Sunday, May 31, 2009

Jacqui Smith to Fight US Shock Jock Michael Savage's Libel Claim after He Is Put on 'Least-wanted List'

Photobucket
Jacqui Smith put Mr Savage on a 'least-wanted list'. Photo courtesy of MailOnline

MAIL Online: Home Secretary Jacqui Smith will fight defamation proceedings launched against her by a US 'shock jock' barred from entering the UK, the Home Office said today.

Broadcaster Michael Savage has employed top UK law firm Olswang to sue Ms Smith for libel after she put him on the Home Office’s 16 ‘least wanted’ list.

Mr Savage said he was ‘outraged’ the Government had put him in the same category as Islamic hate preachers and terrorists.

The letter from Olswang, due to land on Ms Smith’s desk tomorrow, accuses her of making ‘serious and damaging defamatory allegations’ against him.

It says Mr Savage, whose show The Savage Nation has eight million listeners in America, has asked for ‘substantial damages’.
The Mail on Sunday has been told he is demanding £100,000.

But the Home Office vowed to fight the demands, insisting the decision to ban Mr Savage was the right one.

A spokesman said: 'As the Home Secretary has already said, he was excluded for engaging in unacceptable behaviour by making comments that might provoke others to serious criminal acts and foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence.

'Any legal proceedings would be robustly defended; we stand by our decision to exclude this individual.

'Coming to the UK is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life.'

Mr Savage says ‘lunatic’ Ms Smith had no right to put him on the same list as a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, a skinhead gang leader and a Hezbollah militant who served 30 years in prison.

The lawyers’ letter states: ‘Our client requires the payment of a substantial sum in damages to be agreed and retraction of the allegations.

He also requires a personal apology from you and an acknowledgement that the Home Office has agreed to pay a substantial sum in libel damages.’ >>> Simon Walters | Sunday, May 31, 2009