Justice Eady, the truth is still waiting

I have now suffered several, in my view botched judgements that I had to endure simply because in civil law I am not entitled to legal representation. The case involves an originally British publisher, Der Spiegel and an employee of a Spiegel subsidiary, Lloyds List, which now bought into Der Spiegel. Mr Osler is extremely left-wing and supports all sorts of left-wing groups from Anarchists to Communists. He works in Lloyds list especially on the pirate issue, e.g. Somalis hijacking British ships. Of course several British women have become victims of Somali terrorist activity recently.

Justice Eady found for Der Spiegel, found for Mr Osler and found for all the other defendants involved in the UK left-wing Labour movement. They were spurred on by a member of the Conservative Party who volunteered, without being forced to in any way, to defend Mr Osler, whose defence then benefitted the other attached defendants. British law was so pleased with the performance of Mr Dougans that he became Assistant Solicitor of the Year, that is how the British reward those who work in the best interst of their country. Mr Hilton of course was supported by the big and rich Gay Support Network as he is an admitted and known Homosexual. But still all the Britishness and Gayness doesn’t allow a court to find wrongly on the evidence.

So, yes I am a German immigrant, now in possession of a British passport and I dared to attack the former Axel Springer empire over one of their publications. Of course one needs to know that Springer was implanted on Germany after World War II to dismantle the Hitler propaganda machine.

Why was I picked on by Springer? It is not known.  Tthe reason why I was arrested can be seen from these documents here, which are from the German Prosecutor from the 70s and 80s. There are 3 documents, all of which are translated. It is more than clear from the documents that I was arrested in line with an investigation against a Wilhelm Boenninger whom I do not know and who, according to my research, is never named in connection with any Baader-Meinhof activities anywhere on the net. There are a vast number of Internet pages, which list known BM or RAF associates. That name is not there, neither is mine. I never met a man called Wilhelm Boenninger and assume it is a case of mistaken identity. See letter from 12 March 1980, Ref 8 Js 500/75. I then was compensated for false arrest and the false imprisonment suffered See letter from 16 March 1978, ref 4StR Es 158/77. Also enclosed and then I received a letter from the German authorities certifying that I was never, not even remotely under suspicion of RAF association. See the underlined word on the bottom of page 1, letter dated 10 April 1980 Ref 1BJs 93/77.

Yet Mr Justice Eady felt fit to belief the palaver of Mr Osler, who argued that all arrests in the 70s in Germany must have to do with the Baader-Meinhof Group. The British publication machinery, including the BBC spread rumours that in Germany up to 35% of the population were in active support of the Baader-Meinhof group, which is a statistic that is very hard to belief. It is false and mere rubbish. You must imagine that if 35% of the population were in support of something then every 3rd or 4th person you would meet in the street would be involved into a criminal gang and actively supporting them. That is practically unthinkable and cannot be supported in any rational argument.  Apparently there is no broadly conducted survey that could support such a statistic, a survey that would have been conducted in Germany itself, asking ordinary German citizens and not just the demonstrating student minority that is so readily portrait on UK websites.

It simply pleases the British mentality to think that the Germans were broadly in support of Baader-Meinhof but that is the reason for Justice Eady’s judgment against me. The fact is that not anywhere in any official paperwork available from 1975 – 1980, not anywhere is there any mention of any political orientation. There is no way that anybody could come along and reasonably argue that any arrest that took place in Germany in the 70s, must have taken place because of Baader-Meinhof activities. Especially also not as at that time Germany did not know a Terrorism clause within Criminal law. A terrorism clause was added in late 1976. It was Der Spiegel that couched my arrest in an article about Baader-Meinhof and Eady J cleared Der Spiegel of publication  in the UK  during my case against Der Spiegel when later he accepted doctored evidence from Osler that it had been published. This is an obvious miscarriage of justice.

Osler seems to be the babe of the court. He works for Lloyds List the subsidiary of Der Spiegel and in particular mostly on the Somali Pirate issues. Several women were kidnapped by Somali pirates recently. Judith Tebbutt, a disabled women, was snatched, her wheelchair left behind, her husband murdered.

