Kafka comes to the British courts

Fabio P.Barbieri

...then the government of Saudi Arabia will threaten to "suspend cooperating with the fight against terror" and whoever is PM at the time will say that "British lives on British streets" could have been endangered if the Saudis are not placated, and the libel laws will be preserved and perhaps extended....

David Raynes

It might just be relevant to notice what Mr Justice Eady said Melanie?
It is reported here:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2781336.ece

I keep an eye on Rachel Ehrenfeld because I have been very critical of some of her writing which has touched on areas with which I am very familiar. I have a low opinion of some of her stuff. The Times reports that: "Mr Justice Eady ruled that it was false to say that Sheikh bin Mahfouz: supported terrorism; contributed millions of dollars to al-Qaeda; deposited tens of millions of dollars into accounts held by terrorists implicated in the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania; and sponsored Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism.

The judge accused Dr Ehrenfeld of trying to cash in on the publicity of being sued in London while refusing to attend court to justify her allegations".

I stress that the allegations in this case are not matters I claim any knowledge of. I do not comment on the veracity, or not, of what she says.

sean

I was a patriotic Brit from my teens (20 years ago) to now. Now I despise everything about Britain and what it has become and this article is emblematic.

The Islamists deserve this once great place as they are the only people fighting for it.

Now all I have to do is find somewhere in the world that hasn't succumbed to modern dhimmitude...

Ellen

Just astounding.

The trouble is the UK's political establishment has part wilfully and part unwittingly entered into a default position of trying to exercise mind control over every form of expression.

The politicians have - I hope - realised just what damage they have done by delagating so much power to our judiciary.

To illustrate the point about this being a mindset - a desire to control almost everything - one need look no further than the Criminal Justice And Immigration Act 2008.

www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1-l1g63

Here we go on Part 5 section 63:

'63 Possession of extreme pornographic images

(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.

(2)An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both —
(a) pornographic, and
(b) an extreme image.'

I'm not going to reproduce everything here that you can read in the act itself, but this is the first time I'm aware of in a generation that the UK government has moved to outlaw certain categories of adult pornography. There was considerable alarm at this legislation from within the legal profession and yet it has somehow worked its way on to the statute book.

Here's a touch more detail from the Act:

'(6) An “extreme image” is an image which—
(a) falls within subsection (7), and
(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),
and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.'

We can add to this nosey parker law this hypocrisy: classified films will be exempt. That is the mess the government has got itself into. And it knows it, because the Act goes on:

'(10) Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—
(a)in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; or
(b)in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.'

For heaven's sake. Why was this put on the statute book when it has to go via the DPP? Doesn't that fool have better things to than run after grown adults with strange fetishes? Like, er, catching terrorists? Oh, no. I bet they don't even call them terrorists in the DPP's office.

This is where the class of '68, who kept banging on about 'freedom' - a word they have never understood - have led us. The legacy of all their politcal correctness is a desire to control almost eveything from the words people write to the odd things they might get up to on a Sunday morning.

Instead of setting an agenda to allow freedom of expression to expose really threatening wrongdoing that could bring us all down. The government is instead more worried about snooping on people who do their weekly shop at Ann Summers.

What a total shambles.

Chip

In addition to the disquieting developments in the EU and UK, the UN General Assembly just passed a "defamation of religions" (blasphemy) measure which is tantamount to global Islamic inquisition. Perhaps the media could cover these efforts to destroy the Enlightenment before our nations start extraditing authors to Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia for torture, amputations, and decapitations?

Trek

Why is that this is the first time I have heard about the debate instigated by Denis McShane? It's too important a matter for the BBC to ignore.... but there you go, as they say - typical.

phil

I have said this before AND I WILL DO SO AGAIN -free speech requires responsibility for it to have respect ,and due to that lack of responsibility we have libel laws .On this thread alone which started out about terrorists and funding PRES/ELECT Obama.s name has been introduced but with no accusation ,just a lingering thought which will inevitably connect him with a convicted criminal -Has this anything to do with terrorists or their funds ?no answer necessary .

Why does this respected blog have to continue thispolitical line and at the same time complain about gagging free speech ?I am just as concerned about free speech as Mel and all the rest of the people who bother to put their thoughts here,and for whom I mostly have great regard ,even though we may disagree from time to time ,but I believe it is this sort of remark that pulls back our cause .I know most here do not approve of O ,that is their right ,I am not sure myself, but please let us play down the middle and not demean ourselves by innuendo .

-There are posters here who accuse with no evidence ,even of murder,hide behind pseudonyms ,and wonder why we have libel laws-I just wish they would have the courage to publish and be damned and I do not mean on the net .The chief culprit knows who she is but is too cowardly to do so ,surely if you were the victim you would want some chance to defend yourself .

Sometimes one ploughs a lonely furrow on these threads where moral issues are concerned ,but I see our great nation slipping more and more into "i,m ALRIGHT JACK "SYNDROME "and anyone can say whatever they like regardless of the pain it causes other innocents(just watch question time)-so i will support the libel laws whilst regretting the great ever increasing cost of doing so -Meanwhile you all have your defence just support responsibility .

I hope I may have influenced at least somebody here,but as my friend Dixon has said before most only read their own comments and move on ,some just to insult one another ,and never address the issue in question -Nick, Cabbie , Dixon ,Adam ,and a few other good souls ,you are exonerated ,whatever your opinions are :)

Robb US Army retired

Folks,
You across the pond and we here in the colonies
get the governments for whom we vote. Shame on us!

Suki J

Hello, listen to me my friends
Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't write,
Keep it quiet! we are living a place is control by mafia

W. B. Harris

The article is very interesting… does that mean somewhere along traveling down the road of life, that an outsider can sue and demand death by proxy?

To whom will we Brits assign to represent us to make that sacrifice in the name of stupidity?

Common sense can’t be mistaken for political stupidity – or can it?

We can write and blog, but more importantly, we must stand up and protest AND then get these blokes out.

EC

Melanie, now I'm really depressed!

We appear to have been drinking in the last chance saloon and now the sheriff is slumped unconscious over the bar with the judge that plyed him with the bottle of "mind rotter" standing over him with a crooked smile on his face.

Where's the sanity clause? If there's a cure then it's going to be worse than the hangover and I hope that I won't be around to witness it.

So I'll say Merry Christmas and damn the rotten lot of them and I'll probably see you in the dock of a sharia court sometime soon in the New Year.

Hysteria

@ Ellen

"Instead of setting an agenda to allow freedom of expression to expose really threatening wrongdoing that could bring us all down. The government is instead more worried about snooping on people who do their weekly shop at Ann Summers. "

nice line - but loking at your quoted examples Ann Summers would clearly fall outside the remit of the Act.

And again based on your quosted exerpts, I can quite see why some of a less tolerant persuasion would want to change the system - pure unfettered liberalism is not healthy - for the individual or society as a whole - there are some moral absolutes which we in the liberal West have forgotten and which others further East have not.

Hysteria

and what Phil said....

Herbert Thornton

Doesn't this remind anybody of Charles Dickens' Mr Bumble?

Mr. Bumble is told that "the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction", and Mr. Bumble replies "If the law supposes that… the law is a ass - a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience."

If British law allows lawsuits of this sort to be successful, is it not high time for Parliament to change the law?

Dixon

sean
December 19th, 2008 3:00pm
I was a patriotic Brit from my teens (20 years ago) to now. Now I despise everything about Britain and what it has become and this article is emblematic.
The Islamists deserve this once great place as they are the only people fighting for it.
Now all I have to do is find somewhere in the world that hasn't succumbed to modern dhimmitude..."

Not that I suggest you move there, but thank heavens for India and China. They may yet prove to be the lifeboats of civilisation.

