Libel laws

So with the McCanns and Mosley given statements about the damage the media have done to them, the media strike back by attacking England's 'harsh' libel laws. So what's the big deal?

I'm going to simplify the process here, but here's how it currently stands:

Person A prints something nasty about you; you sue them; Person A now has to show that what he said about you was justified.

Okay, now hopefully you've just read that, nodded, and said "Well that makes sense". So try this instead:

Person A prints something nasty about you; you sue them; You now have to show that what he said about you was unjustified.

Again you might well be nodding and thinking that makes sense too, so let's put it into context:

Newspaper A prints that Celeb B goes out for midnight frolics where he molests sheep. Celeb B sues the newspaper.

Okay now apply each of the two endings to this. For ending one, our current law, Newspaper A has to prove that what it said about Celeb B was justified, presumably with evidence. For ending two, what the newspapers want, Celeb B has to prove that he doesn't go out at night and molest sheep. Uh-huh, just out of curiosity can anyone reading this prove that they don't do the same; damn difficult eh?

So why do the media whine, well first off they're trying to confuse the matter by claiming that England is now the place to sue people and that foreigners drag other foreign writers into our courts on the flimsy pretext that some of the stuff they've written has been seen here. Yep see suing in our country rather than their own because they think they'll win here Boo Hiss. Note at no point does the media mention whether what the foreign writer said was true, because if it was than surely the writer would win? Likewise no comment on the possibility that our country is being used like this because we're the only ones who've got things the right way around.

"Ah no", cry the papers. "It's possible to have a story that everyone knows is true, but won't print because they don't have the evidence to back it up" Uh-huh want to try that in a criminal trial - bang up someone because the police 'know' he did it, but just can't get the evidence? Oddly enough I think not.

"Hey we knew the banks were in trouble, but we couldn't say anything because we didn't have any hard evidence. We could have prevented all this" um yeah or started something by printing rumours from 'chaps' in the city fed to you for their own benefit, have they heard of short-selling?

What this is all about is that the media want a free rein on printing tittle-tattle and speculation without having to do all that boring journalistic stuff like being able to back up their stories with evidence. Seriously just look at all the crap they're printing now what the hell would it be like if they were essentially immune to being sued.

Are our libel laws perfect? Nope, then again what is, but at least they put the burden of proof on the correct side.