The Paragraph 129 as it was in use then was so wide, that anybody would be arrested within it, including Travellers, religious sects like the The Church of Scientology and all would be accused of potentially wanting to throw over the German state and be potential terrorists, there was no actual proof needed for such an accusation. That was the climate under which arrests took place in Germany in 1975. It would be unthinkable today that this could happen with the Human Rights Act in place. It was plain and simply state persecution that allowed the imprisonment of indiscriminate amounts of people so that the state could weed out undesirables and collect information from people. Thousands fell victim to this.

There is no way, that I was ever assumed to be in touch with the RAF or Baader-Meinhof, there is no proof that the state even sought it was possible. The letters proof it, one even says, that I was never, not even remotely under such suspicion.

Not only did Eady J support the dismissal of my case because he thought it was an abuse of process because the difference between a compensated criminal arrest and compensated Baader-Meinhof arrest is too small, he actively supported in his judgement the notion that my arrest must have been for left-wing activities, for which there is no proof available at all. Not in any letter from the German authorities is this actually supported. I protested about this rigorously during the draft-judgement state but Justice Eady knows that without that left-wing element, his judgement cannot stand, and so he put it in just to make it work.

Justice Eady decided to please Der Spiegel, to please the left-wing Lloyds List employee. Why? Probably its a racist and sexist motivated judgement, that might also have religious grounds. What the British have established to be an anti Hitler propaganda tool, has turned into a pro-British propaganda tool and bends facts to please the British instead. Mr Osler later posted on Mr Gray’s blog, that I was defeated just like the Germans in World War II and the police promptly allocated a crime number for that posting but refrains to prosecute because the fine they could achieve would not exceed £50.

Of course I think sexism plays a big role. I am a single women, not associated with the typically important English male or even female (that if I was a Lesbian, which I am not). Many nasty posts have been produced during the course of the court case, mainly from men with revolting comments, that even one female high court judge remarked upon and then Mr Osler dropped his claim for costs. Unfortunately distasteful sexual comments were all over the Internet on this case.

Unfortunately for me, the whole justice system in Europe is now so impenetrable, that the single judges in the European Court of Human Rights also just tick off applications by unrepresented applicants as not being admissible, like they do in 95% of the cases. They cherry pick cases to hear and mine was not there.

The truth on my cases is still outstanding and I feel I am a victim of a miscarriage of justice.  It is my opinion and I have Freedom of Expression.

One recent reader comments that the court must have been listening to the case for so long to cash in on the payments from the state, which covered the costs for my applications because they need the money. That does not please the British Tax Payer.

I still belief and think I am correct in doing so, that there is a considerable difference in a general arrest and an arrest with specific suspicions of supporting and sympathising with a mayor terrorist group, who solely work from an illegal underground network. That is what the posts implied. Even in Germany the authorities did put such specific accusations in their arrest warrants, but not in mine, which was jointly with one other person, who also never was associated with known terrorists. I am glad to have been cleared of BM involvement, even with the British judgements, yet I was still made to loose the cases.

I shall add links to this shortly and further docs to download as proof

Advertisements

The contemporary sting of privacy

I think David Cameron’s suggestion that the matter of privacy is one for government and not for judges is most interesting because it puts the matter out of the contemporary limelight and gives it a more general direction.

Of course anything enshrined in law cannot be case-lawed away by eager judges. Judges of course are basically representing national interests, which includes business interests and political ones. So the interests of powerful individuals could be jeopardized depending on which side of the political spectrum they reside or what business interests they represent. It seems that case-law is a flexible as gum in the mouth of those who chew it.

On one hand the private lives of the average person is of little interest other than to statistics but powerful people’s lives are peer behaviours. The moral and ethical fibre of society hangs on the behaviour of powerful individuals and the press has the power to emphasize the behaviour of some more than that of others.

To suggest that parliament makes clear laws under which to handle such incidences is the most refreshing new influx into public relations politics so far.

