Come, come, come with me, buy me, read me

The good old Freedom of expression and Freedom of Speech has achieved a lot for us all, has opened the books of Westminster for public inspection to see where our money goes and how our MPs spend it.

Excellent of the Conservative Party to publish  MP expenses on their website.

Press publications can reap great benefits for the country as a whole and effect change for the better, that is good public campaigns. The press has also suffered greatly from sensationalist reporting and lost a few cases on libel and privacy but not in the case of tax payer’s expenses.

In my case, I am savaged for alleged former involvement of some sort or another with ….. but what a fruitless undertaking to drag me before the public on totally unsubstantiated allegations, that were firstly published by Der Spiegel. Incidentally when one now visits Der Spiegel online and looks for issue 39/1975, they do not offer the offending pages about me for inspections, one can see that the page 70 – 77 is missing. They know they have done wrong and they corrected their mistake for the online editions.

Those who thought they report interesting news to their readers, should follow suit and finally remove the blogs about me that I am complaining about since over 2 years now. And coming to the point of public expenses, that is an interesting point.

The point Mr Gray makes again and again, an accusation that I am wasting public money by bringing the claim in the first place. Mr Gray thinks it is OK for others to accept claims of alleged ….. involvement without saying something unless one can afford to pay for a solicitor.

I have told Mr Gray previously that it was his party comrade Mr Tony Blair who introduced the Access to Justice system as we have it today. Even Mr Gray benefits from it because his efforts to drag the case out as long as possible cost a lot of tax payer’s money and it does not cost him anything to do so. The most he spent so far, were a few fares to come to the court, write a few of his letter to the court and he spent £75 on a hopeless application to strike out the claim.

Mr Gray ignored all my letters, e-mails, letters of claim from a lawyer requesting him to take down his blog and apologising for exposing me to publicity that is inexcusably libellous. He has not even got an excuse on the point of publication as I can proof that over 77 thousand other web users link to his blog, he has generated over 75 thousand visitors to his blog in 2 years and cannot possibly expect anyone to believe that none of those combined over 145 thousand users of his blog could not possibly have visited the page about me.

It’s against all mathematical laws of relative possibility for a start and simply makes no common sense to think that no one would have visited the page about me.

Constantly Mr Gray accuses me of wasting public money for suing him, but he has the opportunity of getting a free defence, holding up the procedures and therefore causing even more public expense. Mr Gray has the habit of blaming me for the result of his blog about me. I did not write the blog about me Mr Gray did. I did not ask Mr Gray to write the blog about me and asked him to remove it but Mr Gray has no concern about me at all, the stress this blog causes me, he offered me a deal of me having to pay his costs and then he would take it down but not otherwise. (update 4.3.10, Mr Gray has now taken down the blog).

I even at all times put a copyright notice on all of my online publications not to copy anything without expressed permission as to avoid unnecessary straying of overactive fantasies that could lead to problems.

If the same ruling as in the Osler case applies, the judge ordered Mr Osler to take down my picture in any case when he understood that Mr Osler cannot argue that I need to accept his monetary offer of a paltry sum or he would not take down the picture, well that is in copyright, so it is not quite the same.

I really wish the Legal Services Commission would make legal aid available for litigants in libel as to save court time and money and to give the persons involved legal advice about the merit of their case claimant or defendant because even a defendant can have the romantic idea that they might get away with it if they purport to be right long enough and the other side will simply cave in.

Maybe there should be a demand to analyse the costs courts had to endure by allowing personal litigants through the courts for free and how much more cost efficient would it  have been had a lawyer dealt with the cases. That would be a good idea.

10 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Ronan Keating
    May 19, 2009 @ 17:55:17

    Yes or no?


    • jkaschke
      May 19, 2009 @ 17:59:27

      Yes it is a coincidence that the web pages got destroyed and no longer exist on my computer. I changed web service provider and my computer crashed completely and so could not save the files. Actually I paid PC World £ 700 to recover data from a broken external hard drive but those weren’t there.


  2. Ronan Keating
    May 19, 2009 @ 10:44:02

    IS that a coincidence I wonder?


  3. Anne
    May 18, 2009 @ 22:59:16

    Where is the original article from your website now that Gus mentions above?


  4. Gus Honeybun
    May 17, 2009 @ 22:15:38

    I was just asking the question, you don’t need to be defensive. I remember your article and also read the offending ones on the other sites. I also remember that Mr. Osler praised you for your honesty or something like that while reporting on your case against Augstein. So I don’t really understand what all this is about.


  5. jkaschke
    May 17, 2009 @ 22:02:51

    thanks I’m glad I finally get some input on this. What I said about removing blogs is about people who repeated Der Spiegel as true and those blogs are still online today.
    When I bought Der Spiegel I put a note on my website telling people that the allegations in Der Spiegel are lies. Don’t tell me you do not remember that bit? I clearly said that the contents are not true and my copyright stated not to quote or copy anything without epressed permission.
    If you also read the copyright notice on Der Spiegel website of articles for personal use, it states that one can use quotes from magazines for personal use without requiring a licence or for educational purposes. I felt the need to educate readers about the falseness of that article.
    I do have a right to protect my integrity and my good name by making others aware what is wrong especially as Der Spiegel to this day refuses to apologise.
    I do not put links to the blogs I am talking about but you obviously wish to make a point for my opponents, why is that?


  6. Gus Honeybun
    May 17, 2009 @ 21:51:09

    Hello Johanna,
    I remember reading the Spiegel article on your own website – you published it as a PDF, complete with the invoice from Der Spiegel charging you for the access to their (then closed) archive. So I don’t quite understand your fourth paragraph.
    Could you please clarify for me and other long-time readers of your various websites.
    Grüße aus Tübingen


Blog Stats

  • 55,048 hits
%d bloggers like this: