Ofcom to regulate harmful content

How could I ever forget that I spent 3 years as a litigant in person at the High Court in London – and part of it in relation to an infringement of my publication rights also at the commercial court-.

The whole aim of my efforts was to help reduce harmful content and to keep publishers to sensible limits on how to report things to do especially with terrorism.

Remember at the time a Labour Party member put pictures of the blazing machine gun logo of Baader-Meinhof on a website to report about ancient history.

It should be made illegal to use the logos of outlawed terrorist organisations to report about something, just as it is illegal to use certain Nazi salutes and phrases.

Using the logo of a terrorist organisation to report about something actually brings the organisation back to life and promotes that organisation. I fought against that, and though I lost, I now feel that the government has finally woken up to the manner of publication as well as to the content.

Actually I think libel laws are not fit for purpose as they allow the use of harmful pictorial material without making it illegal to do so. That is why I formally lost my case but now the purpose I pursued is finally winning.

Ofcom will now be given power to regulate harmful content. Hopefully they will also realise that school children and local communities are sometimes receptive to the promotion of unlaw aims by the use of pictures and logos that are associated with terrorists.

out of the blue

The past seems to catch up with me as I just received an email, from an individual, asking me to get in touch because he read my articles about Robert Dougans and he has been hounded by that man for years.

May I please ask you to understand that I literally could not even remember who Robert Dougans was at first sight. I literally had to search my site and read those articles myself and it all came back to me. The last entry about that was in 2010 and it is 2020 now. I had to throw away the old case files as they gotten mouldy. I have not even gotten the space to store them.

This is all ‘Water under the Bridge’ now. In reflection what stands out for me is the fact that it took the court 3 years to throw the case out. I spent hours and hours each week/months almost attending court. I was running my own business under the supervision of the DWP. I also had a disabled person to care for.

I produced enormous amounts of paperwork and had to bring that to the court in large suitcases. That took a very long time too.

The rules then said that a litigant must see the case through to the end to be able to complain to the European Court of Human Rights.

That person contacting me did not leave an address, but seems a prominent person with their own website. I may contact them.

I don’t think a ‘Litigant in Person’ situation would be able to arise with today’s Employment laws as the employment rules are much stricter enforced.



French judge agrees with me

I wish I would have had this nice French judge in my libel cases against Gray, Hilton and others because this beautiful judge ruled that a French blogger had to pay damages to a restaurant, after posting a hugely negative blog title, which had great prominence in Google searches. The judge obviously thought that just the negative title was able to bring the restaurant into disrepute and put people off from going there.

This was an important point in my case in that I argued that people just do not have the time to follow up each headline and cannot read whole articles to find somewhere at the bottom the explanation for a sensational headline.

But this judge at least agrees with me that high ranking Google search results can do huge damage just from the headline. Kiss him. Caroline Doudet was ordered to amend a post about restaurant II Giardino.  Article link.

In Britain a person is expected to read each and every article they come across just to find out the facts, if they are attracted by a particular headline. It is quite impossible already to even have the time to read the small print on contracts or other important information as there is so much of it about.

Right to be forgotten

The EU has finally formally ruled that people have a right to be forgotten. In this latest judgement, which is also very relevant to my lost libel cases, the court ruled that search engines, and so with also other internet service providers have to filter out irrelevant, old and no longer valid content.

This should then also apply to so-called history sites, that just list any content they come across that is not protected from search bots. For example if someone has control over a domain and restricts search bots, the content will not be available on history sites but if one loses control over a domain than all content will suddenly become listed on such sites.

In my own case unintentionally a private thought got published 12 years ago and is still on line on an Internet history site, despite having asked it to be removed. Justice Eady took it as invitation to use it in my cases against me, despite the context being incorrect and despite me having asked for it to be removed. the English court ruled that everything that a person ever publishes intentionally or unintentionally, for example when tipsy or drunk, can right-fully stay in the public domain and published.

Wikileaks 70s revelations

Since in his judgement, the Honourable Mr Justice Eady suggested that I had been involved in left-wing activities in the 70s in Germany, an assumption I strongly denied, I now looked at this latest Wikileaks documents that publishes more than 1.7 million US diplomatic and intelligence reports from the 1970s.

Especially since I have shown a letter from the German Solicitor General that cleared be of any suspicion to do with German Baader-Meinhof terrorists, the English High Court still assumed that it must have been the case that I had been involved and suspected.

Very strange way of delivering justice and it reeks of complete and utter incompetence. But since I was unrepresented, I could not do much about it as they just wipe the floor with litigants in persons really.

Back to the Beginning. My thinking is that if I really would have been involved in concerning left-wing activities in Germany,the Americans would have gotten wind of this, so my name would also appear in their files.

Yes when I search those records on Wikileaks my name does not appear, which is I think further proof that Mr Justice Eady delivered a spoof judgement. They just could not stand the fact that a German immigrant women could win in an English High Court and defy the English system, could they!!!

Press has become a loose canon

Whilst the BBC reports that the Lord Justice Leveson is ‘loading a gun’ at the press, I would say that the press has become a loose canon, a law onto itself and judging with aspects of their own morality.

Of course most frustrating for Justice Leveson is the fact that the press even leaked a confidential letter that was written to them as part of the enquiry process but was not meant for public discussion.

The press has become so detached from the normal process that they feel fit to judge and jury individuals, institutions, government and whatever takes their fancy. We now have a trinity of dispute; whilst previously we had a dispute between judges and government over who rules the roost, there is now a dispute between judges, government ministers and the press over who is better in making public opinion and telling us the difference between right and wrong, setting moral standards and putting across suggestions as to conduct and opinion.

I have felt how distorted justices can be by having seen how Justice Eady ruled on assumptions about what happened in Germany over 35 years ago, when all official documents of the period had been destroyed a long time ago. On his own assumptions he allowed the press to write what they liked because he assumed that I must have been involved in left-wing activities at some point in my life, when there is not one shred of proof that the police had any record of that at all.

Lord Justice Leveson now, I presume, finds along the lines of the previous enquiry that was done by a government white paper by Louise Casey, that found that since the 70s press reporting has deteriorated become distorted and is more sensationalist, distorting opinions and making opinions to suit any wanted political mood. Taking that in conjunction with a recent ruling that allows political elections to produce rogue leaflets during election periods, we see that the public is generally duped into voting for one side or another.

Nowadays the freedom of association is hugely lamed by that judgement of Mr Justice Eady, which made me lose a libel action on an assumption of left-wing association. If I now find that anyone person in a group that I participate in is connected to extreme views or activities on either side of the spectrum, I disassociate myself from the whole group. Often though one does not know what others do until the time of the reckoning comes, so how can individuals be blamed for the actions of others if they did not plan them outright?

For example you go to a party where Prince Harry turns up wearing a Nazi uniform or suddenly takes off his clothes, you are in the background of the picture, your life can be destroyed forever and the press is having a field day, by producing a guilt by association and Justice Eady’s ruling allows the press to associate you with all sorts of established radicals just because you accidentally moved once on the fringe of something that you weren’t really aware of.

What Justice Eady has produced is a “Guilt by Assumed Association“, which is taking guilt by association even a step further and Justice Easy allows the press to assume a guilt by association too. Justice Leveson should start by overturning rubbish judgments that distort the law and have been made in the past, which is what paved the way for the press to behave in the way they do now.

Don’t do to others ….

Unfortunately I have to use this very sad occasion, where an enemy of this state might get positively discriminated against by another, higher force, to show that this very old saying still is true and always will be true and it goes: “You should not do to others what you don’t want done to yourself” or another commonly understood one is “What goes around comes around”. I cannot even feel Schadenfreude or glee that this happened to the government because I am not on the side of the bad guy.

But in this instance the government fell victim to the very same rule that was used against me in my own cases before the High Court in that procedural rules are allowed to be broken if the court favours a particular legal outcome.

In my own case against Der Spiegel, dates were obviously falsified, appeals made on the wrong forms, but still the court allowed it all to help the defendant,  win the case. In other cases all types of evidence was allowed against me that by established case law would be forbidden normally.

There we have it if there is a desired legal outcome then courts can break all rules they want because they are the highest authority and what the highest judge says that is the law.

