Guardian

Since working at the Jewish Chronicle, I have discovered that many in the Jewish community will have nothing to do with The Guardian. This is based on the pre-conception that the newspaper of choice of the chattering classes is a pro-Palestinian rag which condones terrorism on the one side while never missing an opportunity to bash the Israeli state.  This is not entirely fair. The Guardian is not a monolith and there is a range of views on the Israel-Palestine conflict at the organisation (and sometimes this even finds its way into the pages of the newspaper). But I was amazed by the coverage yesterday of the Tzipi Livni affair.

There is a very important piece in today's Guardian about the UK libel laws by my old friend Jo Glanville, editor of Index on Censoship. I urge you to read the article in full. She argues that the UK's "libel laws remain the most significant daily chill on free speech in the UK". She is right. There are a number of stories that the British press won't touch because the threat of being sued by welathy individuals would be so great. I can think of one such story that I would love to tell you about, but if I gave even the merest hint of the identity of the individual involved I would risk a very hefty libel suit. The meat of Jo's argument is this passage: "The key issue is costs. The use of "no win no fee" (conditional fee agreements, or CFAs) has turned libel courts into casinos.