing to be sitting so high on the moral ground. What’s it like up there?
Isn’t the Times owned by the same News International Group as the Sun newspaper which once libeled Sir Elton John falsely accusing him of being a pedeophile?
British Libel Laws actually mean the publisher needs to be able to prove that what they have published is indeed correct – if they are unsure of it then they shouldn’t publish it in the definite and just the possible, if they know it is an outright lie then it shouldn’t be published. The burden being on the publisher (who is quite often a large corporation) rather then a private individual is more desirable.
Mixed views on this.
Can’t help but think this silly libel law the UK employs to protect ‘good reputations’ has been serving the likes of the late Sir Jimmy Saville.
As for Sir Elton, think he would have been better served by growing bigger balls and rising up above the supposed slur. Surely his cash would be better served serving the charities who he worked so tirelessly for, as opposed to lining his lawyers’ pockets?
Wrong! Not all publishers are large corporations. You’re thinking of the national papers, but the UK has hundreds of local and specialist interest publishers as well.
And small publishers (whether traditional media or e-media) can be bullied out of publishing true facts by threats from aggressive solicitors. The threat isn’t that they would lose in court, it’s the threat that defending their words would cost more than their available revenue – i.e. shut up, or we’ll put you out of business.