British backdown on list that defamed Michael Savage
We read:
"Home Secretary Alan Johnson is to scrap his predecessor's policy of naming and shaming people banned from Britain for spreading race hate and terrorism. The U-turn follows Jacqui Smith's controversial decision two months ago to announce a list of 16 people branded as 'least wanted' in the UK.
It led to a claim for £100,000 damages by U.S. radio 'shock jock' Michael Savage, who objected to being put in the same category as Islamic hate preachers and terrorists.
The Mail on Sunday has been told that Mr Johnson believes the move was a blunder and does not propose to issue similar lists in the future. But the switch could have major legal consequences for the Government. Mr Savage is suing Ms Smith for libel over the list and abandoning the policy could make it impossible to contest his demand for damages.
Source
7 comments:
Jon, "shock jock"? Do you find someone willing to be honest "shocking"?
The best way to stop Leftists from lying and slandering is to attack their pocketbooks.
Jon, "shock jock"? Do you find someone willing to be honest "shocking"?
Not Jon's words, read the source.
I seem to remember that he claimed he would drop the suit if they removed his name. This seemed to be more about publicity on the previous officials part and a bit on Savage's though he was also protecting his good name.
Time will tell if he drops it rather than trying to get compensation. The honorable thing to do now would be for the government to pay a reasonable rate for his legal defense and for Savage to drop the suit.
Why should he be "honorable" after being internationally insulted?
"abandoning the policy could make it impossible to contest his demand for damages"
Why? A change in policy hardly amounts to an admission of wrong-doing.
Anon 7:28 - As a "shock jock" Savage doesn't have a "good name" to protect but even so he still has a point about that list.
"Why? A change in policy hardly amounts to an admission of wrong-doing."
To change your policy "after" getting in trouble is usually the first sign of guilt.
Anon 1:55, whether his name is good or not is not the point. He still has a right not to be defamed, especially internationally.
Post a Comment