I
Chris Paul has written up his comments on
my story which cribbed from a
report in the Sunday Times. I said that the times had reported that Imrand Khan had donated money to labour via a group called the "Muslim Friends of Labour" which is similar it seems to the Midland Industrial Council.
I note that, but frankly don't care, my gripe is that Labour really don't like the Midlands Industrial Council so should not be caught in similar circumstances.
I also note that said Imrand Khan has been linked in the report to an arms dealer/salesman. In these circumstances Labour folks seem to go off on one if it is a Conservative donor, but as yet appear not to have in this case. Again, I personally do not have a problem with this trade any more than I would have with a knife salesman. Guns and knives are tools that we make extensive use of, and it is only if someone is trading them irresponsibly that an issue arises and there is no such allegation here.
The point of my story is not that I find Imrand Khan has actually done anything wrong, because as far as I can see it, he hasn't. The point is that had he been a Conservative donor rather than a Labour one, then people like Chris Paul would have gone off the deep end.
Chris Paul hopes I have insurance. Presumably for libel. Well, in this case I would not need it, as even if my facts are wrong I am not accusing Mr Khan of doing anything that is either wrong*, or indeed should attract opprobrium from anyone, it certainly does not from me. In order for there to be an actionable libel you have to make an incorrect statement** about someone which would damage their reputation amongst right thinking people. I can't see that it would, and obviously I exclude Chris Paul from this, as he thinks many things that are legal are wrong.
So my story is not an attack on Mr Khan, but on Chris Paul who insists all sorts of things are bad, but when it is pointed out to him that his own side does it seems to be a tad silent.
* According to the Times report the Electoral Commission are investigating the Muslim Friends of Labour. That does not mean there is any wring doing there, though obviously they may find some.
**Technically you can say something about someone which is true, and still be found guilty of libel. For example you can bring up a criminal conviction which is spent under the provisions of the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders act. There is a defence that to raise such a conviction is in the public interest, and also if I remember correctly the claimant would have to show malice.