However! In UK libel law, truth is a valid and complete defense since 2013. All you need to do is prove that the content is true to win. This may have been tricky in Banks v Cadwalladr mentioned above, since the claims were along the lines of association with certain national interests (difficult to prove), but if you've read the report you can see that unlike that case, the information in the Amnesty report is quite easily verifiable. The majority of it relies on public tax records anyone can access.
It's true that historically truth wasn't a complete defense, you used to have to prove things like that the disclosure was in the public interest instead, which led to some bad outcomes. But now truth is a complete defense -- you don't need to supplement it with anything else, just show that it's true.
Amnesty International UK are not a tiny helpless charity, either. They had an annual income of £24,142,000 in 2024, and during the same year spent over £6 million just on fundraising. We don't have a more open financial record, but my cousin used to work in the London office (which she left because of racist harassement and the company having an open bar at every office party funded by donations...) , so I know that they spend a large number of those donations on school campaigns, raising awareness (not counted as direct fundraising), etc.
This would be a better use of their money and they should go for it. They can still get sued for defamation even though they've withdrawn the report, so now this is just a huge bargaining chip the gender critical movement will hold over their heads for the rest of time. Any time Amnesty want to do anything against these anti-trans movements, the same legal threats can be used to cow them into silence. So, not only have they allowed their report to be withdrawn, they've effectively decided not to pursue trans rights in the UK anymore. They're being cowards.