Sarah

Hysteria complains to Ellen:

“nice line - but loking at your quoted examples Ann Summers would clearly fall outside the remit of the Act”

No, if someone goes to Ann Summers buys a pair of handcuffs takes them home and cuffs Uncle Edgar’s stuffed bear to the double poster and makes a film of what they ‘do’ to it, it’s now illegal - and that’s somehow a priority for our Parliament. So what Ellen wrote makes perfect sense. It was just a little joke - something I know you Guardianistas struggle with.

And then you come in with one of your trademark let’s-put-Islam-above-the-West comments, also no doubt garnered from The Guardian:

“the are some moral absolutes which we in the liberal West have forgotten and which others further East have not”

Sorry, whose the ‘we’? I don’t know anyone who’s interested in stuff like that. Why on earth it’s a priority for a country with 2,000 would-be terrorists on the loose, I have no idea. Instead, you invite us to look in awe at the ‘moral absolutes’ of the East. What? Like female circumcision and forced marriages? Looks like your pathetic sense of morals went the same way as your sense of humour, Hysteria.

Winston Smith

I second Sean's reply(3pm). I too am a patriotic Brit and have been all of my life, but now I am desperately trying to get out of this Orwellian/Kafkaeqsue society.
Is this what the UK has become? We have a mercenary Armed Forces, a Government and now a Judicial system?
What on earth has a British Lawyer got anything to do with the prosecuting of an American author out with America?
This is sheer madness.
I would say good article Melanie, but I'm horrified, although I already know just where the UK is heading. It seems to be on the same course as the Titanic.

HarleyDavidson

So, Britain has become the modern version of a drive by shooting for the world's peace loving Arabs? But no one in Britain is allowed to speak about any of this correct? Terrorism no longer exists? The BBC will not use a dirty word like terrorists, correct? So, you all developed a justice system whose primary objective is intended to silence its own citizens? Assist Saudi Arabia and other assorted Arab money men buy silence legally? Even ban books they do not like?

Let's see, that's Sharia Law, taxes for the BBC, and now this as well. Muslims blowing up buses and other assorted British property. Exporting Muslim terrorists with British passports and still the people refused to throw the bums in parliament out.

Paradise for the left wingers. And still the British people refused to acknowledge the nation itself is more at risk that the German bombing in World War 2. Why? Because the British people fought back against the Germans.

That Britain has passed into history. That Britain no longer exists. That Britain is merely a memory like all other British memories from its former past.

Who and what is this Britain?

Tom Cat

phil, you have said so before, yes, and no-one cared about it then either, because you always write such sanctimonious rubbish.

And what’s your problem today, phil? Oh, it’s not even a problem with Melanie Phillips. It’s a problem with Melanie Phillips quoting Hansard, the public record of what is said in Parliament. There‘s even a hyperlink on the word ‘debate’ in Ms Phillips’s opening paragraph, phil, taking you to the full record on the Hansard website. So who are you to decide what Melanie Phillips should and should not be reading and quoting, phil? If you don’t like what Members of Parliament have been saying, that’s tough.

Verity

Dixon - The Indians will not let you buy a house. Under any circumstances, unless you are an Indian citizen or an NRI. End of debate. So how long does it take to get citizenship? Thirteen years!

Herbert Thornton

I agree with Phil that Barack Obama really has nothing to do with the topic of Libel Tourism or with the jurisdiction that the British courts appear to be exercising. Nor has the topic of pornography, which somebody else mentioned have any place in this thread.

Perhaps I have misunderstood Melanie's article, but it gives me the impression that successful litigants in Britain can enforce, in the U.S., judgements for defamation rendered by British courts - based on something published in America. That seems to me to be wrong in principle. I should have thought that all legal questions about liability for what is published in America ought to be entirely a matter for the American courts to decide.

If the British courts are to come into it, should not their jurisdiction extend only to the consequences of the book having been actually imported into Britain - and even more important, should not any damages be recoverable only in Britain, from assets situated in Britain?

Does a British court really have, in effect, the jurisdiction to intrude into the matter of what is published in America, and to penalise the author of a book on account of its being published in America?

Verity

It cannot possibly have such authority, Herbert Thornton. This is some new and destructive legal "tradition" being strong-armed through at the behest of the one-worlders who infest every segment of our society - from Downing Street to local fascist councils.

I am intrigued that Britain and Canada were complicit in their own detruction, eagerly according aid and comfort to terrorists and malign native thought-manipulators like Tony Blair and the people he stuffed into the judiciary.

And yet the United States is yet largely uninfected with this AIDS of the soul. As is Oz.

Verity

I am going more and more for the Simon de Montfort option. That man had a head on his shoulders.

W. B. Harris

In the U.N. a movement was just recently squelched trying to impose the ''Combating Defamation of Religions''.

The resolution that was being proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (that would have been used to silence religious minorities, including Christians) lost support!

Yesterday's (08-12-18) vote in the United Nations General Assembly shows a continued and dramatic erosion of support for the resolution: 86 ''Yes'' votes, 53 ''No'' votes, and 42 ''Abstain'' votes.

Me’s wonder how the Brits voted?

Jojo

Herbert Thornton, you say “Barack Obama really has nothing to do with the topic of Libel Tourism or with the jurisdiction that the British courts appear to be exercising.”

Herbert, the only time Barack Obama’s name was mentioned on this post was by an MP called Norman Lamb who said:

“There is political interest in the US because of the connections between Rezko and President-elect Obama. I make no allegation at all relating to the latter.”

The instance set out by Mr Lamb is, then, but one example of how journalists outside the UK are asking questions of certain people and are then finding that this becomes more difficult once the people they are asking questions of try to use the British libel courts to put off these journalists.

You go on: “Perhaps I have misunderstood Melanie's article, but it gives me the impression that successful litigants in Britain can enforce, in the U.S., judgements for defamation rendered by British courts - based on something published in America. That seems to me to be wrong in principle.”

It is not that many libel litigants can enforce UK court judgments in US courts, it is that they will try to. Defending any such action - no matter how pathetic it is - can be hugely expensive. Even if the person bringing the lawsuit in the US doesn’t win, they can make an author or publisher feel a lot of pain just by having to hire lawyers. Rich and powerful people most certainly are trying to make UK-court libel judgments enforceable in the US, that is why Ms Phillips writes:

“Remarkably, American legislatures are being forced to pass bills to stop British courts punishing American writers for publishing books and articles that may be freely read in the United States but about which foreigners with deep enough pockets can sue them in the British courts.”

You say, Herbert: “I should have thought that all legal questions about liability for what is published in America ought to be entirely a matter for the American courts to decide.”

Not with the internet. If it can be read on British soil on the UK via the web, you can go to the British courts. You may not win, but you can have go - especially if you have deep pockets, as the rich and powerful do. Moreover, even if something is published in the US in hard copy, the litigant could go after the journalist in the UK libel courts to try to stop it being reprinted in the UK. Even if something is never printed in the UK, the person bringing a libel action may try to get a libel judgment on something only ever seen by the American public but then target any UK assets owned by the author or publisher.

If a US publisher has a UK office, the litigant could go after that office for any libel damages or legal costs awarded in the UK. If a non-UK domiciled journalist with a libel judgment against them in a British court visits Britain, they could be pursued for a libel award upon arrival. If the author owned any property in Britain, that could be got after. If the US publisher had any commercial enterprise - even a non-publishing enterprise - in Britain, the litigant could try to go after that asset to pay for a libel damage award. There’s no guarantee that after the award of any libel damages any such assets could automatically be got hold of. But that’s not the point. By then you’ve got the fear into that author and into any other journalist thinking of going down the same route.

