In the wake of the Douglas Murray defamation case against the Observer this week, which focused on a column I had written last August, there have been a large number of claims that I lied or sought to deliberately deceive. This short statement is to clarify what happened and to put the case in context. I accept I was wrong. But I did not deliberately lie or seek to deceive.
The column of 11 August 2024, entitled “The roots of the UK’s unrest lie in the warping of genuine working-class grievances”, opened with quotes from Douglas Murray taken from an edited video uploaded that week on to the site of former Australian deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, who had interviewed him. Because of when it was posted, where it was posted, and the nature of the conversation, I initially thought that Murray was referring to the public disorder in the UK following the Southport murders, and that the short clip had been taken from an upcoming video. As paragraph 8 of the agreed Statement in Open Court notes, “On 6 August 2024, in the immediate aftermath of the riots, an edited version of the interview was, for a short period, uploaded on Mr Anderson’s website and YouTube, which gave the misleading impression that Mr Murray was encouraging the riots.”
The interview had, in fact, taken place in late 2023 and Murray was making more general remarks. I had not seen, nor knew of the existence of, the earlier full interview when I wrote my column.
It was my mistake, and it led to a false claim about Douglas Murray, and I hold my hands up. Later that night, as soon as I realised my error, and prior to any intervention from Murray or his representatives, I rewrote the opening to my column before it was published online. Unfortunately, it was too late to change the print edition. The change was referenced in the online article, and a correction issued in the following print edition of the Observer.
Again, it was my mistake, but it was neither a deliberate attempt to deceive nor to misrepresent Douglas Murray’s views but rather a genuine error. The judge at the reading of the defamation settlement, at which Douglas Murray sought and obtained an apology, called it “a most unfortunate mistake” and noted that “prompt steps were taken at the time to limit the damage.” I accept the Statement in Open Court and, if it is not immediately apparent, add my apology to Douglas Murray.
Finally, this statement may not change the views of some who have made false allegations about me here, and no doubt many will continue to do so. That, I accept, is the price of free speech.
Pandaemonium 
you are full of shit.
Thanks for letting me know. It nicely sums up the level of the current debate.
Don’t get snotty now Kenny. Be a big boy and suck it up, you tried to deceive the public to push your agenda. You got caught. SUCK IT UP.
To change my online article before anyone had read it after I discovered that the edited video was misleading, and that the original interview had taken place six months earlier, and acknowledging straightaway that the print edition, which I was too late to change, was wrong, must be a very good sign that I was seeking to deceive people. I didn’t “get caught”, I caught myself – I freely admitted my mistake immediately, six months before any libel suit.
People went to prison for posting falsehoods online about Southport. You are very lucky Mr Malik, not to be serving a prison sentence.
Changing the online version was premeditated. Not everyone is as stupid as you clearly think they are.
I guess for some people, everything must be a conspiracy.
Is it reasonable to suggest that you failed to check the facts initially due to your negative predisposition towards Douglas Murray and more generally, towards the political right? Would that be a more complete and honest explanation of what happened? If that is true, is this not just another example of political propaganda masquerading as journalism, which is currently rife on both the left and the right? You are in a position to change this. This event, and your response to it, appear to show that you lack the capacity to do so.
No, that’s not what happened. An edited video of the John Anderson and Douglas Murray was published on Anderson’s site. It did not refer to the earlier video, which I had not seen and did not know existed. Quoting, again, from the Statement in Open Court, agreed by both sides, “On 6 August 2024, in the immediate aftermath of the riots, an edited version of the interview was, for a short period, uploaded on Mr Anderson’s website and YouTube, which gave the misleading impression that Mr Murray was encouraging the riots.” Or as Fraser Nelson, Murray’s editor at Spectator at the time, wrote in his “In Defence of Douglas Murray” on 12 August: “An interview he gave months ago has been selectively edited and republished to misrepresent him and, in effect, make out that he was encouraging riots.” (Though Nelson seemingly did not recognise that the video had been edited not by one of Murray’s critics but by John Anderson’s website). So, no, it was not just me with my “negative predisposition towards Douglas Murray and more generally, towards the political right”. Many on the right, and supporters of Murray’s, such as Nelson saw it that way, too. As soon as I realised my error, I rewrote the column before it was published online and corrected the print version as soon as I could. I openly admitted my error. All this was six months before any libel suit. I could equally suggest that perhaps it’s your desire to paint me as “political propagandist” that leads you not to accept what actually happened.