We’ve received another letter from Ian Taylor’s lawyers. You can read it below.

We’ve sent the following response:

Hello [name]. Congrats on (mostly) sorting out the spelling this time.

I am of course keen to avoid legal action and to maintain Wings Over Scotland’s unblemished standards of accuracy and propriety, and will be more than happy to remove any untrue allegations about Mr Taylor from my website. I note that your letter of today omits the claim in the previous one that there was an issue with my reference to “massive tax avoidance”, which I welcome.

I also note, however, that you have failed to provide any justification for your remaining claims of defamatory inaccuracy, so am as yet unable to comply with your demand to remove them. So that we can come to an amicable agreement, can you please clarify for me the following matters?

(1) Mr Taylor was Chief Executive of Vitol plc when it entered a guilty plea to charges of grand larceny (i) in the US in 2007. Would you agree that grand larceny constitutes “criminal activity”, and that as Chief Executive – and also President and self-proclaimed “public face” (ii) – of the company, Mr Taylor has “extensive connections” with Vitol, and if not, why not?

(2) In respect of the above, the activity in question concerned monies paid to what Reuters described as “Iraqi officials under Saddam Hussein”. Would you agree that criminal activities engaged in with the state officials of Iraq constituted a link to Saddam Hussein, and if not, why not?

(3) Mr Taylor was also Chief Executive of Vitol when it paid $1m to (iii) the Serbian war criminal (iv) known as “Arkan”. The company has admitted doing so, noting only that its transaction was not illegal. My website has made no allegation that the transaction was illegal. Would you agree that being the Chief Executive ultimately responsible for giving someone $1m constituted a “link” with that person, and if not, why not?

Further to the broader point, all of the statements cited above have been made in numerous respectable international newspapers and publications with large readerships, and appear not to have been challenged by Mr Taylor over a period spanning many years. It would appear to me, then, that in so far as Mr Taylor’s reputation could be discerned by an ordinary member of the public, that reputation would be as it is portrayed in those statements and in my article.

It therefore follows that my article would not lower his reputation, since it merely repeats information which is already very much in the public domain and which Mr Taylor appears not to have contested despite plainly having the means with which to do so. I am accordingly uncertain as to how you deem me to have defamed him, as defamation requires the lowering of a person’s reputation.

I’m sure if you can clear up these questions we can arrive at a mutually-agreeable position accurately describing Mr Taylor’s status. Otherwise, I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

Very best regards,

Rev. Stuart Campbell

.

REFERENCES

(i) http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/11/20/un-food-vitol-idUKN2058211120071120

(ii) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1279874.html

(iii) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jul/01/balkans.warcrimes2

(iv) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BDeljko_Ra%C5%BEnatovi%C4%87#ICTY_indictment