Marcus Brigstocke - Britain's libel laws

Marcus Brigstocke on The Now Show, a Radio 4 comedy programme, discussing Britain's libel laws. Includes the case against Simon Singh.

Broadcast: 19/03/2010 - Series 30 Episode 3.

Full programme (available for a very limited time only): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rbs19
The Now Show site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qgt7
Website of the most excellent Radio 4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• britain
• libel
• marcus brigstocke
• now show
• radio 4
• simon singh
• chiropracters
• david blane
• git wizard

[Liorte1973]

@snowballwest But as he says at the beginning, this means that people with lots of money only benefit. Ever hear of the McLibel case?

[teamwingdalers]

couldnt agree more with marcus

[Carlos13th]

@snowballwest

UK libel laws are poor. To the point where there is a culture of libel terrorism. Singh never should have been sued for example. Free speech and questioning especially in terms of science and medicine where questioning should be encouraged for the development of science.

[FreddieStourton]

@snowballwest You spelt Brigstocke wrong in your first comment.

[snowballwest]

@Liorte1973 However the person to whom I make the comment is left to pick up the pieces and often with a damaged reputation. However, under the currant system, the accuser is the person who must provide evidance to prove his comments. This is how it should be, as it means that people will only make a comment that could be judged as liblous if they are sure that it is correct. Thus if they are asked to provid evidance then it is not a problem and they can and shoul have to prove themselves right.

[snowballwest]

@Liorte1973

I am sorry, however I simply do not agree. If you are rich then you would be better able to cope with Mr. Brigstocke's proposed libelous laws; as a richer person would be able to afford the legal fees which would come with the system he propses. i.e. I could say something that was completly untrue about yourself and then you would have to defend yourself, thus I can say what I like and am almost completly defended by these stupid libelous laws. H

[snowballwest]

Mr. Brickstock,

You are wrong, the libelous laws are the way they are for good reasons. If I were to accuse you of doing something that you had not, then the burden of proof is on me to back up my own statement; not upon you to prove yourself innocent. Therefore the accused are protected and the accuser must provide evidence, thus the responsibility lies upon the accuser. This essentially means that the people are stopped from making slanderous and incorrect statements without consequences.