I just read the article. It is strange because it doesn't quote what the letter wrote about NGB it just claims it identifies him as one of Jeremy's protectors.
The article seems to imply Jackie wrote the letter by saying Harrison contacted her employer and then a week later got the threat plus mentioing:
"Clive Beer, business development director of PSI Ltd, added that the employee who offered to give Mr Harrison 100,000 public sector email addresses had been "severely rebuked" and was "hanging on to her job by a thread".
He said: "She was trying to help him along and became slightly overzealous. She is a sales agent and has no access to any of our database information. All of the emails are in the public domain."
---
Someone just reading this article would naturally suspect the unnamed sales agent doing it as retribution. The fact she is a Jeremy zealot makes it even worse lucky for her they didn't mention that part and trying to get back at NGB for the whole fiasco would actually make some sense as well.
I can kind of see why matt would suspect her.
There is something critical to highlight with respect to the defamation claim:
"Last night, Mr Harrison said he believes Bamber himself is behind the threat, having manipulated one of his "disciples" into sending the sinister message."
Harrison prefaced it as his opinion not a fact that Jeremy sent it. Opinion is excluded from defamation. Prefacing something as an opinion won't always protect you but figures into the equation.
The author asserting Jeremy sent it in the headline seems to be the usual with journalists. How often you do read the story and find out that the headline is not actually supported by evidence. They do it all the time as the old bait and switch. It is th ehook to get you o read an article that otherwise you wouldn't.
