This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/26/mcalpine-libel-damages-time-limit
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
After the McAlpine libel case, maybe we need a time control on damages | After the McAlpine libel case, maybe we need a time control on damages |
(4 months later) | |
No libel victim in memory has been cleared more comprehensively or swiftly than Lord McAlpine. A Newsnight bungle at the start of a single week was turned to overwhelming apologies by its end. | No libel victim in memory has been cleared more comprehensively or swiftly than Lord McAlpine. A Newsnight bungle at the start of a single week was turned to overwhelming apologies by its end. |
McAlpine had a very nasty experience, but at least it only lasted a very few days. But how, in the now-concluded matter of silly Sally Bercow and other tweeters, does response time figure? Digitally damned, then digitally sorted in a trice. Shouldn't £100,000 in damages and costs, too, be ruled by the clock? | McAlpine had a very nasty experience, but at least it only lasted a very few days. But how, in the now-concluded matter of silly Sally Bercow and other tweeters, does response time figure? Digitally damned, then digitally sorted in a trice. Shouldn't £100,000 in damages and costs, too, be ruled by the clock? |
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
Previous version
1
Next version