The BBC have given £45,000 to the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Muhammad Abdul Bari, to settle a legal case brought by him against the BBC for comments made by Charles Moore on Question Time in March. Charles Moore accused the MCB “leadership” of failing to condemn attacks on British soldiers, thereby implicitly condoning them, and this was deemed libellous of Mr Bari.
I read Cranmer’s response to it, and it simply reinforced my sense that a wrong had been done. The big question seems to be why the BBC so tamely ponied up telly-taxpayer’s money and imply that even mild indirect criticism of Islam is not within the law in the UK. I understand from Cranmer’s comments that Mr Moore is seeking legal advice of his own. The BBC don’t mention him in their own report, possibly mindful of such escalation, but it seems to me this is an attack on the mildest kind of free speech, and the BBC are binding themselves to being wary of who they allow to speak on the BBC. We often express dismay at the liberal-leftist consensus which the BBC supports by stacking their panels with centre-leftists; here the BBC are accepting legal reinforcement of their natural instincts; perhaps it’s no wonder they surrender so meekly to the heap big chief of the MCB.
Needless to say, the libel lawyers in this case were Carter-Ruck, tyrants of the UK libel laws renowned for squeezing money out of the flimsiest cases of offence and reputational damage. What a bunch of evil shysters they are.
So after the bombs on the underground in 2005 and the subsequent Newsnight interview with Abu Izzadeen where he praised the misguided criminals who carried out that ugly deed and where he stated that if he knew of any future attacks he wouldn't inform the police. Will we see the bBC paying out £45,000 each to every family of those 52 people who were murdered.
Yeah right?
What a bunch of evil shysters they are.
Careful, Ed. That sort of language gets a letter from Carter-*uck!
RD- I am rather hoping so 😉
However I can argue that given their trade I've done them a reputational service grrr.
I think you may be missing a trick here, Ed, if I may presume to offer advice…
People usually settle legal cases when their own lawyers advise that to pursue it too far will be both costly and risky.
We should not limit ourselves to the Bari case. We should be demanding that the BBC recklessly pursues all cases, thus blowing huge amounts of money on barristers, solicitors and damages.
Nothing left for management bonuses. But the real upside: Nothing left to run the kinds of programmes which so upset our readers!
Pounce_uk also comes up with a brilliant suggestion: Start paying money to people who have not in anyway got a legal case against the BBC. Thompson's lackeys will be begging on the streets to scrape together a single Question Time!
Can't say how wonderful it is to welcome a new allie to Ratass's cause!
The BBC is paying £45,000 in damages to Mr Bari – which he will donate to charity – as well as his legal costs.
So it's probably nearer a hundred grand and you can bet the charity aren't the Salvation Army.
Yes, Ed.
This is what happens when paranoid islamophobes get their wackier claims tested by the court. You're lucky that B-BBC doesn't have a higher profile or things would most likely get quite costly round here too.
The BBC settled because Moore was wrong. Not settling would simply have incurred higher legal fees.
It is hilarious that you and your fellow wingnuts couldn't document proper bias – other than your own – if you tried any harder. You're a gift to the BBC. Seriously. Useful idiots.
In a strange way, Opinionated has a point.
Of course Al Beeb will pursue telly tax evasion like a fat chick chases an empty smarty packet (because they know this will yield them more money than they will lose pursuing the case).
On the other hand since the cost of defending this case probably out weighed any benefits in winning, Al Beeb just rolled over.
Sad, but predictable.
Mailman
You're lucky that B-BBC doesn't have a higher profile or things would most likely get quite costly round here too.
Is that a threat? Are we worrying the BBC with nothing more than facts + opinions??
Or would you prefer a liberal consensus according to your own rules?
Useful idiot
Anonymous 1:44 PM, July 17, 2009
"The BBC settled because Moore was wrong."
Factually he was correct so presumably you think it's wrong to criticise any muslim group.
So our little BBC apparatchik assures us Moore was wrong.
Shame he can't tear himself away from his copy of Ariel for long enough to read a newspaper.
If he did, he would know that Moore is seeking his own legal advice.