The art of libel is much more than being about getting a pay cheque for damages and your legal costs. It’s about striking fear into journalists chasing the truth. Win one or two and you will forevermore see newspaper editors and book publishers say, “no thanks, it’s just too bothersome“. Why publish something in America if it might mean a court battle over assets in the UK?

Herbert, you say “Nor has the topic of pornography, which somebody else mentioned have any place in this thread” got anything to do with libel tourism. Unfortunately, though, the issue of libel in the UK is indeed connected to pornography because both subjects concern themselves with censorship - and more importantly censorship ratified by the state. It gets right to the heart of the disease of the Left - especially the British Left.

The British Left specialise in trying to control what people say, think or look at. That is why people come to the UK’s libel courts so often from around the world. This warped culture extends well beyond our libel laws, though, and into much else, such as that ludicrous new law on pornography.

Oh, and as per usual the astonishingly dim ‘Hysteria’ misses the point about what Ellen quoted and decided - entirely in self-righteous character - that the acts in those images automatically represent something real.

Let’s spell it out for you, ‘Hysteria’, none of what is spelt out in that Act of Parliament and that Ellen has quoted has to have happened. There are plenty of laws already making threats to kill, grievous bodily harm, and having sex with human cadavers and live animals illegal. This new law is about the making of imagery, not about bedding live animals and all the rest of it, which has been illegal for years.

There’s nothing of “pure unfettered liberalism” about it at all. There’s plenty of fetters, thank you very much, but not until now on some silly images in some silly porn film, which is why classified films are exempt from that stupid law. But you didn’t get that, did you, Hysteria? At least your name’s apt. Or is it that you didn’t want to get that point because you were so busy trying to make it sound as if everyone in the West was beneath Islamic Eastern cultures? Because, of course, the stoning to death of real live homosexual men and women is so civilised, isn’t it?

W. B. Harris

In the U.N. a movement was just recently squelched trying to impose the ''Combating Defamation of Religions''.

The resolution that was being proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (that would have been used to silence religious minorities, including Christians) lost support!

Yesterday's (08-12-18) vote in the United Nations General Assembly shows a continued and dramatic erosion of support for the resolution: 86 ''Yes'' votes, 53 ''No'' votes, and 42 ''Abstain'' votes.

Me’s wonder how the Brits voted?

Kathryn

I hear you lot just took down a cross in a prison chapel because the muslim prisoners who were sharing it were offended, yet were given their mats and such in the other half.

As you go, so do we here across the pond. So sad

Dixon

Verity, I didnt mean that civilisedd people would go and live there. I meant that they ARE civilsed people who already live there! Not apparently about to surrender to dhimmitude.

Lee Laurie

Verity...."as Oz",not for long I'm afraid.
As for the Simon de Montfort option.......maybe the six penny option would solve the problem quicker.

Culturewatcher

Excellent piece Melanie. The really pernicious influence here is not the Islamists- who are waging 'lawfare'- but the disgusting and amoral law firms who obviously put money before any sort of public interest and a bench of High Court judges that reflects the full 1960s credo. Unfortunately, one doubts whether a conservative government has the application to do what is necessary- in what is after all a legislature stuffed with more bloody lawyers.

phil

tom cat ,I see you can read although, not understand .Is this thread about libel or not ? or do you you prefer that you can say anything you like without recourse?

I suggest you engage the brain before the keyboard in future ,but I suppose that is part of our problem here of a failing education system -sarcasm and insults are becoming the mainstay of literary offerings and sadly these threads illustrate that very well -logic and persuasion are so often missing -did anyone respond to my cry for responsibility ?hardly ,but isn't that also typical of those that read their own words and ignore the thoughts of others .

Well tom cat I did achieve something .I managed to bring out of hiding the main accuser ,you know the one who always responds to my posts by writing something irrelevant just to show she can ,and then claiming she didn't read what I wrote :).---She no doubt is more to your taste -accusing those in authority regardless of their veracity, and throwing insults into the wind at all who may have done something useful -enjoy my son you are sewing the wind and we are reaping the whirlwind .

phil

Jojo that was quite a piece! -but you didn't address responsibility -what are your thoughts on that subject ?

If I didn't make my own thoughts clear that I despise the ability of the super rich to beat down the legitimate desire for free speech ,I do so now

.What I do abhor is the ability to write whatever one likes without recourse ,either through the fright of those with some assets to pursue ,or even by those with none ,who are not worth pursuing -I emphasise again the need for responsibility ,particularly in our press .

Barnaby Trubble

Isn't truth a defence for libel? An opportunity to have this all out in court should be welcomed by any writer who told the truth in the first place.
I am uneasy about cases in general being shopped around the world looking for a court which will give the right answer, but I don't want US libel laws here, free speech to lie about someone isn't such a good thing.

JohnAnt

I suppose we must take whatever foreign currency we can get.
The idea that British lawyers might be on the lookout for well-remunerated work would be inimical to m'learned friends, who tirelessly seek the public good.
Allegedly.

Verity

Culturewatcher - It's not just law firms. It's all the other malign enablers infesting our country.

Dixon, in your last post, what are you commenting on? Live where?

Lee Laurie - What sixpenny option? Personally, I like the Simon de Montfort method because it eschews legal niceties. But I'd like to know what the sixpenny option is, in case I like that, too.

Dixon

Verity,I dont geddit. You advocate the "Simon De Montfort option". Whats that, just killing the whole population of any towns and villages that the theocratic client ( the pope ) of his services as a mercenary told him too!

Dont forget, the "Crusade" in which De Montfort wiped out an entire culture was not against Muslims ( if thats your drift ) but fellow Christians, accross the south of France! He destroyeed what was probably the freest and most theologically advanced society in Europe at that time, the Albigentsians. The community of my ancestors. He only did it because he was paid to do it. What exactly do you approve about that?

Hysteria

JoJo / Sarah - thanks for your helpful replies

Ever lived in a Muslim country? Ever met and discussed these issues with Muslim men and women? I have.

I draw a complete distinction betwen the precepts of Islam and the desires of the Islamofascists.

I merely reflect that there are some aspects of that faith that, to me, have some reasonable points. And that some behaviours/acts should be proscribed. If I fail to make my point well in the post, well, I am sorry about that. But I think calling me "astonishingly dim" is a tad unfair - but - whatever.......

FYI - I don't read the Guardian, and am an atheist.

But Merry Christmas anyway

Lita U

Barnaby Trubble, US laws are better then your political incorrect laws, you don't know what you are missing!

Verity

Dixon - I stand corrected. I thought Simon de Montfort gave his famous command before the marauding hordes somewhere. To be honest, I thought it was at that high castle in the Languedoc for some reason.

Herbert Thornton

Jojo,

Your point about deep pockets enabling wealthy litigants to take advantage of Britain's laws of libel is a very serious one that applies to much other litigation - not just in Britain and not just in matters of libel.

Over here in Canada, there is controversy over the bringing of what are called SLAPP suits - often brought by people and organisations seeking things like official Planning Permission - e.g. to develop land - in an attempt to stifle other people and groups who oppose such development - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP

Your point about the Internet is relevant too. Certainly, if libellous material is read on the Internet by people in Britain it can be argued that it is analogous to the same material being available in a book sold in British bookshops.

However, a power to control the publication on the Internet of material that some people would like to suppress is in itself very dangerous. There is considerable movement in that direction in Canada. One route in this direction consists of the infamous Section 13 of the Federal Canadian Human Rights Act and similar Provincial Acts establishing Provincial Human Rights Commissions. These have put into the hands of bureaucrats what amount to totalitarian powers of control that have virtually no regard for traditional norms of the presumption of innocence, of truth being a defence, of the right to confront and cross-examine an accuser, of relevant evidentiary proof, of the right of a person against whom a complaint is made to be relieved of his legal costs, or indeed of any sort of judicial fairness. The old judicial maxim "de minimis non curat lex" any longer carries any weight.

