This is not solicitor-client legal advice, merely general discussion. No duty of care to any person arises. I am not acting for any client in this post.

Actually DeG that is not correct. Truth is a defence rather than untruth being part of the cause of action. If material is defamatory it is up to a person seeking to establish "justification" as a defence to prove the truth.

Here is a website http://www.website-law.co.uk/resources/website-libel.html that is superficial but mostly not wrong, although fails to recognise the recent trend to treat ephemeral internet writings as slander rather than libel.

It does not deal fully with the question of who is liable for hosted material.

It is incomplete in its treatment of Reynolds privilege but that will not affect us in this case.

It fails to deal with "mere vulgar abuse".

It does not deal with the fact that a person responding to defamation of him has slightly more latitude in what he can say.

It also fails to deal with the fact that English libel law although in my view based on correct principles in most cases is regarded in teh USA with such hostility (in my view as a result of an incorrect approach to what the US constitutional position was intended to mean about "laws restricting freedom of speech") that there is a risk that the USA may enact legislation preventing the enforcement in the USA of UK defamation judgments.


"Most teachers are [insert epithet]" is not actionable because there is no identifiable plaintiff, unless there is other material that identifies a person about whom it is said. Also, it would be a form of trade libel to which other rules apply in that the words disparage a person (if spoken about a person) in his profession trade or calling.


The limitation period for defamation is one year, but in England that period runs afresh from each "publication". That is correct in my view but it is an unpopular rule with the media and intense lobbying has meant that it is likely to be changed some time so that limitation runs from first publication.

There is no form of what is commonly called "legal aid" for any form of defamation proceedings.

The conditional fee lawyers generally only take on big cases and they are unlikely to be interested in this microcosm unless they see it as a chance to get famous by breaking new ground on moderator liability, site operator liability, ISP liability, host liability, or the strained UK/US relationship over defamation law.