The 'Ey e , S ir:Icann ot agree with Christopher Booker's atta c k on Private
Eye. Private Eye has always far as I know, paid its own legal bills and is the as in a perfectly correct moral posi t, he to require that costs that are due to ,.th (or to their lawyers) are paid as well. I his is normal. b At the same time, it seems to me a very
,ealthY function of Private Eye to poke fun ";,,` the national mania for libel suits. People
this country are incredibly pompous in the "vay that they stand on their dignity-1 ;Peak in general—and moreover the laws of e'lbel seem to me not only to shackle demo
Cy and restrict free speech (they do not
uc,ar comparison with the Continent or the 0) but also to stand as an inducement to 8,,rieedY lawyers to encourage people to 0,"11.nge themselves into quite frivolous linZtl°n. One well-known London lawyer, th-w dead, made his living from combing wilxigh the newspapers for misprints—the ..ir°t113 caption innocently matched on a ico.cture—which he would then use to lure thhents into libel suits they would never have ..ou•ght of. That is the style. It is good that P
Eye should ridicule it.
.! Private Eye should be forced to cease because British democracy is so :agile that it has to be protected by ludi shr(Itt, slY restrictive libel laws, then I think we Mar all have ;limed a very sinister corner. 1s,,Y Kenny
■ luilford Street, London WC1 Cr •
inlinal libel
Previous page
