Frankly, I'm at a bit of a loss. Why are there said to be lawyers' letters whizzing around? Why should it be libellous to call somebody a homosexual? I took counsel from my friend, Sidney Contumely, QC, the noted libel brief. 'There is doubt about that,' he said. 'I think it probably still is libellous to call someone a homosexual if they are, in fact, not a homosexual, on the basis that, whatever the liberal view, a jury might still easily be persuaded that to be called a homosexual remains a discreditable imputation.'
Mr Contumely formed his fingers into an arch and said there was a further point that the first party might be accusing the second party, if married and outwardly heterosexual, of, in common parlance, 'living a lie' and therefore engaging in conduct of a duplicitous nature. The test, he said, was whether the accusation complained of would lead a reasonable person to think the worse of you. I said this might be difficult with a member of the present Cabinet. The great lawyer almost smiled, but was not persuaded.Reuse content