"These doctors are unfit to treat patients" could very well be libel then? That (based on the article) seems to have been the core of the decision.

That seems like an opinion to me, not a false statement...

IANAL, but I think you could definitely make the argument that it's either true, or not possible to prove one way or the other.

That statement sounds to me to be synonymous with "this doctor does not / should not have their license"; given that a court actually decided otherwise, this looks libelous to me.

When did a court decide it was libelous? As far as I understand a court decided it fell under Right to be Forgotten, which surely extends beyond libel laws.

This is a circular argument. The courts decided it falls under the law in question, but that isn’t a justification in itself for the law in question.

'detaro quoting The Guardian upthread:

> "The judge said that while the information on the website with reference to the failings of the doctor in 2014 was correct, the pejorative name of the blacklist site suggested she was unfit to treat people, and that was not supported by the disciplinary panel’s findings."

Again, IANAL, but what I’m reading does not seem relevant to libel. Namely, the pejorative title of the website has nothing to do with the claims they’re making.

If the doc had a libel case, why the hell did they not go for that, instead?