The particular case talked about also includes employment matters, which could well end up before tribunals and if a powerful gagging order restrains any type of reporting about the causes of employment problems,which could include that ever so powerful celebrity, then a serious gap is being torn into the freedom of the press indeed, so serious that in fact a black hole of information is created into which many matters of interest may sink into an unknown abyss.

It remains to be seen whether this ‘conflict’ will become a power struggle between the powerful Mr Justice Eady, a trend-setter in Defamation and Privacy laws and David Cameron, incumbent Prime Minister.  Those are very interesting sparring partners.

12 months to complain

I suppose for someone like Christopher Jefferies, the one year rule, that one has got to complain about defamatory publications can seem a hindrance rather than a blessing because the case is unresolved at this moment in time, when Mr Jeffries makes his claim.

Mr Jefferies had been arrested but released without charge and the main suspect for the murder of Jo Yeates, Vincent Tabak, 33,  is still behind bars and awaiting trial. The funeral of Miss Yeates was held in February 2011 and the victim was found dead on Christmas day. Miss Yeates’ boyfriend had an alibi.

Saying that, I should think that the forthcoming libel claims Mr Jefferies plans to make against a number of high-profile, national publishers, will help the police in their investigation of the crime in an indirect way because Mr Jefferies will have to make statements to the court to the matters of fact, if the publishers refuse to settle out of court early to save themselves legal fees.

I read about this on the BBC website today and could not help making those observations.

I am not certain what the status of the main suspect is but I do not think that he has admitted the crime yet. So whatever the situation is whether the main suspect is the guilty person or not, or whether perhaps Mr Jefferies is the real culprit but slipped through the net, if Mr Jefferies does not complain about libel, he would look rather sad as there is lots of money to be made for him.

What concerns me is the principle of the situation in that this could concern a poor person that cannot afford a lawyer, who would find it very difficult to get a “No win, no fee” representation on such circumstances and that a litigant in person would face an ongoing criminal investigation via a civil procedure without legal advice.

I think that the law must make legal representation available to those that are caught up in criminal accusations by the press and who then have to defend their reputation without any legal assistance through the civil courts.

avoiding left-wing radicalisation

I think I did a splendid job in the way that I handled the left-wing extremism propaganda about me that was spurted about by Lead Councillor Francis in 2007, who wanted to brand me an extremist. In fact I think that I had joined the Respect Party for a short while helped to lead to their demise because my public denunciation of that party afterwards helped people to turn away from it. I openly encouraged that people join the Conservative Party at that time.

What in fact happened is that certain members of the Labour Party tried to create a left-wing icon, the left-over from the German Baader-Meinhof terrorist days that joined the Respect Party were their headlines and that of course fired up the radical elements in the community who probably already rubbed their hands at the prospect of more left-wing extremism in the community.

It was irresponsible from Osler and John Gray how they reported about me, in blogs they promised to re-publish should I lose my appeal. I am writing this now to counter-act any eventual re-publication. What Osler and Gray should have told people that the law in Germany in 1975 was not as the law is today in England under the current Human Rights legislation. Arrests that took place in Germany in 1975 would be against the law today and illegal internment.

Especially as I have been working with the local police since years and actually once appeared as a prosecution witness for them, then founded a Neighbourhood Watch and got support from the police for it, must make it clear to anyone that the police are hardly likely to work with individuals that pose a threat to law and order and/or have a dodgy past. I think that is what John Gray and David Osler tried to imply and I am still on the case so to speak.

I think it was correct to take the local problem as it was and avert more damage as had already been done by the publications of Osler, Gray, Hilton and in effect also Councillor Francis with his letters to the East London Advertiser.

I find it always really concerning that the Labour party manage to warn of others who are left-wing yet they themselves encouraged Respect members to join their ranks. In fact Mr Biggs himself stood up in defence of Mr Galloway during the Mayoral elections for London when I was busy drumming up support for Boris Johnson. Boris Johnson won, despite all the Labour lies.

I think any responsible resident cannot ignore the threat that left-wing extremism poses to the community and just ignoring it is just not enough. During the last general elections I had scores of Respect members knocking on my door, begging for a vote, when again I turned away and supported the Conservative Party.