Even worse, the bureaucrats composing these Commissions have too often turned out to be extremist bigots who have in many cases very much abused their powers - to the point that the various Human Rights Tribunals have earned for themselves descriptions such as "Thought Police" and "Kangaroo Courts".

Tom Cat

Phil, why should anybody respond to your ‘cry for responsibility’ when no-one has done anything irresponsible? You say you want ‘logic’, so where’s yours?

Of course I am against journalists being irresponsible and writing untruths, but that hasn’t happened here at all. I can’t see why anyone would reasonably object to someone going to the libel courts to see an untruth retracted. Melanie Phillips has not suggested otherwise in her post above.

I simply believe, like her, that we should beware of laws so draconian they put journalists off making basic enquiries to establish what the truth is in the first place. That is the main point of this post and of that debate in Parliament.

There clearly seems to be something wrong with the libel laws in the UK given how many people from round the world are flocking here to exploit them. Let’s return to the debate in Parliament, where Mr Norman Lamb summarises it:

“The question is whether UK libel laws have the disproportionate effect of discouraging legitimate reporting. Many believe that they do.”

You seem none too pleased with Ms Phillips for starting this debate by reporting on what’s been going on in the Commons and so instead you’ve gone about making sanctimonious speeches about “What I do abhor is the ability to write whatever one likes.” Who has argued for that here, Phil?

What seems to have sent you over the edge, Phil, are two lines that read: “There is political interest in the US because of the connections between Rezko and President-elect Obama. I make no allegation at all relating to the latter.”

To which you make the observation: “Obama.s name has been introduced but with no accusation”. Yes, Phil, that’s what the man said. So what’s new? All that people want is the right to ask questions of the rich and powerful, including those who may be connected to politicians such as Barack Obama. Why are you so afraid of that? If you genuinely “despise the ability of the super rich to beat down the legitimate desire for free speech”, you would welcome this debate.

I see you bemoan a “failing education system” while proving yourself incapable of mastering even the basics of spelling and grammar. It seems the only thing that comes easy to you, Phil, is gaping hypocrisy, certainly not logic.

JK

Says the hysterical Hysteria: “I draw a complete distinction betwen the precepts of Islam and the desires of the Islamofascists.”

Why would you do that when The Koran says: “Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate”?

Dixon

Verity
December 20th, 2008
Dixon, in your last post, what are you commenting on? Live where?"

India and China.

Barnaby Trubble

Lita U, as I understand it, in the US libel has to be accompanied by malice to be proven, while here, if somebody tells lies about you in print you can sue them to prove it or pay up. These are ancient laws, no political correctness applies. The alleged libeller has to prove what they said was true. Journalists don't always like this, and would wish to write what they like, and if by failure of diligence they ruin someone's life occasionally, so what? I like our laws as they are. Truth may be proven, absence of malice is another kettle of fish.

Verity

Dixon - Although India would be a natural place to go to, given the prevalence of the English language and their law is based on English Common Law (not yet degraded by socialists), I have already told you that unless you are an Indian or an NRI (and you may well be for all I know) you cannot, cannot, cannot buy property in India. It takes 13 years to be eligible to apply for citizenship. And even then, you may not get it.

India as place to flee to currently does not make economic sense.

darsan

someone hopes to find a place free from modern dhimmitude. not in this world. wrong century .

EC

Hysteria: "there are some moral absolutes which we in the liberal West have forgotten and which others further East have not."

Ellen, Hysteria. Mmm, it appears that weapons of mass distraction will still be allowed under a post apocalypse Syrian administration.

The BBC's Martin Asser has got his finger on the pulse of events in the Middle East as his recent report from Damascus shows.

I wonder what he bought Orla G. for Xmas? No, NO! Please don't clap!

Hysteria

JK - you said

"Why would you do that when The Koran says: “Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate”?"

and your point is what exactly? You think the Bible is all peace and love? - far from it.

We could trade selected quotes of ferocity for hours to no avail.

There are lunatics all over the map . This blog post started out with me trying to make the point that there are many precepts of Islam (and Christianity, and Hinduism etc) that do teach the observer respect and tolerance. Branding ALL muslims as fanatics does not help us defeat the murdering b*******S who are trying to restore the Caliphate.

phil

Tomcat I think you are missing the points that I have made -I did not say that anything here was irresponsible .I was talking about libel laws in general -I have only ever disagreed with Mel once and that is her feelings about Obama- she may well be proved right ,my knowledge is only from what I read and see ,so until I am proved wrong I will trust my own judgement . I am not a sycophant and I am sure she would not expect me to be one .-my comment was that it was and is wrong to keep banging on about this man especially when it has nothing to do with the subject .That surely is the value of an exchange of views

I regularly post here and value the comments made by many including dixon ,nick ,cabbie ,adam ,herbert ,huw and many others .we do not always agree but we manage to debate without sarcasm or ad hominem attacks ,maybe we also are able to change one another's views.So far all that I have read from you are rude and unnecessary comments and you have not addressed the points I made

.In closing on this point ,do you believe we should not have libel law and then allow peoples lives to be destroyed by salacious gossip -sorry I do not -We have had here on this site ,so far without recourse,unfounded accusations of murder do you think that,s ok ?,sarcasm is one think ,utter lies that destroy are quite another .That is what responsible writing is about and what I try my best to do .

your quote"I see you bemoan a “failing education system” while proving yourself incapable of mastering even the basics of spelling and grammar. It seems the only thing that comes easy to you, Phil, is gaping hypocrisy, certainly not logic." --------Tomcat you missed out on sanctimonious this time -why not tell me what that pertains too ,and please don't say everything -you can tell me where my grammar is wrong ,I would be pleased to improve but if you have a problem with my spelling I suggest you take it up with my spellchecker and then I might get a refund .

Herbert Thornton

The late Auberon Waugh once said that the best thing to do about a Libel was to ignore it. He said suing for it only drew more attention to it, and that even if you won, people would still believe it. With the difference of course that because you had sued, you would end up with even more people believing it.

That doesn't seem to deter the kind of Libel actions that Melanie has written about. Those, it seems to me, ought to be discouraged, because it seems to me to boil down to the question of whether the right to Free Speech is more important than the right to preserve personal reputation. I very much incline towards priority being given to Free Speech.

Consequently, I would very much favour changing the U.K. law of defamation to compel plaintiffs in actions for Libel to prove that the defendant published the material in full knowledge that it was entirely untrue.

Barry H

Phil, you say: “I did not say that anything here was irresponsible” so why did you write this: “Obama.s name has been introduced but with no accusation” “Why does this respected blog have to continue this political line”.

There was no political argument against Obama set out in this post by Melanie Phillips, yet you allege that there is one. Where is it?

You plainly do feel that Melanie Phillips has said something irresponsible because you write: “I believe it is this sort of remark that pulls back our cause”.

You say: “my comment was that it was and is wrong to keep banging on about this man especially when it has nothing to do with the subject”.

So where has Melanie Phillips been “banging on about this man” in this post? The only thing Melanie Phillips has done is quote a debate in Parliament:

“There is political interest in the US because of the connections between Rezko and President-elect Obama. I make no allegation at all relating to the latter.”

Those aren’t Melanie Phillips words. So tell us where she’s been “banging on about this man” in this post.

Tom Cat

Phil, you accuse me of making ad hominem attacks on you but - as with your attack on Melanie Phillips - have no evidence to back this up.

Unable to refute the words I’ve written, you decide you’ll go in for an ad hominem attack of your own and play the man, not the ball, by saying to me: “I suggest you engage the brain before the keyboard in future.”

I’ll tell you what, Phil, why don’t you tell us exactly how engaged your brain was when you wrote: “I believe it is this sort of remark that pulls back our cause.” Where is this remark by Melanie Phillips that has pulled back the cause of free speech?

