The end of misleading headlines: Iain Wilson writes about Vince v Associated Newspapers in The Law Society Gazette
by: Iain Wilson
October 2, 2026
Owen Jones has been pilloried by many online commentators in recent days for the following words he spoke during an interview with Piers Morgan:-
“In 2023, 240 Palestinians had been killed that year by the Israeli State, including 40 children. What else was Hamas supposed to do on the 7th of October?”
When considered in isolation, these words appear to be terribly misjudged and therefore it was perhaps unsurprising that they provided grist for the mill for those convinced that Mr Jones is antisemitic. The clip caused him to be subjected to an online pile on where he was called, amongst other things, a “Jew hater”.
However, Mr Jones recently posted his own video on X, putting his words into their full and proper context, and making it very clear that his views had been misrepresented. What Mr Jones actually said to Mr Morgan was as follows:-
“…you would find this question offensive if I put it to you. If I had said to you, “in 2023, 240 Palestinians had been killed that year by the Israeli State, including 40 children. What else was Hamas supposed to do on the 7th of October?””
Mr Morgan then asked Mr Jones if he was justifying Hamas’ attack, which Mr Jones emphatically denied, stating that he was simply making the rhetorical point that there is no excuse for war crimes. This is clearly poles apart from how Mr Jones’ words were originally interpreted and does not provide a legitimate basis to support an allegation of antisemitism.
Commentators who take words spoken during an interview out of context – often to score a cheap political point – are playing with fire, as Paul Staines, the then editor of the Guido Fawkes blog, found out in a recent legal action brought by Dale Vince, where Mr Staines was forced to pay substantial libel damages and costs after publishing a misleading clip of what Mr Vince said in a Times Radio interview.
The defence of honest opinion, which is commonly relied on by defendants in social media disputes, would not necessarily be available to defendants who have taken quotes out of context because “it is not comment … grossly to misrepresent the conduct of a public man, and then to hold him up to execration for his alleged wrong-doing.” (per Windeyer J in Christie v Robertson [1889] 10 NSWLR 157 and recently endorsed by Mr Justice Jay in Dyson v MGN Ltd [2023] EWHC 3092).
As always, tweeters are well-advised to think before they post. It is no defence to rely on the sloppy journalism and/or misreporting of others.
Tom Double
PartnerRelated Services
- Defamed by the press
- Defamed on social media
- Defamed on television, radio or podcasts
- Defamed on X/Twitter – Twibel
- Defamed on TikTok
- Wrongly circulated as wanted by the media or on social media
- Defending a defamation claim
- IPSO press complaints
- IPSO arbitration procedure
- Responding to a request for comment by the media
- Inaccurate information on due diligence databases
- Norwich Pharmacal Orders – Identifying the Anonymous
- Privacy, Harassment and Defamation Injunctions
- Defamed on Facebook
- Defamed on YouTube
Recent Reported Cases
Legal Disclaimer
Articles are intended as an introduction to the topic and do not constitute legal advice