I have never been left-wing or extremist in my life, yet there are some who wish to purport that impression, yet I always tell others not to fall for the lies. I think we have come to a good consensus in Tower Hamlets that we need a peaceful coexistence of all residents and have seen off the threat from the EDL and Islamist extremists. The Respect party got wiped from the map and we saw an increase of Muslims in the mainstream parties, especially the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour.

I think we can all say well done to ourselves and our neighbours and hope that we can keep up the good work for the betterment of our communities.

I continue to work as Neighbourhood Watch coordinator, and the local Safer Neighbourhood Police  and sit on the Police and Community Safety Board in Tower Hamlets and we had a splendid meeting only last week with the wonderful input of the Young Mayor of Tower Hamlets.

I have always supported good relations with the local police and in fact once supported a case they brought against a local prowler as prosecution witness. When do these warmongers like Osler, Gray and others finally realise that there is no point telling people of 35-year-old closed matters, when the very people who are in the forefront in the fight of terrorism and crime have a closed working relationship with me on a voluntary basis and they should know of any important issues. It would have been much more useful had Mr Gray and Osler and Hilton encouraged support for my local Safer Neighbourhood Work instead of trying to focus in on some old and forgotten stuff that has long been shredded by the German authorities and buried.

The flirtation with left-wing radicalism that some left-wingers propagate under the mantle of public interest does more harm than good and we have to try and avert the damage done by irresponsible publications such as they come from Mr Osler and Mr Gray.

the judgments are life-destroying

The main worry I have from those judgements is the result that nobody of any decent social standing will ever want to get involved with me and no responsible employer, that has a reputation to protect would ever give me a job. Those judgements are enough to destroy anybody’s life. I do not understand how I have deserved this at all.

My social life has been destroyed and I am being sentenced to a life on my own and to menial tasks because I do not have a proper choice anymore.

It’s not just the events in the past, e.g. 35 years ago, its that people can continue to write untruths about me. I shall sue the UK for as much as I possibly can if they do not allow an appeal.

Dougans’ terrible legacy

This entry is corrected on 29.7.10 at 13:30

 BryanCave puts the story on their own corporate website. They also speak of the case being struck out for abuse of process but the judge has explicitly said in his judgment that he doesn’t strike it out as abuse of process. See quote here again:  

“62………

Ms Kaschke entertains a genuine sense of grievance at having been incorrectly linked to the Baader-Meinhof gang in the sense of it having been stated that she was arrested on suspicion of being a member of it. Both Eady J and I have found that in circumstances where in each case it was made clear in the relevant article that she was not convicted and received compensation for wrongful imprisonment and where in each case the defendant(s) openly acknowledge that they were not suggesting that there was any underlying truth in the conduct of which she was suspected and where she has herself admitted that she was arrested on suspicion of membership of a criminal gang with terrorist aims she is unlikely to recover more than very modest damages. Given that I have held that the claim in this action should be struck out because in effect the game is not worth the candle, it does not seem to me to add anything to hold that the action is in addition an abuse of process on the separate ground that Eady J has reached a similar conclusion in the Osler action. ”

This is what BryanCave wrote on their website: “In a decision handed down by the High Court on July 23, Mr. Justice Stadlen ruled in favor of Bryan Cave client Alex Hilton, a well-known blogger and Labour Party activist. London Associate Robert Dougans represented Hilton, who was defending a libel claim brought against him by East London political activist Johanna Kaschke. Dougans also acted as the advocate at the hearing before Mr. Justice Stadlen, who ruled that Kaschke’s claim was an abuse of process and should be struck out.”

I have had, in the meantime, e-mails to correct me and it is a fact that the Judgment in paragraphs 21 and 41 rules that the case is struck out as abuse of process.

I do not think that this should be like that because what this judgment says, it says, that mud sticks and once you had mud on your sleeve you will never be able to wash it off.

