The petition has been approved and is ready to be signed - just follow the link…

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/libellaws/ (it does help if I put the bloody link in as well)

To be clear about what kind of things I am advocating when I suggest that we adopt US-style libel laws.

A reversal of the existing presumption of guilt and burden of proof in libel, such the plaintiff is required to demonstrate that that they have been libelled. At present, the plaintiff in a libel action has only to prove only that the defendent made the allegedly libellous statement, from which point it is the defendent who must supply proof that the statement is not libellous.

The inclusion of the US provisions that hold that a public figure may be held to have been libelled only where the libellous statement was made with what, in the US, is refered to as ‘actual malice’, i.e. that it was made knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

THe inclusion of a form of ‘Common Carrier’ status for blog owners, online forums, etc., i.e. a blogger or forum owner may not be held liable for libellous comments posted on their by a third party provided that they act reasonably on receiving a complaint that such a comment constitutes a libel.

And end to the ‘viral’ nature of libel in the UK, in which every publication of a defamatory statement gives rise to a separate claim. US law permits only a single claim for primary publication.

The decision by blogger Jackie Danicki to publish a photograph of a man she alleges to have assaulted her on a tube train (Jackie’s site is down at present, so no direct link) and request help in identifying her attacker appears to have prompted the usual bout of harumphing from one of two journalists about the ‘ethical standards‘ of bloggers, including, naturally, all the usual dire warnings about the risks arising from Britain’s notably pernicious libel laws, as if to suggest those of lacking the big fat cheque books of the media barons to cover our arses are we’re not already aware of such things.

We are… and while the professionals run for cover - according to Greg Palast, the Guardian’s editorial system will not accept the submission of an article unless the journalist answers the question ‘Lawyered?’ - we, out here on the electronic frontier, hold true to the words of Arthur Wellesley, the 1st Duke of Wellington: ‘Publish and be damned’.

There is something rather unattractive about these occasional bouts of blog envy on the part of the ‘professionals’, not simply in the sense that such articles often pause, to circle like a vulture, over the assertion that it is only a matter of time until a blogger finds themselves sued for libel, but rather that they exude an aura of servility in the face of a law on defamation so unjust and biased toward the plaintiff as to induce even Americans to eschew the far richer pickings of their own heavily litigious legal system and view Britain as the jurisdiction of choice for those seeking redress for an alleged slur on their precious reputation.

To criticise bloggers for marching fearlessly in those realms where they, themselves, fear to tread seems, to me at least, to be less an assertion of their professional (and ethical) pre-eminence and more an act of abasement, a tugging of the journalistic forelock as they prostrate themselves before the onmipotent god of public repute - or as Palast refers to it, ‘kissing the censor’s whip‘.

By any reasonable measure, Britain’s libel laws operate in a manner entirely contrary to every sacred principle of British justice.

Only in a libel case does the defendent enter the court under a presumption of guilt that requires them to prove the truth of their remarks, while the plaintiff need only assert that the remarks are untrue without any requirement for evidence to support such an assertion - the sole burden of proof rests on the defendent.
In a libel action, the notion of equality before the law becomes entirely meaningless, unless one has the wherewithall to engage legal counsel from one’s own resources.

Whether one is the plaintiff or defendant in a libel action, there has been, until recently, no access to legal aid for those who cannot afford to engage legal counsel, and although this position will may change slightly as a consequence of this practice having been ruled incompatible with Human Rights, it will change only grudgingly and only where, in the sole opinion of the state, a public interest is clearly served.

Unless one is extremely fortunate, therefore, libel remains the apex and epitomy of the idea that there is one law for the rich; as much a means by which the venal and corrupt may use their personal or corporate wealth to suppress dissent, contrary opinion and even the truth, as it is a defender of reputation, and another for poor, for whom the outrageous cost of litigation ensures that the defence of reputation is a concept far beyond their personal means.

Britain’s libel laws amount to nothing more or less than the privatisation of censorship for the benefit and protection of the rich.

However well-intentioned the author, the publication by professional journalists of acres of self-righteous screed on the subject of professional ethics is a practice that rarely fails to stick in one’s craw.

Journalism is both ruthless in its exploitation of the iniquities of Britain’s libel laws for the benefit or their employers - one need only read a tabloid newspaper or two, especially on Sunday, to see this at work - and its not-always-unwilling collaborator in kowtowing before the lawyers of the wealthy and powerful even when it knows, deep in its marrow, that it has its hands on the truth (but not conclusive evidence of the truth).

