Thread by @BrianCathcart

For those who celebrating @carolecadwalla's wonderful #libel victory who now want an overhaul of libel law to prevent journalists being bullied in this way, I have good news. A potentially very useful, if not quite complete, solution is ready and waiting. 1/12

Leveson proposed, and in 2013 Parliament endorsed in law, an arrangement to protect news publishers from 'chilling' by wealthy litigants. Why is it not in force? Because the newspaper corporations didn't like it and the Conservative government shelved it at their behest. 2/12

To be clear, the Leveson arrangement, which involved pushing litigants into low-cost arbitration rather than expensive court proceedings, would not have protected @carolecadwalla in her case. But it would shield any journalist writing for a participating newspaper/website. 3/12

The necessary law is actually on the statute books (though the Tories never 'commenced' it and they and their press friends now want to repeal it).
Put simply, Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act would deprive litigants of the advantages of wealth. 4/12

If they refused to submit their claims to cheap arbitration they could still go to court, but (in most cases) they would have to pay both sides' costs, win or lose. So reporters and editors could not be 'chilled' by the fear of huge legal bills and long proceedings. 5/12

One reason why the corporate papers rejected this is that under S40 it would apply to them too. In other words, if a person of ordinary means sued a paper for libel, the paper would have to accept cheap arbitration or else (usually) pay both sides' court costs, win or lose. 6/12

The papers really didn't like that idea. It seems the Mail, Times etc like having the power to deny justice to ordinary people more than they care about journalists being gagged by rich people. (Not so surprising: it's rich people who own these papers.) 7/12

Another reason the big papers (@Guardian and @FT incl) don't like Section 40 is that participation in the arbitration system, for good reason, was linked to accepting effective, independent regulation (that's independent of both industry and political influence). 8/12

Despite low current levels of trust in print journalism, and despite abundant evidence of low ethical standards and rampant inaccuracy in the corporate press, the big press groups prefer their puppet complaints outfit @ipsonews, or no regulation at all (@Guardian and @FT). 9/12

That's the @ipsonews that – in 8 years' operation – has never detected a single problem in the press worrying enough to merit investigation, has never come within a mile of imposing a fine and has never spotted a single instance of racial or religious discrimination. 10/12

So – to be clear – the reason press journalists do not enjoy protection from bullying libel litigation is because their bosses don't want it. (As I said, S40 would not have protected @carolecadwalla, who was sued personally and was not indemnified by the Observer or TED.) 11/12

But the good news is that, for newspaper journalists, effective protection from 'chilling' and 'SLAPPs' is just a ministerial signature away. If those journalists really want it they should ask their bosses to tell Nadine Dorries. She will do what those bosses say. 12/12