In the terms of the abuse of process I do not agree that this is a correct way to dispose of the action.  I shall argue that point further at the permission to appeal procedure. I fail to understand how accusation by a government that were made in a different jurisdiction, under legislation that at not compatible with today’s legislation can have an impact on the person’s good character when that person never did anything wrong in any case.

But that just shows the kind of man Robert Dougans is, he is not exactly a Libertarian. Judge for yourself.  BryanCave. On that note the judge remarked how odd it is that Dougans claimed more expenses for his assistant female assistant than for himself.

You can see that it is permitted for English lawyers to bully you on ancient  facts. After all Dougans is a member of the English establishment now and is seen as practically infallible.

Looking at the quotes above, that rests on some alleged admittance on my part. I am absolutely not sure where I am supposed to have admitted something and in what context but it shows that alleged words are held strictly against me but are easily misinterpreted by Dougans and that’s OK then.

Further in respect of Fair Trial, we can see from BryanCave website that it took more than 5 lawyers to bring me down and previously Hilton had the assistance even from 2 other firms and Mr Nicklin, and as said Waterfront Partnership and MLS Chase Solicitors.  I quote from the BryanCave website:

“This victory was a team effort. Bryan Cave London office trainee Shamila Ashiq assisted in the preparation of this case and at the hearing. The renowned libel specialist William McCormick QC of Ely Place Chambers helped develop the successful arguments. Further thanks go to David Allen Green, of counsel at Preiskel & Co. and writer of the Jack of Kent blog, and to Joel Bennathan QC who offered to represent Hilton at trial, should it have been necessary, on a pro bono basis.”

I think the judgment is dodgy to be based on one sentence that is taken out of context. I shall appeal that. Mary Honeyball and the lawyers are proud that it took them over 2 years to get a litigant in person down and in total 5 law firms, 1 barrister and several law students and assistants.

There is a significant chance that there was a misinterpretation of the law, namely the alleged admittance as “quoted above”, is related to a charge that was brought under laws as they were in 1975 in Germany, laws that are incompatible with today’s Human Rights Act. Today such charges could not be brought against a person with the same set of circumstances. Yet the Defendants and the court make it sound as if such charges could be brought today under today’s laws. So that is an avenue to explore for me, and I am open about this because I am not the sort of person that throws in last-minute arguments as the bunch of lawyers for Mr Hilton did it with me.

Access to Justice

The question of Access to Justice is a very big factor in my current libel cases and a recent Immigration judgment also emphasized that quick removals do not allow Access to Justice. See a copy of the interim judgment here. The case is of Medical Justice against the Secretary of State for the Home Depeartment.

Having worked for an Immigration Laywer, I can feel for the immigrants who were deported in the middle of the night with very little notice, often they were given a piece of paper to sign, and not knowing what they signed, found themselves on the next plane back where they came from.

This fast removal procedure denied them Access to Justice.

Of course Libel, Defamation is relatively trivial compared to often medical emergencies, people coming from very traumatic circumstances, they are trying to escape, compared to publications. But publications also can have a very traumatic effect on individuals.

The legal principle is the same, in civil law, where there is no legal aid available, people are being squeezed out of the legal process, either by cost orders or by other decisions that declares an Abuse of Process solution.

In my case I had been told that Freedom of Speech of a defendant is jeopardised if they have to answer legal cases. But this means, only people rich enough to pay costs can be bringing a law suite in tort.

Litigants in person are being squeezed out of the Justice Process and have no remedy left, that is also unlawful.

The problem in both types of cases imigration and libel  is an attempt to curb legal challenges so that the courts are not getting overstretched but that solution is on the back of the most vulnerable immigrants and poor civil litigants. In both cases, its a decision against the weakest in society and throws open serious questions of equality, whether the underclass has any legal rights in whichever discipline.

However in tort its not just against poor litigants it is against a group of litigants where a judge decides that they are not deserving to receive justice, but doesn’t everybody deserve to be judged?

Immigration just as publication becomes a more and more frequent occurance. Both travel and publications have been made easier and increase all the time. What this is about, is how much time should a court spend on applications to be decided, is it necessary to spend 2 years on a libel case, when there could be quicker solutions?

