Defamation 101.

Assuming Lord McAlpine does in fact sue Sally Bercow for libel, it will make for an interesting case.  To recap - the BBC broadcast a programme suggesting that "a senior Conservative politician" was involved in child abuse at a children's home in Wales 30-odd years ago.  No-one was named in the programme, but shortly after Sally Bercow tweeted "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*"    Now I don't use Twitter, and for those of you who also don't, as I understand it "trending" refers to a topic which is constantly cropping up in tweets at the moment, and asterisks can be used to indicate a facial expression.  So what she was really saying was "Why is everybody talking about Lord McAlpine - and I am asking this (at least superficially) without any specific motive".  So given that it is now accepted that Lord McAlpine was in no way involved in what is alleged to have gone on at that children's home, is that, or could that be libellous?  It is a defence to libel to show that what you said was the truth, and she could argue that Lord McAlpine was in fact "trending" at the time so her statement was true.  Indeed I think had she left out the words "Why is..." that would be a good defence, but her inclusion of those words leaves her open to a charge of innuendo - in other words, it's not what you say that is to be judged, but what a reasonable person would understand you to mean.  Like I say, it is a potentially very interesting case.