damage had already been done due to the fact that the information was all already in the public domain. I wonder if this is a test case with regards to internet defamation laws - with a view to clamping down further on 'freedom of speech'? By the way - it's pointless referring to McAlpine using a nickname - you can libel someone without naming them specifically if it's clear who is meant - though whether you can libel someone without actually naming them at all - I'm not sure. Exactly. This situation hasn't brought him more damage than it already had. It's done the opposite and cleared it up (apparently). I do too....yet, either he pulls out and we know it was just idle threats (WHY?) Or he goes through with it and then we see what will come out. He could end up damaged either way. I was wondering this too. What if you had only named ''McAlpine'' and no Lord, you could then argue you thought you were naming another already dead guy from that family. Unless they could prove you knew enough to KNOW that the perp was alive and a Lord, and that's who you were referring too. Maybe you thought the guy was someone else and dead? Does anyone know the area of Leeds that Savile was brought up in or born? __________________ Government is rather like sex abuse - You might get the odd bag of sweeties, but you're still being rodgered against your