My Life

My Life - Oswald MosleyMy application, however, was turned down, because in the words of the Lord ChiefJustice: 'I am not satisfied that there is really any genuine intention on the part of thisapplicant ever to bring the action to trial. He has been perfectly open about the matter,both in the action itself and in these proceedings. His whole object has been to obtaina platform, if I may use that term, on which he can answer the allegations which havebeen made against him, and preferably a platform in one of the respondents'programmes.' The Lord Chief Justice, of course, was perfectly correct in his appraisalof the situation. I was not at all interested in the libel action or the obtaining ofdamages, but was simply using it as an attempt to obtain the right of reply. I do notmind in the least what the BBC or anyone else says about me, if I have the right ofreply. I am ready at any time to meet their best men face to face on television, and cananswer every word they have ever said against me; the people can then judge.The champions of the BBC have never yet faced me in public debate. The last timethey even allowed me to speak on radio was after the Olympia meeting in 1934 I wastold it was to be a debate with a well-known journalist, but when I arrived he was notpresent, so I made my statement and left. He was, however, kept in reserve in anotherroom to comment on what I had said, without facing me. The method of the BBC hasbeen to avoid confrontation, to attack, to deny reply; they can evade the consequencesby sheer weight of money, which in the end is the money of the licence payers.Private individuals are in no position to challenge corporations with these resources atthe costs prevailing in our courts. I was advised that this action might cost at least£30,000. The result would depend—as I knew from experience—on the spin of a coin,the composition of a jury. Not only that, it seemed to me that over the long termcontinual and unanswered attacks must have conditioned almost any jury in theirfavour and against me. The cost was beyond any normal pocket, and the risk wasbeyond any sane man's calculations. This is the system I was up against, and in theseconditions I am not asking for justice from the English courts. It is a sad and bitterthing for an Englishman to say that I have twice recently obtained justice in Europesncourts, where the procedure is relatively cheap and expeditious, and the issue isdecided by judges and not by juries, but the absence of these conditions in the Englishcourts makes it impossible for me there to fight a public corporation such as the BBC,which is supplied with £64 million per annum of the licence payers' money.I have had to fight many law actions, and in recent times have always put my cases inperson. I am not by nature litigious, but go through with the time-wasting businesswhen it is the only way to obtain redress. The litigant in this country can be sure offair treatment from the higher ranges of the judiciary, and it is the only place he canbe sure of it. I do not like the business, because it means so much hanging about in theprecincts of the courts and attention to all the pettyfogging detail of their procedure.Yet I admit the actual clash of argument is stimulating and even enjoyable; it is one ofthe finest of intellectual exercises. Encouraged by the courtesy and often by the kindlycompliments of judges, I have on occasion been tempted to go to the Bar, but havealways been restrained by the feeling that my time was meant for other things. So thecourts remain to me a last resort, also a memory of good argument and, at the highlevel, a fair deal.In these conditions of complete suppression of all effective means of politicalexpression, we might well have asked ourselves how we could continue at all, how wecould exist politically or our opinions be known to anyone. Naturally, the handicap is385 of 424