Whether to settle or fight any legal case, and especially defamation, is always a judgement call; the law is a lottery and lawyers are expensive. On the other hand cowardly organisations (especially PL insurers) have encouraged the most ludicrous claims by settling too often. I once fought a case against the advice of my insurer and won. Not only did I not pay any costs or damages but I also won my own costs!
The guy who falsly accused me won't be making any more dodgy claims against me in the near furture; I believe he lost his house, his wife left him and he has only restricted visiting rights with his children (may be another agenda there – none of my business). Shame. Quite a high price to pay for what he thought would be easy money, but he had plenty of opportunity to drop his case so presumably it was a risk he was happy to take.
If more fought, they would win more often than their advisors think, and we would see far fewer of these cases.
'Freethinker.co.uk:
"BBC offers to pay up and apologise over ‘slur’ to posturing Muslim group."
"THE BBC has offered £30,000 and an apology to the Muslim Council of Britain following remarks made on Question Time by former Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore.
"During a debate in March about Islamic protests which marred a soldiers’ homecoming parade in Luton, Moore, a panellist on the programme, accused the Muslim organisation of failing to condemn attacks on soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Moore went on to claim that the MCB thought it was a 'good thing' to kill troops.
"The broadcaster was then threatened with legal action over his comments.
"Faced with the threat of a writ, the BBC – in a cowardly act of dhimmitude – made an offer of 'amends' and an apology on the Question Time website. But this has been rejected and the MCB is demanding an apology on air.
"According to this report, the Corporation’s offer to pay out will raise eyebrows in Whitehall, where ministers have refused to settle a similar defamation claim over a letter written by Communities Secretary Hazel Blears.
"A BBC insider said the move has also angered Mr Moore, who was not consulted over the legal response to the complaint or even informed that an offer to settle had been made.
"The MCB’s leadership described Mr Moore’s claims as a 'total lie'.
"MCB Secretary General Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari said:
"'These kinds of statements are very damaging, and we received many complaints from our Muslim supporters who said they were extremely offended by the comments.
"'In fact when a British man called Ken Bigley was kidnapped in Iraq, we sent envoys there to plead for his release. This is accusing us of encouraging terrorism abroad.'
"The BBC offered its settlement amid fears that the Corporation had libelled Dr Abdul Bari even though he was not mentioned by name.
"A BBC spokesman said:
"'Question Time always has lively and wide-ranging debate. On occasion this results in unfairness to individuals who aren’t there to put their point of view and this is one of those occasions.'
"The separate row between the MCB’s deputy Secretary General Dr Daud Abdullah and Miss Blears centres on a document relating to the recent conflict in Gaza which was signed by Dr Abdullah.
"In March, Miss Blears interpreted the document as justifying attacks on the Royal Navy and wrote to the Guardian to explain her concerns.
"A solicitor’s letter was sent on behalf of Dr Daud Abdullah demanding she pay £75,000 by last month or face full legal proceedings. But she refused to do so and no further correspondence has been received." ('Freethinker, 30/5/09.)
I am puzzled. I thought English law was specific in that to libel you had to specifically name someone and that your statement was untrue. Perhaps a beeboid with legal training could explain how Mr Moore alledgely libelled without naming names.
And how much has the BBC shelled out to prevent publication of the Balen Report?
BTW I don't blame the BBC for coughing up in this case: not that they (or Moore) were in any sense blameworthy but the case was being tried before Mr "Justice" Eady. There's no way the BBC could have won this case since, as Stephen Glover among others has pointed out, Eady has form here: he is no friend of a free press. Given a choice between robust public discussion and the (over)sensitivities of an Islamic bigmouth, Eady's decision was easy to predict and the BBC acted accordingly.
Why should the Beeb be held responsible anyway? How can legal action be threatened against them if had already been enacted against Moore?
'…if hadn't already been enacted against Moore?'
Oops.
@dave s
I thought English law was specific in that to libel you had to specifically name someone and that your statement was untrue
Too true. Libel law should be what we think it is.
And not that poncey variety actually judged in the courts where the concept of Group Defamation is well established, meaning that you can sue if the libel applies to a specific group of people, one of which is you.