I’ve read this post of hers twice and can’t see it anywhere. You clearly think that my brain is not engaged and that yours is, so could you please furnish with me with the information?

You’ve told us all how much you hate “utter lies” so I want to know that you haven’t accused Melanie Phillips of saying something she hasn’t said. So please quote for us all this “remark that pulls back our cause”.

Since, Phil, you say, “that is what responsible writing is about and what I try my best to do,” perhaps you will demonstrate for us all how responsible you’ve been in your criticism of Melanie Phillips by showing us all how she’s pulled back the cause of free speech with this post.

Or is it, Phil, that you treat Melanie Phillips the way you treat me? Is it just that you’re unable to knock down what she says, or what I say, and so just hope to drown us out with another sanctimonious diatribe?

You ask me: “Is this thread about libel or not?” Yes, Phil. When have I said it isn’t?

You ask me: “Do you you prefer that you can say anything you like without recourse?”

No, Phil. That’s why I wrote: “I am against journalists being irresponsible and writing untruths.”

You say to me: “You can read although, not understand.” Phil, it’s you who seems unable to understand - or even to put a comma in the right place, as in that instance - because instead of reading the reply I‘ve given, you just ask again: “Do you believe we should not have libel law and then allow peoples [you accuse me of being symptomatic of being part of a ‘failing education system’ and can’t even master the apostrophe] lives to be destroyed by salacious gossip?”

No, Phil. That’s why I wrote: “I can’t see why anyone would reasonably object to someone going to the libel courts to see an untruth retracted.”

What part of that don’t you understand?

You go on: “We have had here on this site ,so far without recourse,unfounded accusations of murder do you think that,s ok ?”

When? Where? Where are the links to Melanie Phillips doing such things?

You have the cheek to query my criticism of your appalling grasp of the English language and then, as if I haven’t given enough examples already in this post, write this: “why not tell me what that pertains too”. Only you could write a sentence defending your use of the English language and come out with that gem, Phil.

Jim MIller

A small point on US libel law: The powerful are actually in a weaker position here than the less powerful.

It is almost impossible for a public official, or a well-known person to win a libel suit in the US. In addition to showing that what was said or written was false and defamatory, they have to show that the person who said or wrote the false statement acted out of malice. (This was established in a 1964 case, NYT vs. Sullivan.)

Laws vary from state to state, but ordinarily private citizens only have to show that the statement was false and defamatory.

Incidentally, I would be interested to know how and why Britain has such nasty laws on libel.

(I sometimes think that our Supreme Court went too far in the Sullivan decision, but haven't reached a conclusion on that question.)

EC

I wush that people would stip crticising other peoples spelling and grammar.

Nobody is perfect. I am certainthat we all know how to do it properly - it just dosen't turn out the way we expected.

With the railability of and formatting of this medium it is a bloody miracle that the comments arrive in the fisrt place. AND THEN sometimes only to be stumped, it appears, by a censorious intern/in-house mole. However, Peter Hoskin is doing an admirable job down at longstop.

e&oe

phil

Barry h you must be new to these threads -just check back over the months prior to the election and you will see how often O has been criticised-and if you read carefully you will see that I am saying enough is enough and this thread did not need O mentioning in connection with criminals .
You have also missed the point on responsibility ,it was nothing to do with Melanie ,it was about journalism in general and libel -Melanie knows I have great respect for her ,so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and surmise you haunt read much before this on these threads .

phil

EC well said :)

phil

tom cat first of all I suggest you take your thumb out of your mouth ,and wipe your tears, and when you have done that you may stop putting words in mine -I have never attacked Melanie ,I have very occasionally disagreed with her conclusions,nor do I wish to be seen as a sycophant -perhaps you do .Now you will see that I can be as rude as you !

Perhaps you have had one lemonade too many but read again and you will see it was norman lamb,s remark I was referring too and that it did not need to be quoted to the detriment of O ,who has nothing to do with this subject -ok?

I will address one more remark by you ,regarding accusations of murder,and I will emphasise it was not made by MELANIE but by the one known here as the fragrant one -my extract is from the horses mouth thread on the 7/12/08 that was written to another poster .

my quote"----- I debate here with all sorts of opinions even with members of the BNP (our ultra right wing party )and never hear such loathsome statements as this person makes -I once remember saying to Adam B whose name I hope you will recognise , that he should ignore one or two who made hatefilled remarks but he explained to me that if he did that some would believe the views were acceptable -HE IS RIGHT -we have free speech here so she can continue ,and I will also continue to point out how despicable some (not all) of her remarks are -including her foul accusations of William Ayers alleged murders of which she has no proof because they did not happen , she runs away every time she is challenged and will not withdraw her accusations .

I had never heard of that man until this election furore started ,and I do not support any form of terrorism ,but I do defend those subject to scurrilous accusations without substance .Sen O was scarred by those scandalous comments and I began to check the information as I was still swaying towards Sen Mccain -it turned out they were appalling lies -check for yourself -this is what I object to not her desire to be right wing ,that is her privilege as it is yours - unquote.

If we are both lucky you will begin to see where I am coming from .the above woman is allowed to say whatever she wants here on the internet without recourse,whether it be true or not -I am saying hopelessly I can see, that I believe the law of libel is necessary even though I do not know how to apply it to the internet -Here in fact Pete Hoskins performs admirably but like King Canute can ,t stop everything

Lastly as EC has pointed out we are not here to be examined on either grammar or spelling ,just our thoughts ,if it makes you feel more important I will award you 11 out of 10,personally I do not give a damn and I doubt anyone else does either .

Jasmine

No one was remotely interested in ‘phil’s’ illiteracy, ‘EC’, until he had a spiteful snarl at someone else. He accused the poster ‘Tom Cat’ of being symptomatic of a ‘failing education system’, only he didn’t have the evidence to prove it.

It’s just the same thing ‘phil’ done with Ms Phillips. We’re over 50 posts in now and we’re still waiting for ‘phil’ to explain where ‘this sort of remark that pulls back our cause’ that he alleges that Ms Phillips made is.

Not only was ‘phil’s’ criticism of someone else as being part of a ‘failing education system’ as unjustified of the spiteful criticism of Ms Phillips, it was also completely hypocritical when you consider that the apoplectic ‘phil’ is the least literate person on here. Having this pointed out to him seems to have been what has really upset ‘phil’.

Do you remember that it’s you who writes all these things, ‘phil’, or do you just try to forget them once you realise your foot is in your mouth again?

There’s no use sobbing and screeching out more abuse and spite, ‘phil’. You’ve been caught out as accusing Ms Phillips of making a ‘remark that pulls back our cause’ and can’t back it up and you’ve been caught out as a hypocrite by accusing someone else of exhibiting the symptoms of being part of a ‘failing education system’ and can‘t back that up either.

Perhaps, ‘phil’, if you thought a little more before you hit your keyboard you wouldn’t end up getting your nose rubbed in it so much. Dry the tears and deal with it.

Anthony

Phil, do calm down, you’ve written a load a rubbish you can’t stand by and I can see it’s getting to you but there’s really no need to lose your rag like this.

You say “I have never attacked Melanie” but as everyone here can see, you said of Mel’s post: “I believe it is this sort of remark that pulls back our cause.” That’s a direct attack on Mel that you, in a very cowardly manner, aren’t able to justify. Where is this “remark that pulls back our cause”? There’s still no sight of it.

You‘ve been caught out and now you‘re trying to wriggle your way out of it by saying “it was norman lamb,s remark I was referring too”. If it was Norman Lamb’s comment you were referring to why did you say “Why does this respected blog have to continue this political line”?

