The case was not about whether the Holocaust happened or not. If you read the link you posted, "Irving claimed to have been libelled on the grounds that Lipstadt had falsely labelled him a Holocaust denier and falsely claimed that he had falsified evidence or deliberately misinterpreted it".
There is no law in England that forbids somebody being a Holocaust denier (unlike in France and Germany). And Nobody was "[p]roving the Holocaust happened in a UK libel proceeding". I have no idea why you keep posting that.
The Irving case was based on him not liking Lipstadt calling him a denier and accusing him as a historian of faking data. Since the court accepted that he was indeed a denier and was using dodgy data, they ruled for Lipstadt.
Now, back to Pretty. The defendants have apologised so I don't see what there is to debate. Dude, the case is over. Let it go.
There is no law in England that forbids somebody being a Holocaust denier (unlike in France and Germany). And Nobody was "[p]roving the Holocaust happened in a UK libel proceeding". I have no idea why you keep posting that.
The Irving case was based on him not liking Lipstadt calling him a denier and accusing him as a historian of faking data. Since the court accepted that he was indeed a denier and was using dodgy data, they ruled for Lipstadt.
Now, back to Pretty. The defendants have apologised so I don't see what there is to debate. Dude, the case is over. Let it go.