With immigration we try and curb people getting into the country but the same principle could not be wagered against publicists because we cannot stop people from publicizing as that would curb their freedom of speech.

Courts are unable to simplify the legal process and so try to minise the case load instead of finding better ways to process more claims with good effect.

We will need to make the legal process simpler and not so heavy with rules and regulations, because it is this that makes self-representation so difficult.  Maybe our laws are getting to complicated, too interwoven with each other, there are too many rules and the specialised knowledged needed to deal with such problems makes it so expensive because each lawyer becomes a very expensive knowledge base.

For immigrants for example one could instal translation machines in immigration centres and allow foreign nationals to communicate with lawyers who are connected via link to the centre and so standard formats of processing legal challenges could be simplified.

In libel much could be simplified if all publishers were required to publish their publication figures and that would give the ability to proof publication instead of having to spend months on disclosure and evidence per inference.

Oviously we cannot spend months on each libel claim for each and every person who feels upset about something being published about them but then again we cannot deny people the right to be upset by saying only those who can guarantee thousands of pounds worth of costs have the right to be upset about a publication.

Access to Justice is the key to both problems.

Yet the key in both problems lies in the originator of the problem, in immigration cases its the governments of states where there are practises that deny human dignity to inhabitants so they feel they must flee the repressive regime and in publication there are those jouralists and hobby writers who care little whom they upset as long as they make money with the story.

With the first group however we can only easily help the victims of repression but in the publisher scenario we could curb reckless publishing by using standardised clichees whereby statutory punishments and criminalisation of those making very harsh misrepresentation of people could become a crime.

Similarly we do withdraw assistance from represssive states and so punish those who do wrong but in publishing we have not thought along those lines and want to punish the victims instead of the source of the problem.

Yawn, yawn, boring, boring

During the course of these proceedings I had more yawning in my face than anywhere else. The court is and was just tired of litigants in person. I am the one who is getting tired now because there is no point in even getting excited to argue before a judge that has already made up his or her mind before the hearing even started.

So in line with this, I just do as little as possible, to save expense now, to fulfil the obligations I have to fulfil to qualify for an application before the ECHR and not get myself excited any longer as the court is simply boring in their nihilistic attitude towards me. I shall spend as little money as possible on paperwork as it is all a waste of money here and then I’ll need more money again to file it all before the ECHR in double file, sending it there and then in triple for the pleadings. This money is very hard to find for a benefit recipient.

It is very easy to predict what happens next, the court will dismiss all my appeals then the defendants will enforce the cost orders so that they can go over my financial information with a fine toothsome, like they already did with my personal life and then they have themselves satisfied in their curiosity. Wow, simpletons in action. I just think they are so extremely interested in my personal and financial life simply because of the fact that they cannot understand how one single woman can have their own mind, thoughts and act upon it, they just cannot believe and have to find out whether somebody else is behind my activities. Male chauvinist sexism really, that’s all it is.

trial by blog

At a trial or hearing you get 2 hours to make your case and if you forget something, the court says, its too late now, you can’t put anything else, but is that in the interest of justice? Has the truth gotten a time limit? Surely not.

I am just going through the final stages of my appeal against the Kaschke v Osler judgment of the honourable Mr Justice Eady and the Human Rights breaches are very obvious. Yet the court still ignores it. What is most obvious that the content of an arrest warrant of July 1975 is taken is proof of my guilt. Yet the most important legal principle is Innocent until proven guilty. Even the German authorities had to admit that there is not one shred of proof in the original accusations under the 1975 version of Paragraph 129, 25 StGB, that is ancient German legislature. Lord Justice Laws agrees with Mr Justice Eady however that anybody who has been accused under Paragraph 129, 25 StGB must have been left-wing and therefore is suspected of Baader-Meinhof involvement. How ridiculous is that?. How can anything be proof of any guilt when I was found not to be guilty of anything? Not even the content of an arrest warrant can be taken as granted if it has never been proven what was in it in the first place.

Please read about the German law in 1975 in my blog the German autumn that contains links to appropriate online documents.

