Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince EWS
Yep, absolutely. At risk of defending an article more fit for 1795 than 1995, it's ridiculous that anyone got sued over what was merely the publication of an opinion - questionable as that opinion was. I'm with silenstriker on British libel laws as a general rule, but even more so in this case. It's more disturbing than the article content.
I actually find articles like that particularly annoying to add to their distaste, because they muddle an important issue (players playing for their second, third or fourth choice countries who, had they not been involved in international cricket, they'd cheer against) with race. Race and nationality and not tied at the hip, and all stuff like this does is sully the good arguments of folk who don't like the eroding sense of national representation in not only cricket but sport worldwide. The cause of this is the Kruger van Wyks of the world; not the Nasser Hussains.
|
The law of defamation was an irrelevance really though, other than its mere existence. What actually happened was that the Claimants took advantage of the groundswell of public opinion that set itself against, effectively, a man with very deep pockets.