Question Time for BBC on Muslim payout.

[Gromit]

The Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain accepted �45,000 damages from the BBC on Thursday over a claim on Question Time that he condoned the kidnapping and killing of British soldiers.

In reply, a panellist suggested that despite having been asked many times to condemn the kidnapping and killing of British soldiers, Dr Bari had failed to do so and thereby implicitly condoned such acts.

Mr Tudor said the BBC accepted that these allegations were untrue - in fact in 2007, Dr Bari said publicly that the killing of British troops in Iraq was unacceptable.
Robert Brosgill, solicitor for the BBC, which has agreed to pay Dr Bari damages - and which he will donate to charity - and his legal costs, apologised unreservedly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/pol itics/lawandorder/5843675/BBC-in-45000-payout- to-Muslim-Council-of-Britain-secretary-general .html

Since Question Time show is recorded and is seen by lawyers before transmission, should people be sacked or demoted for this very expensive mistake?

[jake-the-peg]

I'm surprised that it'd the BBC's liability and not that of the panellist.

Possibly as you say to do with the fact that the show is recorded.

Who was the panellist? what has his/her response been?
Why has the Telegraph not named them ? It must be a matter of public record!

[jake-the-peg]

Oh now I understand!

The BBC today paid the Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain �45,000 damages over comments made by on Question Time by the former Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore.

No wonder the Telegraph was being so coy!

Mr Tudor said that, although Dr Bari was not actually mentioned by name, the "leadership" of the MCB was referred to, impliedly referring to him in his capacity as leader and chief spokesman of the MCB.

Presumably the BBC's lawyers thought that this was sufficient

Looks like they were wrong

[anotheoldgit]

�45,000? Mere 'chicken feed' to the wealthy BBC.

It is a drop in the ocean, just take it out of the Licence fee.

[jake-the-peg]

I think Charles Moore should refund the BBC don't you AOG?

Or don't you believe that someone should stand behind his words?

[paraffin]

Yes, but they won't be, will they?

[paraffin]

I was responding to the initial question.

[jake-the-peg]

It's certainly nothing compared to all the Libel cases the Daily Mail has had to pay out on!

$4 Million after accusing a Russian of Rape last year
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyc ode=40629

and then there was

Victoria Beckham, Dianna Rigg, Kierra Knightley,Nicolle Kidmann,Hugh Grant, Coleen McLaughlin, Elton John.

They're a regular celebrity Piggy Bank!

[jno]

I should think Jake's right: the lawyers would have studied the programme before broadcast and concluded that it fell short of libel; a court has decided otherwise. I don't know that lawyers can or should be sacked for failing to predict judicial rulings, it sounds more like bad luck than incompetence. The question of whether you can libel someone without actually naming him is always going to be a tricky one.

[keyplus90]

I bet that licence fee will go up by 2.5% now.

[Oneeyedvic]

Having been in a question time audience, I can say that although it is recorded, at my recording they had less than an hour after we finished before it was shown.

That is not a lot of time to do research to find out if a statement is true or not.made by someone who (one would presume) understands libel laws and the implications of what he has stated.