It is similar to collective punishment, which is outlawed even under the Geneva Convention. These judgments against me are a serious threat to English justice, as they move it into a direction that allows people to be criminalised when they never committed any crime but by an implication of guilt. Even though Mr Justice Eady has admitted that there is no proof at all that I was ever accused of Baader-Meinhof involvement, he has said that this is not enough tort to make a claim worthwhile because I had been accused of something in any case because he assumes that I was under suspicion for left-wing activities. This is of huge importance for all political movements because it allows an inference from political views to terrorism when there is no actual involvement with either politics or terrorism as it is in my case.

This is a huge breach of a person’s human rights under Freedom of Association. It also breaches the principle of no justice without law.

I think people should protest to their MPs and even write directly to the court to demand proper determination of the matter.  To protest to your MP go to the box at the right side of this blog, that says, They work for you and enter your postcode and it will show the address of your incumbent MP or MEP. To write to the Court send e-mails to civilappeals.listing@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk and demand that my case A2/2010/1311 be allowed an appeal. My case reference is A2/2010/1311. That is especially important as I am being denied the most basic legal assistance in this matter. The fact is that English lawyers simply do not care how the law develops if they do not earn any money with it.  Money is the only ethic English lawyers have.

It is very important that people protest about this because if this becomes case law then the press can accuse us of anything just for being under any type of suspicion that had not even any foundation.  So even if the law says you are not guilty of any offence, the press can then write that you are guilty nevertheless and of having behaved in a manner that made it likely to attract suspicious for the most hideous crimes, which is broadly what was written about me in my case and worst even you then have no right to complain to a court of law because it’s freedom of expression.

We then end up having two identities, the one we have in law, and the identity we have for publishers, that is completely confusing and not in the interest of the public. Publishers are not private investigators of cold cases, they cannot investigate in a manner that makes a public paper trial not trail.

But either way people simply stop believing in the press and stop buying papers because what’s in those papers has a low truth and fact content. I think the press are digging their own grave if they keep on asking for more freedom of expression and less factual truth of matters they write about.

Labour was very keen to extent the limit of time that persons can be imprisoned without charge, so they are very keen to win this case as it makes persons guilty by inference, saying that any time, any state even just accuses you of something, even unfounded, makes you guilty because you brought suspicion on yourself and that suspicion is connection to hard-core and organised prominent Terrorist groups. Please therefore I am urging you again to write to your MP, MEP or the court directly  to get this matter looked into, it’s for your own sake.

I am only blogging about this because I have to relieve the immense stress I am under during these proceedings.

Restrictions on Legal Aid

I read this article about proposed cuts to legal aid barristers and lawyers, but also believe that there is a general cut to legal aid planned, just as I thought we need more and not less.

In any case in Defamation we cannot get legal aid though defamatory publications can destroy people’s life and hamper them severely in an emotional way too.

I publish my libel diary since a while now and express what I feel at times and that gives readers a good idea what afflicts me during those proceedings. I have around 1.000 visitors a day at times, though that is not reflected in comments.

We need to adjust the way we teach people about the law. Schools should prepare pupils for legal thinking from secondary stage and teach them the basics of law, so that they at least know what they could do wrong and how to remedy and follow complaints procedures but instead we cannot find any such subject in the curriculum. It would be worth a try as this can lead to less need for legal aid in common areas of life because people would know how to deal with smaller problems themselves or even how to prevent problems arising. Law should not be reserved just for those who commit to it in university degrees but a common knowledge subject that all are entitled to learn. It is not useful to have one part of the population that do not know about the law and then a flurry of lawyers who are hard to get when needed.  Crime prevention begins and ends with the letter of the law and we should equip the common citizen with basic legal knowledge to avoid wrong doings. That might be just to do with domestic problems like housing, health and accident, but that would ease the burden on Citizens Advice Bureaus considerably if people knew how to follow complaint procedures in many subjects.

This could free up space to make legal aid available for other more complicated matters such as libel and defamation. well strictly speaking such legal assistance should be provided where needed.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits