Footnote
Sir: I suppose I owe you some kind of apology about the libel settlement you have reached with Private Eye whereby you insist that all proposed future references to the SPECTATOR in that journal should be submitted to you for approval. Haying made the accusation of 'scan- dalous suppression,' I 'am now confronted with your statement (9 May) that on no less than two occasions you have graciously 'granted permission' for 'unfavourable' comments to appear. However, before allowing myself to be quite bowled over by such liberality, it occurs to me that Private Eye may have pre- ferred not .to submit, and therefore to suppress, some even less favourable comments.
But I am still more interested in the prin- ciple. You suggest that the settlement you made with Private Eye was generous, unexception- able, almost cosy. Do you urge, then, that the practice of imposing such settlements should be extended? You may see no point of prin- ciple at stake, but would any of your past distinguished contributors have been prepared to submit to similar indignities? Would Taper ever have done so? Or will Mr Auperon Waugh submit his copy for approval to the wide range of politicians be defames with such delightful wit, persistence and malice? Would Mr Quintin Hogg, say, make an acceptable adjudicator?
I fear, sir, I must still regard libel settle- ments which compel the editor of 'tone paper to submit all future favourable or- unfavour- able references to the editor of another as reprehensible—calculated to lead to a sly cen- sorship, if not scandalous suppression. And I trust that you will, in one of your bursts of graciousness, grant me permission to press this case, even though I cannot rebut your deadly charge that Paul Foot is indeed my nephew. That is a heavy enough burden for a man to bear, without- his being subjected to your fierce logic that he must therefore keep his mouth shut on matters of public importance.
Michael Foot House of Commons, London SW1
If, as Mr Foot claims, the editor of 'Private Eye' has voluntarily submitted to a form of agreement which no member of the editorial staff of the SPECTATOR, past or present, would have accepted, then it follows that he is either (a) very stupid, (b) completely spineless, or (c) guilty of a type of conduct in which the SPECTATOR never has and never would in- dulge, and which therefore renders Mr Fools attempted parallel wholly invalid. However, we are happy to accept Mr Foot's apology In the spirit in which it is offered.—Editor,
SPECTATOR.
Previous page