The BBC should have applied our version of the truth, which is to shout loudly that Bari must be guilty of encouraging attacks on British troops, even though he'd actually condemned such attacks.
GCooper deserves a mention in dispatches, too,
So our little BBC apparatchik assures us Moore was wrong.
Shame he can't tear himself away from his copy of Ariel for long enough to read a newspaper.
If he did, he would know that Moore is seeking his own legal advice.
Yes, indeed. In most cases seeking legal advice means someone asking a lawyer if they have a viable case. But GCooper teaches us that it means that he's damn near won already!
Do you think that we should fight for our own system of law to be recognised by the state, so that we no longer have to operate within the tedious British laws which don't always produce the desired result?
A separate, culturally-specific legal system! Now wouldn't that be great?
The troll writes: "Yes, indeed. In most cases seeking legal advice means someone asking a lawyer if they have a viable case. But GCooper teaches us that it means that he's damn near won already!"
Not what I said at all, is it?
Still, good to see a practical demonstration of the reporting standards you so admire.
Two other thoughts occur as to why the BBC might have considered it a good idea to cough up:
1. Usually in a libel case against the media, the medium (newspaper, broadcaster or whatever) stands in the dock with the person actually perpetrating the "libel" (journalist or commentator) and, since the medium has deep pockets, pays out for legal costs and any damages in respect of itself and the perp. In this case, the BBC settled and now leaves Moore swinging in the wind to face any adverse consequences personally. Moore is no friend of the BBC, particularly in regard to the licence fee. Accordingly, the withdrawal of any protection for Moore must have seemed a pretty good deal at the BBC considering it had decided to pay up anyway.
2. (Rather more speculative!) As we know the BBC is in love with Islamism. Bari claims that the £45,000 damages are to go to "charity". I don't know what "charity" he's talking about but it would come as little surprise if this donation ends up costing British or, more likely, Israeli blood. What better way for the BBC to make a virtue of necessity by facilitating the use of taxpayers' money to further its crusade against those pesky Jews.
@GCooper
Not what I said at all, is it?
Heavens, no.
What I meant to say was that GCooper teaches us that you can muddy the waters by waffling about Moore seeking legal advice. Which means nothing at all in practice. And it looks like a denial of Anonymous's point that Moore was wrong. But it isn't really.
Anyway, a Biased BBC QC to you for excellent legal advice. And thanks, as ever, for the advice to a newbie.
Outrageous! What more can one say?
Opiniated,
The BBC have a platform on Question time where opinions are voiced, some true, some false and with a wide grey area in between.
If the BBC (and our pocket) is take personal responsibility for every contentious comment or opinion voiced on these programmes we might as well end all free speech.
The BBC should have stayed out of this entirely to avoid any controversy.
Is it not possible to track the £45,000 and its destination through the freedom of information act?
The troll writes: "What I meant to say was that GCooper teaches us that you can muddy the waters by waffling about Moore seeking legal advice. Which means nothing at all in practice. And it looks like a denial of Anonymous's point that Moore was wrong. But it isn't really."
And still our wannabe Master Brigstocke fails to understand.
The Anonymous troll – upholding the finest Beeboid trolling standards – stated as a fact that Moore was wrong.
What my comment showed was that this has not been established. Moore, clearly, does not believe it to be the case, or he wouldn't be wasting his money consulting m'learned friend.
It might be a fact, had it been tested at law. But it hasn't been.
Still, facts… who needs 'em, when you can sneer, eh?
@frankos
I really do feel we are helping to re-define law here. And, no offence to anyone else, you are at the cutting edge of this assault on the BBC's craven lawyers!
If the BBC (and our pocket) is take personal responsibility for every contentious comment or opinion voiced on these programmes we might as well end all free speech.
Blimey! Why didn't al-Beeb's shyster lawyers think of that one? Of course, libel claims go away if you say you're exercising free speech!
The BBC should have stayed out of this entirely to avoid any controversy.
Genius! When Carter-Ruck's writ arrived pointing out that as the BBC had published Moore's remarks, they were guilty of libel, all the BBC had do to was say: "We're staying out of this one…"
Carter-Ruck would have gone away. Tail between legs. Wimpering all the way back to EC4. Last we'd have heard about it.