Had it the courage of the professed convictions, it would not be lecturing bloggers on ethics but challenging the very laws that coerce it into a state of enforced hypocrisy, but then such a challenge would be a double-edged sword, it would remove some of the existing legal shackles from investigative journalism, in particular, but also open the way for the great unwashed to obtain redress for the predations of the tabloids.

Therein lies the great paradox of Britain’s libel laws. Being contrived to protect the wealthy, amongst those who benefit from its iniquities as the selfsame media barons in whose employ many journalists ply their trade. To stand up openly for freedom of expression and demand that Britain’s libel laws be revised in the interests of equity and justice is, quite literally, to risk biting the hand that feeds - and we can’t have that, can we?

Journalists may be compromised in putting up such a challenge, but bloggers (fortunately) are not, and as the Downing Street website not kindly permits one to direction petition the PM,  I thought take the opportunity to submit a petition of my own, as follows:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to revise Britain’s libel/defamation laws in such a manner as to support and not abridge freedom of expression.

Britain’s libel laws are amongst the most restrictive and inequitable to found in any Western liberal democracy - so bad that even Americans now come to the UK to sue for libel - and amount to no more than the privatisation of censorship.

We call for them to be amended in line with approach to libel adopted by the US, in which the burden of proof lies the accuser and not the defendent - as is the case in the UK - and to ensure that Britian’s libel laws support and facilitate free expression and do not act to suppress the expression of legitimately held opinion and dissent.

As soon as its been approved, I’ll post the requisite link for anyone who’d care to sign up.

Having a background in psychology, I should be entirely comfortable with the outcome of a new criminological study into street crime that demonstrates that the underlying motives for such crime can be rather more complex than mere acquisition.

And yet, instead, I find myself unable to shake the mental picture of Tony Blair striding purposefully into the Cabinet Room, research paper in hand, to announce:

“Thanks for the report, John. Very useful… Now about this Ludovico Technique. Any thoughts?”

I’ve seen some excuses in my time but the latest from the ongoing Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE’s dealings with the Saudi’s take the absolute biscuit:

Secret payments of millions of pounds from Britain’s biggest arms company have been found in Swiss accounts linked to Wafic Said, a billionaire arms broker for the Saudi Royal family, according to legal sources.

Mr Said refused last night to speak about the allegations. But the discovery presents the biggest potential breakthrough yet achieved in the Serious Fraud Office’s three year investigation into allegations that illegal commissions may have been paid to Saudi royals by BAE Systems.

You got that? BAE are being investigated for allegedly slipping the Saudi royals, who’re already as rich as Croesus, a few backhanders to sweeten the sale of British-made military hardware to one of the most repressive regimes in the world.

But now, get this bit…

Details from the accounts would help to establish whether money was channelled to members of the Saudi ruling clan, and the amounts involved. The development comes amid threats from the company and its chief executive, Mike Turner, that the SFO’s ongoing inquiry threatens to damage the UK economy. He has claimed that the Saudi royal family may take a £6bn contract from BAE and give it to the French instead.

The company wants the SFO to abandon the investigation before the Saudis pull out of the deal for a new fleet of 72 Eurofighter Typhoons.

You fucking what?

Not ‘we’re entirely innocent’ or ‘there is not basis to these allegations is fact’ but don’t arrest  it’ll fuck with the economy.

I must remember that one next time I’m dealing with someone who gets caught fiddling the dole - please don’t arrest my client, it’ll fuck with the prfoits at Mr Singh’s convenience store down the road.

It gets better as well…

But the SFO appears determined to focus on the accounts and their links to 68-year-old Mr Said. A billionaire in his own right, he is a friend of Peter Mandelson and has been a donor to the Conservative party.

Well there’s a parcel of the rogues if ever there was one. Mandelson and the Tories? Who would have ever thought it possible?

And guess what?

A series of British newspapers were briefed that the latest Saudi contract to buy Eurofighters was in danger and that the SFO should “put up or shut up”.

Noooo. You don’t say! I wonder which newspapers that might be?

Bribe row threat to 50,000 jobs 

FIFTY thousand British jobs could be lost within days because of a bribes row with Saudi Arabia, a defence boss warned last night.

The Saudis are threatening to ditch an £11billion contract to buy British jet fighters — and give the order to France.

The Arabs are furious over an investigation into an alleged £60million slush fund, said to have been set up by BAE Systems to bribe the Saudi royal family.

The probe by the Serious Fraud Office has lasted three years.

BAE boss Mike Turner warned last night that the contract for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets could be lost.

He fears the Saudis will choose French Rafale planes instead.

Mr Turner said: “This has been going on long enough. The risk is thousands of jobs will go to France instead of Britain.

“This is not just a matter of trade. Saudi Arabia is an important ally.

“The Typhoon is better than the Rafale. We don’t bribe people and we never have.”

The slush fund allegations are fiercely denied on both sides.

The contract secures 9,000 jobs at Warton, Lancashire, and 40,000 at supply companies. 

The Sun, 25 November 2006

And, of course…

Lost jobs, a threat to security and a Premier too tainted to end this fraud probe

By PETER OBORNE, Daily Mail, 24 November 2006

When I was a teenager, my parents lived for a time in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. The most notable of the relatively few amenities on offer was the Sudan Club, a colonial building with some tennis courts, a swimming pool and a rudimentary bar serving the poisonous local beer.

I would occasionally encounter, either at the bar or the pool, a cheerful Englishman in his mid-30s. He was a salesman for British Aerospace and made monthly visits to the Sudan in an endeavour to sell planes to the government…

Fuck me, it’s no wonder that Private Eye refers to you as Peter O’Bore, just get to the fucking point, will you…

It was firmly believed in Khartoum — I have no means of knowing whether this was genuinely the case — that the Sudanese Minister of Aviation doubled up as the local agent for Boeing, which was bidding for the same contract.

When it was put to the British Aerospace salesman that this might prove an insuperable obstacle, he became indignant. He insisted that the Minister of Aviation was a man of integrity and discernment who would perceive that British planes were vastly superior to the product being peddled by Boeing.

Some 18 months later I chanced to meet the same chap at Inverness Station, where he was eating breakfast. I asked him whether he had sold his planes. He shook his head mournfully. Boeing had won the contract, and he had lost his job.

Right, so this Sudanese guy was as bent as a nine-bob note, now where is this all going?

I have no special knowledge about how the arms trade works, beyond a general impression that it is probably a murky affair.

Like most people, I would prefer that it did not exist at all, and, like most people, I have a hunch that British Aerospace’s standards of conduct would compare pretty favourably to those found among our competitors, be they the French, Americans, Russians or Chinese.

Oh, for fuck’s sake - so the point of all this post-colonial wittering comes down to simple message. Look they’re all as bent as each other, so if we’re bunging the Saudi’s a few million here and there, we’re only doing what everyone else is doing.

After that its all a ‘by the numbers’ exercise…

The Saudis are at last threatening retaliation. As the Daily Mail reveals today, it now looks possible that BAE Systems will lose the massive contract to supply the Saudi airforce with the Typhoon eurofighter, and that France will pick up the business instead.

The move — a direct result of the SFO investigation — would bring about the loss of some 50,000 British manufacturing jobs.

And…

Meanwhile, the rupture with the Saudi government places a giant question mark over whether BAE Systems can survive as an internationally significant defence manufacturer for the medium term.

This strikes at the heart of our national interest. We are in danger of losing highly skilled manufacturing jobs at Rolls Royce in Bristol and at Avionics in Scotland and elsewhere.

And…

Saudi Arabia is are our most important ally in the Middle East. The kingdom provides vital intelligence to the British government in the shadowy fight against al-Qaeda. This intelligence now looks likely to be compromised.

I like that last one, has a nice realpolitik feel to - they might be a bunch of corrupt bastards, but they’re our corrupt bastards.

And then it gets even better…

Tony Blair’s role in all this has been exquisitely characteristic. I am assured that he is extremely sympathetic to the BAE Systems position, and fully grasps what a break with Saudi would mean for his ‘war against terror’.

On a trip to Riyadh last summer, he left his Saudi hosts with the overwhelming impression that there was nothing to worry about and that the SFO investigation would soon be called off.

As so often with Tony Blair, a promise delivered with passionate sincerity in private — and believed at the time by everyone in the room, most of all by the Prime Minister himself — has subsequently turned out to be meaningless.

