[youngian]

The onus is on the defendant to prove what the complainant has said. Caroline Flint is on very thin ice. If she fought the case and lost it could cost her as much as the value of her house. Or three in Doncaster.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

The libel surely exists in Flint reporting the conversation and thus repeating the claim. There is no ambiguity about that. Truth is not a defence.

[oboogie]

Thornberry is a Barrister and her husband is a High Court judge. I suspect that if they think she has a case, she probably has.

[youngian]

If for example Flint has a tape of Thornberry saying these words then she has not committed a libel. But she hasn’t and even if Emily did say these words I still don’t blame her using libel laws as a method of protecting trusted private conversations from unreliable blabber mouths.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yeah, I think people say all sorts of things in private conversations, especially if they're angry about what's been said before. It doesn't quite sound right without Flint having said something to Thornberry first, maybe some lazy bollocks about "liberal elite" constituents.

I'm also suspicious that the most stereotyped "elitist" politician said this. Don't trust Flint at all.

[Catkins]

Truth is not a defence.

Actually it can be a defence in libel. It's not necessarily a defence in the tort of misuse of private information which has just about replaced libel as a cause of action. This is mainly because a libel action can only be launched in the high court and costs a fortune. So if you ever hear about someone winning a libel action, it's a 99% certainty it's actually a MoPI case.

It's interesting as Thornberry frequently threatens libel actions and doesn't follow through (she's threatened Private Eye for example). But she has also sued, and won, against a few Islington Lib Dem councillors in the past.