Notebook
Mr James Goldsmith continues his war against Private Eye. Apart from the sixtyodd writs which he has issued against the magazine and various wholesalers and .other agents who distribute it, he has now been given leave to start proceedings for the unusual offence of criminal libel. Libel used to constitute a crime only when it gave rise to a 'tendency to disturb the Public peace': that developed from the mediaeval law making it an offence to utter slanders against the government.
Today slander is not a crime, and the danger to the public peace apparently does not have to be proved to support a prosecution. If a jury determines, using uncertain criteria, that a man has committed a criminal libel, there is very little the accused can usefully put forward in his defence. Criminal libel, originating in the common law, has become more muddled and less relevant over the centuries (there have been only two prosecutions at the Old Bailey in fifteen years) and such an offence does not exist in Scottish law.
It would be wrong to be too critical of the Judge, Mr Justice Wien, for ruling that the Prosecution could be brought. Mr Goldsmith's application was the first ever recorded since an Act of 1888 made provision for it. Feeling his way, to some extent in the dark, the judge decided the application on the grounds of the seriousness of the libel and the 'public interest'. No doubt he exercised his discretion quite properly, but he made too much of Mr Goldsmith's association with the Bank of England and various companies. It was also wrong of the judge to refer to a continuing campaign by Private Eye against Mr Goldsmith since none of the recent articles mentioning him has touched on the subject-matter of the criminal proceedings. Since those allegations have now been withdrawn—and Private Eye have apologised—there is less reason for pursuing the prosecution. In their report on defamation last year the Faulks Committee referred to 'gross and Persistent' allegations in recommending the retention of the offence of criminal libel. But the main reason for this conclusion was that the civil law did not provide adequate remedy in certain cases. The committee cited those libels which consisted of 'a persistent flow of defamatory letters', libels on the Royal Family and libels on or by impecunious people.
If the prosecution against Private Eye is successful what will the prosecuter have achieved? Will the punishment handed out to the defendants—the publishers, distributors and editor of the magazine—make importantly, will the effect of this case, together with the numerous civil actions against Private Eye's distributors—of which we wrote recently—be to threaten the continued publication of the magazine? It is hard to believe that this could be the wish of Mr Goldsmith.
An example of honesty in advertising comes to us from Italy where posters recommending a well-known brand of cigarette make the claim that it 'takes your breath away'.
In 1935 a lecturer in English at the University of Leeds took ship to Australia to assume the post of Jury Professor of English at the University of Adelaide. His name was J. I. M. Stewart. During the voyage he beguiled his time by writing one of the great detective stories of our time, Death at the President's Lodging, which he subsequently published under the pseudonym Michael Innes. The action in the novel takes place at a mythical university located between Oxford and Cambridge. There, says Stewart, is a region 'situated, by a mysterious dispensation, almost halfway between the two ancient seats of learning— hard by the otherwise blameless environs of Bletchley'.
All manner of exciting things occur in this university town of the imagination. Now Penguin have brought out (at 60p) the first reprint of Stewart's novel for ten years, only two months after the foundation of a university at Buckingham, which is within striking distance of the old Bletchley station—closed years ago by Mrs Castle's fiat. Stewart's choice of site has proved prophetic. Let us hope that the university college at Buckingham (called the Independent University, to mark its independence of state subsidy) will, like Stewart's creation, be something 'midway between the strong polarities of Athens and Thebes'. Mr Jack Jones has—forcefully, as is his wont—expressed the view that Britain is an object of international derision because of what he fancifully supposes to be the main preoccupation of the upper classes—enjoying themselves at places like Ascot. This paragon among trade unionists has, indeed, gone so far as to suggest that those who disport themselves at this famous racecourse should give up the practice altogether, and find amusements more pleasing to his censorious eye. Since he rarely plays.much part in the international trade union movement Mr Jones is no doubt unaware of the fact that the principal object of mirth among his opposite numbers overseas is that old carthorse, the TUC itself. Among American and German trade unionists in particular the shortsightedness of Mr Jones and his colleagues is a by-word; their economic illiteracy a matter for wonder. In particular the failure of British trade unions to negotiate pension deals and share options on anything like the continental and American scales, or to work to increase the prosperity of British industry with anything like the effectiveness of unions overseas is material for ridicule.
What do the following have in common: Julian Haviland, Peter Jenkins, Andrew Knight, Hella Pick, A. M. Rendel, Anthony Shrimsley, Peter Snow, David Spanier, David Watt. Paul Hodgson ? All are journalists. Some work for newspapers, others in television. All are members of the
Association des journalistes europeens.
' Now a general political commitment on the part of a journalist is not necessarily a bad thing; and it is seldom difficult to see from his writing whether he is inclined, say, to the Labour Party or the Conservatives. More specific and detailed commitments, especially when they may be unknown to readers or viewers, are generally thought to be undesirable. For example, when a majority at a meeting of the National Union of Journalists of America sought to commit the union to an endorsement of Senator McGovern's candidacy for the Presidency, it was rightly felt that, implying as it did that members of the union would be biased in their reporting, the endorsement would be highly improper. Yet membership of the Association of European Journalists carries with it an undertaking to support 'European integration on a democratic base'— which can only mean federalism; it requires active participation in the formation of a European consciousness'; and it requires members in the course of their work 'to enlighten public opinion on the activities of European institutions'.
Whatever the official policies of other European governments, it need hardly be said that the commitments in the constitution of the AEJ go far beyond the undertakings entered into by either of the major British political parties. It is possible to see membership of this association as inimical to objective reporting on European matters.
Previous page