David, Ed. If we ever do end up being sued for libel, make sure you call frankos first!
Opinionated,
Like MarkE I have fought a case through courts against legal advice and won. It wasn't libel, but the more I've seen of the legal process, the more convinced I am that one has to fight one's corner and not be afraid. Let other people back down; they often will. In the case of Carter-Ruck they get away with, er, murder, and deserve a figurative bloody nose from a combative defendant.
I take the point made about Justice Eadie by Umbongo, but I ask myself about this case in particular: what about laying down the reasonable expectations a Briton should have of the MCB and then see if the actions of its leadership correspond to the level of support for British troops that could be expected? I don't think they do. The demonstrators clearly regarded the soldiers as terrorists, and deserving therefore of whatever fate befell them (how many on here call people terrorists and then say that they hope nothing bad happens to them?). On this basis, the MCB should have condemned their demonstration; I'd be surprised to find that they did. If they didn't, Mr Moore's insinuation waa quite correct.
Opinionated, you're quite the dictator, telling people to just shut up the way you do. You base you entire position on the assumpitons that A) the BBC acted with full due diligence B) the advice they received unequivocally told them to settle c) no overriding principle of free speech was at stake here. You could well be wrong on the first two counts, you don't know or you won't say. The last I think you haven't even considered, but it's a chilling suppression of free speech imo, and I'll say so whatever you think of that.
Ed
In praising other commentators, I fear I have under-played your insight into libel law. Apologies.
what about laying down the reasonable expectations a Briton should have of the MCB and then see if the actions of its leadership correspond to the level of support for British troops that could be expected? I don't think they do.
Perhaps this could be enshrined as the Ed T defence in future law books.
Defamation is boringly described in the existing law libraries as words lowering the reputation of an individual.
Yours is so much better – in future courts will "lay down the reasonable expectations a Briton should have of" the claimant… and then presumably tell them to bugger off because Charles Moore thinks they should behave as he sees fit.
I can see a few bugs need ironing out, but it's a runner, my honourable friend.
In Context
13 March 2009 Charles Moore
“I agree with a lot of what's been said. But they [Luton protestors] do represent a point of view that is strong in some areas of Muslim life. And I say this because the Muslim Council of Britain, which is the umbrella organisation for all Muslim groups in this country, I've gone to them many times, and I said will you condemn the killing and kidnapping of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they won't. I've tried it again and again. Because these wars are in Muslim countries, they will not do this. They do one thing that is perfectly understandable – they are opposed to the war. That is perfectly legitimate. But there is a bigger, another step that they take, they say it is actually a good thing, even an Islamic thing to kill or kidnap British soldiers – and that is the mainstream organisation and I've tried it several times and that issues runs through…"
http://www.iengage.org.uk/component/content/article/1-news/276-the-bbc-broadcasts-slander
March 24th 2009
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/03/24/traitor/
25 March 2009
"Over the past two weeks the government has been privately engaging with the Muslim Council of Britain through meetings and correspondence to establish whether one of their senior members attended the Global Anti-Aggression conference in Istanbul, and if so, whether he also signed the Istanbul declaration that calls for violence against troops and Jewish communities. This is not grandstanding. The government would be shirking its duty if it fails to investigate any potential threat to the security of our troops and communities. We must take this extremely seriously.
That is why we have been asking the MCB to find out whether their deputy secretary general, Dr Abdullah, attended the conference and signed the statement. The MCB has now confirmed he did attend and did sign the declaration."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/25/islam-terrorism
Opinionated-
you don't seem to have understood my point- Moore's accusation may be libel only if unfounded. I am arguing it has foundation; many of us here suspect the BBC actually rather agree with the MCB in many respects and were only too pleased to give them free money and righteous publicity. We judge thus based on the BBC's attitude to multi-culti matters generally and Islam in particular.
Oh, and by the way, could you enlighten us on your legal training and special experience of libel law? Ta very much old thing.
Isn't question time recorded well before being broadcast so the legal bods can censor anything out they could be sued for ? Was this seen as just a cunning way for al beeb to give some money to their mates at the rop(sic) ?
