Very nearly everyone has been helpful and supportive. One comment caught my eye. Essentially, it casts doubt on my main argument, which was that the attacks on me are political.
So, in case I haven't proved the point, I'll tell this bit of the story.
When I received my first 'letter before action' in the libel case brought by one of the directors of Labour Against Antisemitism, one word jumped off the page. This letter described me as a 'Corbynista'.
This is at best a bit bizarre. It immediately signalled the political motive for suing me. Put it this way, a Claimant's best tack in their first letter before action is to be surgical about what they think that the person who they're suing (the 'Defendant') has done that is libellous and damaging. Ideally, a Claimant doesn't usually want to give away anything that might reveal any motive for suing other than there is a factual libel and 'serious harm' done as a result - something along the lines of: 'You said x, it was not true, my client has suffered loss of reputation. And here's the evidence for why we think this.'
Taking a sideswipe at what they might think of the person they're suing, is probably not a great move. Of interest to me, though here is that with 'Corbynista', it shouts out, 'We're doing this for political reasons, it's your politics that we dislike.'
OK, that's the letter before action. Now for the Particulars of Claim. This is the document a Claimant sends that details exactly what they're suing you for. It also signals that they're serious about taking this whole thing to court. It arrived some 7 months or so after that first 'letter before action'.
You might think that after 7 months or so of what I'll call pointless correspondence, the people assembling this claim would have weeded out this giveaway of their motive for suing. You might think that the Particulars of Claim would be the surgical, analytic document that would deliver the telling blow. Anything like 'Corbynista' would surely have been junked? Not so. Right up the top of the PoC was a comment about me being an 'active supporter of Corbyn'.
Once again, the Claimant's team flagged up the Claimant's political motive. It certainly didn't help or progress the Claim. I'll say it again: the crucial thing to show in a Claim is that the person you're suing (the Defendant) has made a statement of fact that is untrue and that it has harmed the Claimant (the person suing).
Later in this Particulars of Claim, there is a possible explanation as to why the Claim included that comment ('active supportive of Corbyn'). The Claim goes in for a curious bit of mind-reading in which it tries to show that the reason why I had really objected to the 'Bear Hunt tweet' was because of what I thought of Corbyn. Here's what it says: 'The Defendant was angry that a book that he [that's me] had authored formed part of cartoon that ridiculed Jeremy Corbyn.'
Again, it really isn't necessary for a Claimant to go in for mind-reading and indeed, by doing it, they revealed their motive for suing the Defendant. Apart from anything else, this bit of mind-reading is way off the mark. As I explained in the previous blog, what I was 'angry' about (and always said in public that I was angry about) was that sitting on the open pages of a book I had co-created, were the words 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion'. I was angry AND disgusted! I'm not even sure it's the business of the Claimant to waste time and space discussing my motive for being 'angry', but if the Claimant does it, it's a good idea to a) get it right and, b) not reveal your real motive for bringing the Claim in the first place!
So there we are: we have 'Corbynista' in the letter before claim; we have this stuff about me being an 'active supporter of Jeremy Corbyn'; and, thirdly, a false and political comment about what had made me 'angry'.
I don't think it's terribly controversial (is it?) for me to have the view that this episode might be an example of the law being used for political purposes. That's my honest opinion, not a statement of fact. Perhaps as you read this, you thought it's no such thing? If so, I'd be interested to know how you came to that different opinion.
