They normally require ‘actual malice’ to be proven. I don’t know the details of Florida law, though.

Autocompleted

The devil will be in the detail.

He commented supporting Trump, not the BBC. As you’ve just shown.

They’ve commented so quietly and innocuously it hasn’t made the news.

Haw haw

For about a decade now I have refused to appear on all male panels and it has forced several events to have to reorganise themselves. I wish one of the five on this panel had thought to mention it as an issue. Might have saved everyone some embarrasment.

I have made clear this sends a terrible signal about what they consider the 'future of the UK research system' to be and I'd not attend such an event.

Expecting them to scramble for a token female speaker by the time of the event next week now that I've raised this with them

Not really true: however bad your reputation is, it can get worse. A paedophile accused of being a war criminal. A genocidal maniac accused of strangling his mother. It depends on your reputation with particular groups and in particular angles.

He’s a Robert

(And neither of them are Gibbs. Both are Gibb)

If it could be accessed in Florida, that could well be enough for an action. There are still massive barriers to its chances of success, of course!

Yes, that became clear later in the day. Libel, in Florida.

Brilliant piece as usual, and my respect probably increased tenfold by this exchange. Good work. 👏👏

The first step to understanding impartiality is always recognising that you - like everyone - are not impartial. Acknowledging bias and subjectivity is the key.