If it was Norman Lamb you were referring to in your first post, why did you refer to “this blog”?

You whinge, too, about “it did not need to be quoted to the detriment of O ,who has nothing to do with this subject -ok?”

It most certainly did need to be quoted, Phil, because what would have happened if Mel hadn’t quoted that line?

People like you would have been squealing even worse than you are now that somehow that Norman Lamb’s comments had been taken out of context to try to smear Obama. It was vital to quote the lines that read: “There is political interest in the US because of the connections between Rezko and President-elect Obama. I make no allegation at all relating to the latter”, so that no-one can run up to Mel afterwards and say: “You were using someone else’s words to have a go at Obama when that person specifically said: ‘I make no allegation at all relating to the latter.’”

It was absolutely crucial that Mel quoted that line to make sure that no-one thought that Norman Lamb was trying to accuse Barack Obama of something. Sadly, that’s a piece of logic, that, rather like your temper, seems to have defeated you.

Herbert Thornton

Jim Miller,

Like you, I've wondered whether I entirely supported the decision in NYT vs. Sullivan, but for the reasons I mention in my earlier post, I lean more & more towards supporting it. I would like to see it become part of British Law too.

This is mainly because since Sullivan, the Internet has become such an important factor in the exercise of free speech. What most people were once only able to express in casual conversations with very limited numbers of listeners, they can now bring to the attention of millions.

The fact now is that so many people are determined to say what they think - and value their right to say it - that it is going to be impossible to shut them all up - Libel Law or no Libel Law - or, in the case of Canada, Thought Police or no Thought Police.

For an example of the doings of Canada's Thought Police, just Google the name Pastor Stephen Boissoin.

Sarah

Either Phil is being particularly spiteful to Melanie Phillips or he’s being particularly spiteful to Norman Lamb - or both.

Mr Lamb took great care in his speech that nobody could afterwards say he was accusing Obama of something by making those remarks. Melanie Phillips has been similarly careful so that nobody thinks Mr Lamb was accusing Obama of something when he made those remarks.

Mr Lamb in his comments and Ms Phillips in her quote go out of their way to make sure nothing is taken out of context. Both include this line, one as speaker, one as quoter: ‘There is political interest in the US because of the connections between Rezko and President-elect Obama. I make no allegation at all relating to the latter.’

Yet this spiteful man, Phil, says: “I have never attacked Melanie” yet, two breaths later attacks Ms Phillips: “it did not need to be quoted to the detriment of O”.

It was necessary those comments were used so that nobody took Mr Lamb’s words out of context - or could accuse Ms Phillips of doing so.

Yet these two professional people, having taken enormous care to avoid anything being taken out of context, are smeared over and over by this rude, sub-literate bleater, who has been so preoccupied trying to tarnish them (and even various of the people who post here) that he’s ended up furiously chasing his own tail and making himself look a fool into the bargain.

Harry

Phil’s list of personal vendettas seems never-ending but why he is so fixated on Verity I have no idea. Is it because she gives as good as she gets from him?

First, I notice that this blog is very aware of libel. Anything remotely dodgy is not allowed or if it’s borderline and slips through, is whipped off soon after it has appeared.

Phil’s beef with Verity it emerges here relates to one man: Bill Ayers - and this man’s association with murder. Bill Ayers was a terrorist and so at the very least endorsed murder. He is also an unrepentant terrorist, who wishes his group, The Weathermen, had done more. On top of this, Bill Ayers was once also accused of murder of a police officer and of trying to plant a bomb that would murder. The National Review explains:

“Ayers and Dohrn [his wife, Bernardine] were credibly accused, in classified testimony before a Senate subcommittee in 1974, of involvement in the murder of a police officer in San Francisco, as well as an attempted (and unsuccessful) anti-personnel bombing in Detroit...

“Larry Grathwohl, an FBI mole within the Weathermen, connected Ayers to the planning — and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, to the execution — of a police station bombing in San Francisco in February 1970 that killed one officer and injured two others.

“Grathwohl testified that Ayers had discussed the deadly incident after the fact. The revelation came as Ayers was talking about the organizational difficulties in running a terrorist cell:

‘[H]e cited as one of the real problems that someone like Bernardine Dohrn had to plan, develop, and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco, and he specifically named her as the person that committed that act. . . . He said that the bomb was placed on the window ledge and he described the kind of bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it. . . . [I]f he wasn’t there to see it, somebody who was there told him about it, because he stated it very emphatically.’

“Grathwohl also testified about an unsuccessful Weatherman bombing in Detroit, which he said Ayers had planned to be executed when the maximum number of people would be present:

“‘The only time that I was ever instructed or we were ever instructed to place a bomb in a building at a time when there would be people in it was during the planning of the bombing at the Detroit Police Officers’ Association building and the 13th precinct in Detroit, Mich., at which time Bill said that we should plan our bombing to coincide with the time when there would be the most people in those buildings.’”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODVlZTZlM2M5NTMxMzllMjJkODVkNzQ3YTFjMTY0NzE=

If you are a member of a terrorist group, murder is your aim. It is only right that anyone who talks about the disgusting Bill Ayers mentions this vicious, wicked, murderous streak he has and that he has never shown any penance for.

phil

JASMINE IS THIS YOUR IDEA OF LITERACY " just the same thing ‘phil’ done with Ms Phillips"-apologies for pointing out your own illiteracy :)

I am sure that Melanie knows who her supporters are and will not think that I attack her when its obvious to any normal mind that I never do .
you along with anthony and sarah just show what a load of childish right wing nutters you really are ,twisting words and sentiments to your own ends ."spiteful"-what a ridiculous remark ,maybe you should try a dictionary .

I wrote about libel laws and I said O had No PART HERE -I make no apology for that -but you jasmine have been writing rubbish for a while now ,on other threads too so if I have to read yours you will have to read mine ok ? anthony and sarah your history here too goes before you ,always bitter ,always rude and never able to agree with anything other than very right wing words .Forgive me I have no interest in either your thoughts .or complaints -you all have a small audience here who will enjoy your nastiness .

Harry you need to read before you criticise ,as far as the fragrant one goes, I have complained about her talk of" blacking up "by O and many other outrageous remarks on a number of occasions such as sending immigrants home with a pay off,welfare blacks,.along with a narcissistic desire to be seen as"clever".-she is great at cut and paste but clever?sorry.Is it a vendetta? If seeking fairness and truth is one ,ok ,I plead guilty .

MY "interest"in Bill Ayers is only the unjustified accusations put about by this woman who refuses to provide evidence ,actually as you have done because where are the convictions ?He is a man I had never heard of prior to the election chatter. It is all innuendo to discredit O who was elected by an overwhelming majority of Americans,He is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar...I deplore the violence he was involved in but accusations falsely of murder are beyond the pale .

I am naturally a Tory/republican who is sick of the right wing lies that have discredited the very people that I support and I am pretty sure contributed to sen Mccains loss.I do not mind criticism of my thoughts but the choice of rude and sarcastic remarks , I find stupid but hilarious as I believe do the majority here .

Anthony

Phil, the person who can barely string a sentence together, picks up on one little typo by Jasmine! You couldn’t make it up.

You, Phil, are the person who dished out a lecture to someone else saying they exhibited the characteristics of being part of a ‘failing education system’ - a comment that is rude, hypocritical and spiteful.

You don’t like people calling you spiteful, Phil, but the reason why they call you this is because so much of what you say is unjustified. If you wish to say something offensive like that, you need to be able to back it up, but as elsewhere here, you don’t have any evidence to back it up. You think you’ve got some God-given licence to dish out rudeness and spite like that and not have people challenge you.

When this person pointed out to you how grossly hypocritical that accusation is coming from someone like you - who consistently fails to master even the basics of the English language - you asked them to explain why you were a hypocrite. You said to them: “why not tell me what that pertains too”, to which they duly responded by providing a whole heap of examples of your illiteracy.

