Comments on: Public inquiry details ‘potentially defamatory’ statements

By: John L Bell

John L Bell — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:37:43 +0000

At last! I can also claim to have been hit by the ‘potentially defamatory’ excuse! On Nick Robinson’s Newslog on the BBC website my post was removed! I think it was the reference to ‘This Fraudsters’ Parliament’!
I always thought that something was only defamatory if it was untrue!

By: John L Bell

John L Bell — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 21:05:04 +0000

Ah!!!!!! A watchdog with its teeth removed! A watchdog that cannot bite or even bark!

And who exactly set up this arrangement….. Let me guess?

Wouldn’t be anyone in This Fraudsters’ Parliament… I suppose?

Update:
Still no reply from any of the three main party leaders on this brazen attempt to suppress evidence of MPs’ Fraud! Still in ‘holiday mode’, perhaps?

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:58:57 +0000

@GF: Yes, if the Committee publishes defamatory material, it is potentially liable in any libel action. As this is not a Parliamentary committee, but a quango, it’s not covered by Parliamentary privilege, or by the privilege that proceedings in courts and inquiries have.

By: Rich

Rich — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:32:19 +0000

“redact from “Keith Vaz” to “blocked toilet etc”

I assume no change of sense will occur.

By: John L Bell

John L Bell — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:20:47 +0000

Hope you don’t mind, Heather!
I have emailed the leaders of the three major parties asking for their party view on this attempt to suppress evidence given to the Committee!

In your new book might I suggest that this attempt to be given a suitable tag line …. something like….. ‘attempts to suppress freedom of speech in the Mugabe style of democracy’!

Who are the named persons who have come come up with this latest wheeeze to protect those in parliament guilty of fraud?

By: GF

GF — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:57:53 +0000

This is so outrageous that only a (very partial) devil’s advocacy can be given:

To be fair to the poor Committee, they are not censoring you — unless I’m mistaken, in which case feel free to point it out and ignore this — but merely passing on their (as they put it) “suggestions” as to what to redact. Whether they should have done so is another matter, but you’re still entitled to submit what you original intended to, right?

Furthermore, are they liable under the (admittedly idiotic and dangerous, and with respect to parliamentary privilege flagrantly hypocritical) libel laws if they publish your comments? It’s not really their fault that this is the situation if so (except insofar as they are MPs that can and should do something about it).

But just to re-iterate: that this letter should even have been sent is truly depressing.