Nice to see you guys read Private Eye, then it's only fair, as I have seen stores here that have turned up in the next edition of the Eye

Shirley some sort of disclaimer would sort this out, maybe something along the lines of "[The New Statesman] is not responsible for the content of external internet sites" (a la news.bbc.co.uk).

Links on the Intarweb have nothing to do with accuracy. Putting a link on one's site does not mean the target URL is accurate, it simply means that the site owner believes that the linked site could interest his readers as well.

Supposing defamation because of a removed link goes straight to the "worst excuse ever" box of sad excuses for a lawsuit.

I don't think this one will fly in a court, especially if Wikileaks did nothing to trumpet the fact that it got linked in the first place.

The English libel laws are now such a farce that I'm amazed they've not been comprehensively binned and replaced by something more compatible with human rights legislation such as the ECHR.

Since Labour have legislated on everything else up to and including selling squirrels (you can't!) why have they left these dreadful laws on the statute book?

Just make sure your pendulum doesn't swing too far our way. On this side of the pond you can publish things that ought to libelous but get protection under "celebrity" or "political" status. I'd say somewhere between where you are and where we are is the sweet spot.

This wouldn't be the 'Libel Terrorism Bill' would it? Which funnily enough has nothing to do with terrorism, but hey it's one way to get it passed.

I run a fairly minor forum. Nothing special but some okay people post stuff there. One day a pretty detailed comment was put up concerning a German company. It wasn't nice but as far as I was concerned it was factual so it stayed up. Soon after someone claiming to be based in London and their legal representative wrote to me and in rather nasty tones demanded the comments be removed or I will be in court. I replied saying I looked forward to it.

That was in March. Still waiting for papers to be served, but my guess is they gambled thet threat would be enough and in this case got it wrong so left it. Rectum fiddlers.

Perhaps not red squirrels, but there seems to be a roaring trade in grey squirrel meat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7347828.stm