Why did you hypocritically accuse someone of being part of a “failing education system” when you are the least literate person here?

Why did you moan at that person that “we are not here to be examined on either grammar or spelling” when they were doing no such thing? In another glaring instance of your own spiteful hypocrisy you were, of course, “twisting words and sentiments to your own ends”. All that they were doing was responding to your request to “point out what that pertains too”. Why did you ask them to “point out what that pertains too” if you did not want an answer?

Is it because you don’t like the answers you get because they leave so much egg on your face, Phil? Is being caught out again and again what sends you into these mad rants? You shouldn’t say these thing in the first place if you can’t defend them.

You say to me: “I have no interest in either your thoughts .or complaints”, no, Phil, I didn’t expect you to. I can see perfectly well that you’ve put your foot in your mouth over and over again on this thread so why would you be interested in trying to justify what you say? It’s unjustifiable.

Here you go again saying “I never do” attack Melanie Phillips, but you did it in your very first post:

“Why does this respected blog have to continue this political line and at the same time complain about gagging free speech?… I believe it is this sort of remark that pulls back our cause.”

Then you go from that to this: “I did not say that anything here was irresponsible.” Yes, you did, Phil. That‘s why you wrote: “Why does this respected blog have to continue this political line”.

Having only mentioned ‘this blog’ in your first post and got yourself into a hissy fit because you’re so angry that you’ve put your foot in your mouth, you then say of your first post “you will see it was norman lamb,s remark I was referring too”. No it wasn’t, Phil. You never once mentioned Norman Lamb in that first post at all. All your rage was directed at ‘this blog’.

You even double back on yourself by saying: “I have never attacked Melanie” but then say of her post “it did not need to be quoted to the detriment of O”.

You’ve just attacked Mel for saying something detrimental about Obama - so why deny you’re attacking her?

All that I have done is point out to you that it was necessary to quote: “There is political interest in the US because of the connections between Rezko and President-elect Obama. I make no allegation at all relating to the latter,” so that nothing Norman Lamb said was taken out of context.

Only someone with your warped logic could take someone saying the words “I make no allegation” and say that it amounted to an allegation or to being ‘detrimental’.

phil

Sarah
December 22nd, 2008 6:40pm
"what utter rubbish...who said that standing up against the injustices of israel and defending ur land equates to 'glorifying' terrorism. Stop trying to manipulate the word melanie. No one in their right mind would take the center for social cohesion seriously"

DID YOU REALLY SAY THIS SARAH ?-OH DEAR :) after what you told me about being unpleasant to Mel---you had better pull them up before someone sees you lol

Harry

What‘s this, Phil: “Harry you need to read before you criticise”?

I have read, Phil. Along with so many others who post here, all I’ve done is point up the gaping flaws in what you’ve written and as with them, you can’t handle it, flip your lid and try to change the subject. Unable to defend what I’ve said about Bill Ayers, you’ve just decide to introduce Verity’s personal opinions into what had been a discussion about libel:

‘I have complained about her talk of" blacking up "by O and many other outrageous remarks on a number of occasions such as sending immigrants home with a pay off, welfare blacks,.along with a narcissistic desire to be seen as "clever".‘

Apart from the fact that I have no idea whether any of this has been said by Verity because you don't quote any of it in a context I can see, what does any of that have to do with libel?

If you wanted to have a discussion with Verity about her opinions you should have had the guts to do so as and when such issues arose. Don’t start trying to introduce a new subject just because you can’t defend the rubbish you’ve written about Bill Ayers, libel and murder.

You say: ‘MY "interest" in Bill Ayers is only the unjustified accusations put about by this woman who refuses to provide evidence, actually as you have done because where are the convictions?’

They are not accusations at all, Phil. Bill Ayers admits he was a terrorist and wishes he had done more. It was Bill Ayers who told The New York Times on September 11 2001: "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough". There’s no innuendo about it, Phil. That is why this man does not go to the libel courts to defend himself - he is damned by his own words. You don’t need a murder conviction to endorse murder.

Sarah

"DID YOU REALLY SAY THIS SARAH?"

No, Phil. I never said that. That's because there are lots of people in the world called Sarah :)

Guess what? Not all of them are me :)

So as with every other instance on this thread when you think you’ve caught someone out, you haven’t :)

Instead of asking me if I was that same Sarah, you just decided to be prejudiced about it and assume I was that Sarah :)

So having spent an entire thread lecturing people on libel, an act that involves being prejudiced against someone by making false assertions about them without ever checking up to make sure your facts are true, you decided to go right ahead and commit the sort of act that you say you find so reprehensible. In so doing, you have just added to that ever-growing pile of egg on your face :)

Oh dear :)

phil

anthony if I was your tutor I would have to say take this rubbish back and try again, or you will have to be failed..Your comprehension is on the wrong side of poor and your temper is off the scale of normal.childish ranting will never get you a degree which is where I suspect you are at ,so I suggest you calm down and try hard to become pleasant and with it more effective-in spite of your rude nature I will wish you a happy Christmas and the hope that next year will bring a little more happiness instead of the bitterness you exhibit - 2 out of ten-next

phil

Did you check the thread where I said it came from or even those before it ?,obviously not as I am not known for telling lies ,if you had you would also know that this woman regularly says she does not read my comments, so tell me how one debates with her ,even though I admit I wouldn't want to,nevertheless she knows exactly what I have said -and usually addresses someone else about my remarks -incredible! Why not try reading what we have both said ?,maybe you will change your opinion

Above you will see I gave anthony 2 out of ten for his "thesis" and I cannot agree with your comments either I am afraid ,as yours are too biased -I suggest you check wikipedia for the story of Bill Ayers,you will find some balance there ,although I agree that terrorism in all its forms disgusts most reasonable citizens -at least we can agree on that .When you have done that I hope you will indulge me and finish this discussion on that man as I have no wish to be his apologist,particularly as I do not agree with what he did .Nevertheless I look forward to you proving me wrong by supplying a list of convictions for murder which I must have missed ,together with the reasons he is given the positions he now holds .Please remember we are discussing libel here not his political convictions of which we both disprove .

My sole interest was the law of libel and the false accusations this woman was making without recourse . I f you care about our way of life ,you would be as bothered as I am to ensure our free speech is used in a responsible manner .The "evidence" you are producing would have no value in a court of law as you must well know ,(yes I read the paper you directed me to).

Melanie I am sure is well aware that our opinions of O are different at the moment but may well coincide at a later date .The election is over and this world needs to make progress with what is available to us ,and he is now the pres/elect of the strongest nation on earth and one we need to keep on our side .I continue to suggest we put aside this continual sniping at him ,so whether any of you understood that or not ,that was my point about the inclusion of his name in a discussion on the law of libel .It added no value to the message .

I am attempting to discuss this matter with you as unlike the childish efforts of anthony and sarah you are making points that should be addressed,perhaps we will never agree but we are here to try ,and as before the advent of you three I was known as "polite phil" :) I am attempting to do that .

For what it is worth ,Melanie and I have had friendly relations for a long time well before the coming of the two musketeers,and the nasty comments by those two silly people will not spoil that .Opinions fairly put are what these threads are all about ,not an indulgence in personal vendettas because they differ or even because someone's spellchecker differs .

Ok enough on this special day I wish you a happy Christmas and a friendlier new year .

phil

Sarah I cant leave you out-you obviously know little about libel its nothing to do with prejudice .just publishing unjustly in writing words that would bring hatred ,ridicule or contempt upon a person .You really should understand what you are saying before launching into invective through spite which is your style not mine .
.
A word of advice .if someone writes in using your name make sure you let everyone know it wasn't you .and then we would be able to believe you.