Ed
My experience in legal issues is a matter of modest toil… certainly compared to the sheer brilliance of the legal brains available here on B-BBC.
Your point is far more interesting:
Moore's accusation may be libel only if unfounded. I am arguing it has foundation
Of course! Let us examine Moore's point…
they (the MCB) say it is actually a good thing, even an Islamic thing to kill or kidnap British soldiers
Muhammud Abdul Bari is general secretary of MCB. He is on record as speaking against the killing of British soldiers in 2007. There is nothing on the record to suggest he thinks fellow Muslims should kill or kidnap Brits.
Now your average lawyer would say "pay up" at this point. Bari's the most identifiable leader of the MCB and he's gone public on the sanctity of Our Boys' Lives. Nor is there any evidence he's taken a contradictory line anywhere else. These stick-in-the-muds would also point out that in libel law, it is the defendant (ie Moore and the BBC) to prove that they have case, and not the claimant, Bari.
But here at B-BBC Law, we say Phooey.
many of us here suspect the BBC actually rather agree with the MCB in many respects and were only too pleased to give them free money and righteous publicity.
You don't have to be George Carman QC to run with this one. Shame on the BBC.
Hmmm, good point, 6.26. If the alleged offence had happened on live TV, would the broadcaster have the same liability?
And can someone clear up the situation regarding Moore – is he facing any legal action from the MCB?
Opinionated,
Your repetitive format is getting as repetitive as a repetitive format in a BBC reality show. i.e.very. Your format – alluring at first, then gradually panning out to reveal layers of heavy sarcasm – is like a dagger to the heart.
“People usually settle legal cases when their own lawyers advise that to pursue it too far will be both costly and risky.
In and out of sarcasm like a yoyo, you seem to be suggesting the altruistic BBC settled out of court ………….to save our dosh! Gosh, Prudence, how thoughtful.
“We should not limit ourselves to the Bari case. We should be demanding that the BBC recklessly pursues all cases, thus blowing huge amounts of money on barristers, solicitors and damages.
Your knickers have got in a twist and you’re all sarky again. Are you suggesting that in order not to squander our money, the BBC should pre-emptively settle out of court each time someone threatens to sue …….. just in case the prosecution wins and awards huge damages against the BBC?
If so, is this prudent course of action to be applied exclusively to cases brought by the easily offended MCB.? Only if so, it sort of gags people a bit wouldn’t you say?
I wasn’t aware that it had actually been made illegal to criticise the ROP yet, though I hear they have filled in all the relevant application forms.
Just think of all the money the risk-averse BBC could save if they went a step further and stopped anyone other than MCB supporters appearing on the BBC altogether. As it happens, they’re halfway there already. Any collateral offence caused to the less litigious amongst us would just be tough cheese. Hard cheese.
“Pounce_uk also comes up with a brilliant suggestion: Start paying money to people who have not in anyway got a legal case against the BBC.”
Pounce’s Abu Izzadeen example fits the bill perfectly. With your moneysaving proposal, Abu’s incitement to violence and hatred hasn’t got a legal leg to stand on, thus saving the BBC a fortune in preemptive payouts while Moore’s dubious libel merits a £45k forfeit. Moore must be silenced. Let Abu have his say!
Question Time would be Out of the Question. No need for anyone’s lackeys to beg on the streets after all. Far too risky unless new QT had an all MCB panel and an all MCB audience who would ask questions about a variety of interesting MCB topics.
That would save an absolute fortune. They could almost do away with the telly tax. Why don’t you put that forward for me as a proposal. I wouldn’t accept a fee, I’d donate it to pizzas for the IDF or whatever it’s called.
.
But the money is going to a gopod cause that the BBC supports
The above thread demonstrates that lawyers are overpaid windbags who, if given an inch, will measure it, consult previous measurements for relevant precedents, ask for a second opinion from a learned colleague with expertise in imperial measurement, claim under EU law it is against the rights of any distance to be measured by imperial units alone ,and immediately lodge appeal against any judgment made on its length.
Now I wonder what Carter Rucks fees are? I once had occasion to retain Herbert Smith (where Tony met Cherie) and the partner rate over ten years ago was £300 an hour. Except when consulting a colleague in their European office, during which the clock spun at a dizzy £600 an hour, £300 each.
