roadhouse said:
explain in detail, please, how it would be in his favor from all sides
Obviously you are not familiar with British jurisprudence concerning the law of defamation and slander.
Cases of slander and defamation are heard in the British Civil Courts.
In British law, it is a given that a plaintiff (person defamed) is entitled to retain ones good name and standing in society.
It is therfore the case that when a plaintiff sues in a case alleging defamation/slander, the law regards the plaintiff as coming to law "with clean hands".
In other words, the plaintiff has an impeccable, untainted reputation.
It is therefore a prerequisite that the defendant in such cases must establish, in a British court of law, the basis for making the allegations about the plaintiff.
The onus is on the defendant to make their case to the judge - if the defendant in the cases choses to defend against the action.
The weight of evidence for a defendant establishing a case is particularly high because, under the (unwritten) British constitution, all plaintiffs are deemed to have retained "their good name and good reputation".
To establish the veracity of an allegation, the defendant would have to show in detail the basis for the allegation.
The plaintiff on the other hand would not be required to present any evidence in court, if the plaintiff so chooses.
The plaintiff simply has to sue suggesting that he/she has been defamed/slandered.
In practical terms, if I posted an allegation against Adolf ****** and if he decided to defend that action, I would have to establish that the allegation made was truthful and factual.
If I could not prove the allegation, the court would find in Hitlers favour and I would be found to have defamed and slandered him.
Restitution of the persons reputation is normally attributed to the size of damages imposed on the plaintiff.
Therefore in monetary terms suing would be advantageous.
Restoration of ones reputation on winning the case would also be satisfied.
In many cases, costs are awarded to the winning side in an action and that the party losing the case is liable to pay for the costs of both sides in the case.