In spite of your nasty comments I do not want to sink to those levels, so I will wish you a happy Christmas , or Chanukah whatever it may be for you and the hope that the coming year willallow you to grow up and take the bitterness from your life .

phil

Harry your name did not appear on the post I sent you -sorry -but I am sure you know it was for you .

Ed

If you are accused of libel, you have the defence of truth. So, if what you're writing is true, you have nothing to fear. The libel laws are very popular amongst juries. They are just unpopular amongst journalists, who want to have the write to destroy anyone's reputation. As with most normal people, I support the libel laws.

Barry H

Phil, I have no idea what you do for a living, but I can guarantee you’re not a tutor or a lawyer.

If you’re going to tell Anthony why he has written “rubbish”, you need to set out why.

The truth is, of course, that you can’t refute any of his points and just accuse him of “childish ranting”. No, Phil, ranting is something you do when you don’t have any evidence - that’s your speciality.

Anthony, and indeed everybody else here who has criticised you, has justified their points with evidence - you certainly give them plenty to choose from. That’s the difference between their adult debating style and you throwing your toys out of the pram.

This whole thread is littered with posters who provide all these illustrative examples of the gaping flaws in what you say. You don’t like having your nose rubbed in the evidence and so accuse them of being “childish” or “bitter”. But these are the characteristics of someone who can‘t defend what they’ve said an argument - and on this thread, that‘s you.

Perhaps if you calmed down you wouldn’t start writing all these things that you’re unable to defend and that all these people have noticed and quoted back at you. Just increasing the level of your spite and anger isn’t going to erase all that you’ve written.

Sarah

So you’re fond of Wikipedia, are you, Phil? OK. Let’s look at their definition of libel:

“In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.”

That’s precisely what you did to me. You made a false claim that I was some other Sarah on some other post, all because you were so prejudiced you couldn‘t be bothered to ask me.

“A word of advice .if someone writes in using your name make sure you let everyone know it wasn't you.”

A word of advice to you, Phil. If someone else uses my name - a name that thousands of people the world over have - it is not incumbent upon me to keep a constant monitor on the web and every time I see the word “Sarah” to say “that Sarah isn‘t me“.

As to this: “And then we would be able to believe you.”

Sorry, Phil, whose the “we”? The only person here stupid enough to make this suggestion is you. Anybody else would have had the manners to ask me if that was me before attributing the words to me, but you‘re so rude you couldn‘t be bothered to ask me and so bitter you couldn‘t wait to say something spiteful to me.

phil

More childish rubbish Barry H from the same set of juveniles who so far have offered nothing to the debate apart from rudeness Your conclusions as to my qualifications at least gave me a smile. How about telling any readers who are left what you do ?-Hopefully nothing that could affect the citizens of this nation-

Do any of you have anything to actually say other than this carping ?.You are a very boring lot ,a product of our declining education system ,as I said earlier,that seems mostly to produce people like you ,either whining left wingers or angry right wingers. you criticise authority ,argue with experience and offer nothing in return .Can you just once between you make a valid comment about our libel laws -it will be the first time on this thread !!

Your silly gang at least give me a chance to practice a little rudeness and sarcasm which was not part of my education ,but it is amusing to an extent on a quiet holiday period to do so against opponents of little ability -We have here exponents with sharper minds and pens who thankfully are resting ready for the new year .I will let you take them on when they return ,meanwhile you are sending me off to sleep .

Harry

Phil, you ask me: “Did you check the thread where I said it came from or even those before it ?” Indeed I did, Phil, and the only thing on that thread is you, which you have quoted above. Can I join the club of people here who keep asking you to provide evidence for what you say?

Where is the quote Verity has made that is libellous about Bill Ayers? Please provide the quote from her and the hyperlink so it can be checked.

“I look forward to you proving me wrong by supplying a list of convictions for murder which I must have missed.” I have never said that this man has a murder conviction, Phil.

“Please remember we are discussing libel” Indeed, Phil, I’m well aware that we are discussing libel, a matter that concerns the civil courts, not the criminal courts, so why do you keep bringing the criminal courts into it?

Verity may indeed have talked about Bill Ayers’ association with murder and she is perfectly within her rights to do so. There are plenty of professional journalists who have written about this man’s association with murder and none of them have been sued for libel because they haven’t written anything libellous about him. He has damned himself by his own words. It’s hardly surprising, then, that members of the public such as Verity talk about this.

Where are these “false accusations this woman was making”? Where are the quotes from her - not you? Where are the hyperlinks?

How odd of you to make an accusation of Verity and provide no evidence to back it up.

You say to me: ‘The "evidence" you are producing would have no value in a court of law as you must well know,’ Phil, the evidence I have produced most certainly would carry weight in a court of law, which is precisely why Bill Ayers has never sued anybody for talking about his endorsement of murder.

That’s why all these journalists and editors have printed so many words on it. Bill Ayers hasn’t got a leg to stand on in the libel courts. Professional journalists simply aren’t allowed to speak about other people the way that they speak about Bill Ayers.

Anyone who was a member of a terrorist organisation and says "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough" isn‘t going to be running to the libel courts when people say that he has endorsed murder. Ayers is damned by his own words and he will have to spend the rest of his life with journalists and other people pointing it out to him.

Lorenzo

Phil says that either Melanie Phillips or Norman Lamb (he can’t make up his mind) has said something ‘detrimental’ about Barack Obama.

Where is the “detrimental” thing? All I can see is: “I make no allegation.”

Why are you so cowardly, Phil, that unable to defend what you’ve written you decide instead to just hurl abuse at people for being “childish“, “bitter” and so on when they point out the contradictions in what you've written?

Without the evidence to back up what you say, the only person who looks bitter and childish is you.

phil

Sarah , whichever one you wish to be , send me an address and I will send you 5p so you can ring someone who cares and please dont keep repeating whatever I say.

phil

Harry ,sorry ,I have spent enough time on this matter ,you will have to do your own research-,the subject matter is there ,just go through the Obama threads ,this thread has become a witches coven of certain "friends" who I suspect are doing it in concert-mostly in a childish manner and never addressing the subject matter of libel law . I have had a good laugh but enough is enough and its time sarah,s mum put her to bed -she is dangerous ,I have been choking with laughter .

.Apart from you, who I obviously disagree with ,I have not read a word of sense from any of this group ,all of whom appear to have arrived out of the blue and no doubt will disappear just as quickly .Your opinions on Bill Ayers are your privilege .I have no real interest in him as I have repeatedly said ,only the unevidenced accusations which if you try hard enough you will find .This thread was supposed to be about libel ,but has become just an excuse for ignorance from a bunch of youngsters without either logic,perception or manners.

.You will have noticed that none of our regular contributors have joined in ,perhaps over this season of goodwill they have shown more sense than me .

phil

Harry I have relented sufficiently to refer you to "freedom " thread nov5-2008 at 6.37-it might give you a flavour

Jeb, Texas

You got one thing right, Phil, I am finding all this hilarious, although if I were you, I wouldn’t put ‘lol’ at the end of your posts, you got enough people here laughing at you without you joining in on yourself.

Happy holidays, folks!

Harry

Thank you, Phil, for supplying that information. It confirms exactly what I had thought: Verity has said nothing worse of Bill Ayers than he has said of himself.

That’s why that post was allowed up here without fear of libelling anybody and why journalists will forevermore be carefree in the way they link Bill Ayers’ name with murder.

phil

harry true?
"Had your friend murdered 13 people etc"
I can see why I am having trouble convincing you and your friends -you can not understand that making statements like this is wrong ,but for jeb,s sake I am glad that I am providing a little amusement to a bunch of fools .I think you all must have been to lectures from senor galloway ,another conjuror .