So the Muslim Council (funded by whom please? Err, passing Muslims voluntary donations? No?) can afford the most expensive lawyers in Britain because they "know" Beeb will cave in and pay Carter Rucks costs. I reckon we've been screwed over three times in this game.Once for Beebb, one for Carter Ruck, and once for the MCB in the first place.
why feed a hungry(and tedious) troll?
"self opinionated git and thick to boot" is typical of the BBC as a whole
Opinionated
I did check and group libel,although contentious, does stand up.
What is strange is the fact that the MCB has not gone for Mr Moore but rather the BBC. I suppose this is as the BBC could be deemed to be the publisher.
However TV and radio are not quite the same as print. They can often be live and it would seem that our libel laws can be used to effectively curtail anybody live on air by forcing a measure of self censorship.
You may think this a good thing. A prime objective of all right thinking liberals. Who would wish to offend anyone? lets all be nice happy bunnies together.
Political correctness works by self censorship and if it is reinforced by possible threats of libel action then the dangers to free speech are obvious.
In this world somebody somewhere is always liable to be offended.
@Sue
you seem to be suggesting the altruistic BBC settled out of court ………….to save our dosh! Gosh, Prudence, how thoughtful.
Then perish the thought. They're saving themselves money. No media outlet rushes into litigation. Libel is especially hazardous, and if lawyers advise that your chances of winning are low, it's mad to spend lots more cash in the vain hope of defending a weak case.
Are you suggesting that in order not to squander our money, the BBC should pre-emptively settle out of court each time someone threatens to sue …….. just in case the prosecution wins and awards huge damages against the BBC?
Like all good B-BBCers, I think the BBC should do what David Vance tells them….but less driven folk than ourselves would argue that burning money on hopeless cases is unwise; defending your reputation on sound cases is money well spent. Plus you get your costs back if you win.
Moore must be silenced. Let Abu have his say!
If you say so… but pounce_uk is confusing an obnoxious interview with defamation. Defamation means lowering the reputation of an individual (eg Bari) whilst Abu Iz's sounding-off is not directed at anyone in particular. The only reputation he damaged was his own.
I was particularly impressed by pounce_uk's ingenious demand for payments to victims of the bombings. As the BBC had not libelled them, it's hard to see why the Beeb should pay them. Doubtless pounce_uk will come up with a legal formula that works. He seems a resourceful man.
@AndrewSL
I reckon we've been screwed over three times in this game.Once for Beebb, one for Carter Ruck, and once for the MCB in the first place.
And don't listen to anyone who says that Charles Moore screwed everyone by mixing up his guilty Muslims.
@dave s
However TV and radio are not quite the same as print. They can often be live and it would seem that our libel laws can be used to effectively curtail anybody live on air by forcing a measure of self censorship.
All publishers are liable if they allow people to say defamatory things, whether it's spoken or written. It's been that way since the dawn of broadcasting. Opinions are free but facts are not. Hence libel. Big broadcasters have more money than people like Charles Moore, so they're a better target for a libel writ.
In this world somebody somewhere is always liable to be offended.
A wise point. But not strictly relevant to libel, which means the lowering of someone's reputation, rather than causing general offence.
Opinionated
What this matter shows is the deepening rift between the Islamic and , for want of a better word, Christian communities. The BBC would , I suspect, rather like to avoid both sides and promote cohesion.
It is late in the day for that sadly and if we are honest we all know this.
I have no answers but unless we all start being honest and speak plainly then the future is dark.
The legalities of who said what and when will not help us , neither will the law.
All legals should have their feet boiled in hot lard while having to wear those stupid wigs.
mmm I wonder how many times the BBC can be accused of 'lowering of someone's reputation' especially if they are a Tory?
Opiniated;
ref your answer to my reasonable comment;
In all my days I have never encountered a more ridiculous and unendearing character than you appear to be.
If you had the slightest courtesy in your replies I would consider your comments seriously, but I can only deduce you have serious issues of your own and will not lower myself to debate with the mentally ill..