Whitehall sources say that Tony Blair and his aide Jonathan Powell are so preoccupied by the danger of arrest in the cash for peerages scandal that they have little time to attend to others.

The only person who can bring a halt to the SFO inquiry is the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.

Unfortunately the Prime Minister feels he no longer possesses the moral credibility to exert pressure on Goldsmith because of his critical role in making the final decision about prosecution in the cash for honours crisis — as well as the painful allegations that Goldsmith was lent on to give favourable legal advice in the run-up to the Iraq War.

Hang on a second here, just exactly what are we talking about? Blair’s at fault for not putting the kybosh on a criminal investigation into fraud worth a suggested £60 million. This is all your fault Tony, because you’re so preoccupied with keeping you own neck out of a legal noose that you can’t manage to pervert the course of justice for somebody else?

And just when you think it couldn’t get any more stupid…

Many sensible and decent people would take the view that there is no question on the basis of national interest — after all our country’s security and industrial base is under threat here — there is a compelling case for the Attorney General to order the SFO to drop its inquiries.

Really? I think most decent people might think ‘let’s nail the corrupt bastards’, but then I live in the real world not Daily Mail-land.

I’m not sure that’s right. If BAE Systems executives really have engaged in bribery and corruption with Saudi officials, it may well be right to carry on the investigation.

Well that’s real big of you…

However, we should do so in the full knowledge that this country is doing itself massive damage, that our commercial rivals probably all behave worse than us, and that our enemies must be laughing their socks off.

In other words what you really mean is that you think the investigation should be dropped but don’t want to say so outright because that would make you look a completely corrupt tosser.

But nothing that I’ve read about this inquiry suggests that BAE Systems have broken British law. The SFO, despite an incredible three years on the case, has not provided any evidence.

And the SFO ring you up every few weeks to keep you up to date on the latest developments? No evidence provided to a hack does mean no evidence it all, it just measn that wahtever evidence they might have is none of your fucking business - it’s a live investigation, after all, you complete twat.

Even if the accusations being made are true, it seems that any payments being made were made to Saudi citizens on Saudi territory with Saudi money.

It’s extremely hard to see what all this has got to do with the Serious Fraud Office. It may well be that these Saudi practices would not be legal in Britain, but that’s not the point.

There’s a brilliant series of advertisements currently being put out by the HSBC bank which warn us against making assumptions about foreign cultures.

They tell us that other countries apply radically different standards of judgment to that same types of behaviour.

You know, I think that I’m really going to like this next bit…

The Muslim world is generally more comfortable with the practice of paying people who introduce business. That does not mean they are corrupt and open to bribes, simply that they have different values and practices that are as equally valid as our own.

For example, under Islamic sharia law, the practice of paying interest on loans is prohibited. Yet when Arab businessmen come to the UK, they do not refuse to pay interest on loans — they simply accept that is our way of doing business.

Equally, when we wish to do business in their countries, we should accept their local rules.

Failure to do so amounts to the same ‘moral imperialism’ and arrogance which, according to the government minister Margaret Hodge, brought about the calamity of the Iraq War.

So what if the Saudi’s are corrupt. It’s their country and we should make every effort to fit in with their way doing business - when in Rome and all that, what-what.
There is a slight flaw in this line of argument - I don’t suppose that BAE declared this alleged £60 million slush fund to the HM Revenue and Customs, do you?

Remember, it wasn’t bootlegging or murder that brought down Al Capone, but simple tax evasion.

O’Bore’s entire article is astroturfing on the grandest of scale - never mind putting an artificial surface on a football pitch, this bastard’s out to astroturf the fucking Peak District.

The Graun’s coverage raises but two more interesting points:

The MoD, which is negotiating the deal to sell Eurofighters, remained silent.

Hardly a great surprise there. And:

The only person with the power to halt joint SFO-MoD police inquiries is the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith. But Britain is party to an OECD agreement, under which national economic interests are not allowed to stand in the way of efforts to stamp out bribery. Britain criminalised overseas corruption in 2002, but has not yet brought a prosecution.

Never mind the OECD, there is an has been in this country since Anglo-Saxon times, the  principle that no one is above the law. That principle was strong enough to take a King to the Executioner’s block and it sure as hell should be strong enough to enable the SFO to complete its investigations unhindered by political pressure, irrespective of what the Saudis, The Sun or the Daily Mail might think.