Lord McAlpine, Twitter and libel law: the facts

The law gives no immunity to Twitter gossip.

The constant challenge faced by the law is to adapt to social change. The social media present just such a problem becaus they are a twenty-first century means of gossiping, activity which includes the disclosure of private information and the making of defamatory allegations.

However, as we have all learnt recently, making serious allegations on Twitter - or Facebook, or anywhere simliar - can now have unpleasant consequences both for the subjects and perpetrators of such gossip.

The law concerning Twitter is straightforward: if you make a defamatory allegation via a tweet then you are liable to be sued for libel.

The bigger question facing us as a society is whether the law should regulate this kind of communication. Its role is to balance the right of free speech guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with the Article 8 right to privacy and reputation. Which should take precedence on Twitter?

At the moment the law gives no immunity for Twitter gossip which infringes the rights of others. Anyone who has seen the interview with Lord McAlpine talking about the impact on him of being accused of being a paedophile will be left in no doubt about the effect the Twitter campaign (which eventually made its way into the commercial media) has had on him.

On that basis it looks like the right thing is for the twitterati to obey the same basic set of legal principles as the newspapers, broadcasters etc.

It is difficult to see the social value of allegations of paedophilia against innocent people doing the rounds on Twitter, sent by people with no basis to believe they are true. If the threat of legal sanction prevents this then such a modest qualification of the free speech right is surely in the greater public interest.

Jonathan Coad is a partner in the Media, Brands & Technology team at Lewis Silkin LLP. He can be contacted on 020 7074 8115 or at jonathan.coad@lewissilkin.com

This article first appeared in Spears magazine.

 

Twitter and the law. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

I was wrong about Help to Buy - but I'm still glad it's gone

As a mortgage journalist in 2013, I was deeply sceptical of the guarantee scheme. 

If you just read the headlines about Help to Buy, you could be under the impression that Theresa May has just axed an important scheme for first-time buyers. If you're on the left, you might conclude that she is on a mission to make life worse for ordinary working people. If you just enjoy blue-on-blue action, it's a swipe at the Chancellor she sacked, George Osborne.

Except it's none of those things. Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme is a policy that actually worked pretty well - despite the concerns of financial journalists including me - and has served its purpose.

When Osborne first announced Help to Buy in 2013, it was controversial. Mortgage journalists, such as I was at the time, were still mopping up news from the financial crisis. We were still writing up reports about the toxic loan books that had brought the banks crashing down. The idea of the Government promising to bail out mortgage borrowers seemed the height of recklessness.

But the Government always intended Help to Buy mortgage guarantee to act as a stimulus, not a long-term solution. From the beginning, it had an end date - 31 December 2016. The idea was to encourage big banks to start lending again.

So far, the record of Help to Buy has been pretty good. A first-time buyer in 2013 with a 5 per cent deposit had 56 mortgage products to choose from - not much when you consider some of those products would have been ridiculously expensive or would come with many strings attached. By 2016, according to Moneyfacts, first-time buyers had 271 products to choose from, nearly a five-fold increase

Over the same period, financial regulators have introduced much tougher mortgage affordability rules. First-time buyers can be expected to be interrogated about their income, their little luxuries and how they would cope if interest rates rose (contrary to our expectations in 2013, the Bank of England base rate has actually fallen). 

A criticism that still rings true, however, is that the mortgage guarantee scheme only helps boost demand for properties, while doing nothing about the lack of housing supply. Unlike its sister scheme, the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, there is no incentive for property companies to build more homes. According to FullFact, there were just 112,000 homes being built in England and Wales in 2010. By 2015, that had increased, but only to a mere 149,000.

This lack of supply helps to prop up house prices - one of the factors making it so difficult to get on the housing ladder in the first place. In July, the average house price in England was £233,000. This means a first-time buyer with a 5 per cent deposit of £11,650 would still need to be earning nearly £50,000 to meet most mortgage affordability criteria. In other words, the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee is targeted squarely at the middle class.

The Government plans to maintain the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, which is restricted to new builds, and the Help to Buy ISA, which rewards savers at a time of low interest rates. As for Help to Buy mortgage guarantee, the scheme may be dead, but so long as high street banks are offering 95 per cent mortgages, its effects are still with us.