Get therapy–seriously
Opinionated
Congratulations.
You have usurped Atlas as "Most Scrollable Commenter"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5843675/BBC-in-45000-payout-to-Muslim-Council-of-Britain-secretary-general.html
From the facts I've managed to unearth it appears the dispute is between the MCB and the panellist.
I am not quite sure why the BBC has got involved unless the programme was prerecorded and hence the BBC actively chose to air a potentially libelous comment (as in the Ross/Brand programme.
Surely the BBC cannot be held responsible for every comment on their live programmes made by non BBC personnel?
If it was prerecorded the BBC are as ever, arses of the highest order
QT definitely is pre-recorded, so one of the editors must have asleep at the helm.
In other news, the UK government has just been ordered to pay £60,000 to some mangy wife-beating welfare-dependent-I'll-bet Somalian, sorry, Dutchman, who they kept in jail for an extra 4 months by mistake.
Op 12:01
Lowering the reputation of Bari? How could anyone achieve that ? You must have meant deformation.
Concealing the Balen report was £200,000 well spent. Certainly one’s reputation must be defended at all costs.
I quite agree, burning money is silly. I’m sure Jonathon Ross spends his very wisely, for example.
If it is prerecorded BBC is an arse and in effect paying compensation was their only option..do they never learn??
This thread may have passed its use by date but a further comment is in order. The BBC may not want to win this case!
Taking as our guide the BBC's own Defences to Libel (actually defamation?) we find:
Fair comment
Fair comment covers content, mainly opinion, that cannot by its very nature be true or false. To be properly defensible, these comments must be:
* Based on fact
* Made in good faith
* Published without malice
* On a matter of public interest
deegee says: The BBC would not like to claim that exposing the Muslim threat to Britain is in the public interest after spending so much effort to deny there was any threat. They may not be too happy to claim that allowing 'minority' opinions to be published in the interest of free debate is a public interest as that may lead to a review of BBC policy.
As Umbongo 3:29 PM, July 17, 2009 noted earlier the BBC has spent a huge amount of public money on suppressing the Balen Report on the grounds that internal correspondence/discussion is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act. If this case came to court the BBC might be forced to make public all the internal correspondence, including the Balen Report, concerning BBC coverage of the Middle East to prove good faith and lack of malice.
The BBC may be less worried by a libel case, which IMHO they would win, than by the consequences of winning. Safer from that POV to pay up.
"BBC to Pay £45,000 in Damages to Secretary General of MCB"
'Harry's Place'
( by 'HP' commenter Alec):
[Opening extract]:-
"Perhaps better legal minds than mine can explain how this came about. On 12 March 2009, during a broadcast of Question Time, Charles Moore, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, stated that the senior-leadership of the Muslim Council of Britain considered the killing of British soldiers to be a 'good' and even 'Islamic' act to follow."
@Sue
I think we can all agree that the most shocking thing in all of this is that anyone in the wider world might think that any Muslim has a reputation in the first place, let alone a leading Muslim.
If I have understood the overwhelming sentiment among our fellow posters, it is that Bari is a Muslim and therefore part of an indistinguishable mass of people, all of whom invariably are terrorist supporters and all of whom would dearly love to kill British troops.
There are two ways forward here:
1. We could acknowledge that, like Christians, Jews and everyone else, Muslims are individuals, at least some of them entirely peaceable and not at all interested in jihad and the like. Of course, if we do that we might have to accept that Dr Bari's reputation as a man who has spoken out against killing UK troops is one that deserves defending.
2. Or, we can press for amended libel legislation which recognises our preferred truth that one Muslim is like every other one, and that as they're all basically Osama bin Laden, none of them have any reputation worth defending. And therefore cannot sue for libel.
I'm thinking that option 2 would be preferred by all right-thinking B-BBCers. But how do you think it'll play elsewhere?
@frankos.
If it is prerecorded BBC is an arse and in effect paying compensation was their only option..do they never learn??
As ever, the key point. Though as we all think Charles Moore said exactly the right thing about Islamics, why would we criticise them for failing to edit out his remarks?
No need to explain. Am sure that with your legal insight, we will work it out very soon, M'learned friend.