It is particularly upsetting that the UK has to learn that point in the case against Abu Qatada, who is an enemy of the state. It remains to be seen why the EU wants to protect him so much, what does he do for them?

One can now ask the question is there any justice at all if outcomes can be set from the start to reach a desired goal and ignoring all rules along the way to get it.

Looking at the principle of this, our whole education system is set up to teach children to be fast and accurate and correct, but in the legal world, fast and accurate method is not required,all that is required is acting for the pre-determined, winning side and all other principles are forgotten. Is that corrupt or is it freedom?

The German propaganda hole

This BBC story epitomizes in my view what is wrong with publishing these days but it quite clearly also shows the elaborate concealment of neo nazi activity in Germany in that Germany is helped by some major English publishers to do so.

Apparently the Germans are over-interested in keeping the nostalgia about the Baader-Meinhof group alive and do anything to give everything radical the RAF slant. Yet as these pictures show there is now a considerable silent right-wing opposition that is extremely well organised by the looks of it. It takes some consent to be able to pull a mass demo on the spot, with people who are in respectable jobs, coming out all masked up for a quick demo.

But seeing that the new neo nazis get the same training routine as the former Baader-Meinhof terrorists did and my previously voiced suspicions that not all is what it seems, I think we are dealing with a huge public concealment of facts and that Germany, helped by publishers like Der Spiegel and the British free press, is sitting on a Nazi time-bomb that is probably going to go off in a space of 10 years, or at the latest when the European dream collapses.

The article says that “Human rights groups say more than 180 people have been killed in right-wing attacks in Germany over the last 20 years.

Neo-Nazis have murdered more people in post-war Germany than any other single group, including Islamists and the far left. But this is not yet reflected in official data.

Could it be that Germany’s sensitivity to its history has made it want to play down modern-day right wing extremism?”

And when I then read that “Weapons training is carried out in secret. In the Arab world, for example, with freedom movements there. The right-wing scene sees itself as a freedom movement.”and think of the fact that the Baader-Meinhof terrorists started off their careers by taking training in the Arab world I wonder whether the concealment of actual intent is almost perfect for the German propaganda machine.

And of course the article is about a group of Nazi killers and it asks ”

It turns out intelligence agencies had had the group under surveillance for years, and even found a bomb-making factory in their garage back in 1998.

So why were the trio not stopped earlier? Why were they allowed to disappear and then stay underground? And why was it that security services blamed the murders on the Turkish mafia at the time? A right-wing motive was never investigated.”

Of course there we have it, the right-wing native connection is always swept under the carpet and some illusive left-wing terror connections created to give it all a bad left-wing stint.

But then in my own case before the High court for over 3 years I exactly used those arguments when I asked, how does the Honourable Mr Justice Eady actually make out his judgement by saying that I must have been accused of left-wing affiliations when there is not one shred of proof for that whatsoever? That is just showing that even top judges make public assumptions to talk away any suspicions of right-wing activities and that is what we are having to digest, that there is no real attempt to deal with facts.

I personally was never involved in any right-wing or left-wing activities in any event but what my case really shows is that the mainstream press uses tactics to tint events to suit a publicity campaign to protect certain political movements that they want to protect and to blame something that doesn’t really exist but that is in the best interest to use in order to protect something that is brewing underneath it all.

Mr Justice Eady used his position to say that something must have been happening over 35 years ago and that he knows what happened in the minds of German authorities then and that he has the right to do so and he has been backed up by the Court of Appeal in saying that Mr Justice Eady can determine what German police thought in 1975 when that went against existing paperwork in the case.

So there we have it, a publicity machinery that blames everything on the left and the right-wing movement actually brews up under the surface to face us with totalitarian actions like the shooting of Labour youth in Norway by Breivik.

I also said it in a previous blog that I do not belief that the latest attempts to show that Baader-Meinhof were funded by the East German government are actually true but that this is just an attempt to conceal that Baader-Meinhof all along where just used to put a left-wing stint over the new terrorism in the nation.

I had put plenty of material before the high court to show that the laws then were not proof of political affiliations but that the state at the time could just about arrest anybody on the flick of a finger without much evidence needed. But that arrests had nothing to do with any type of political or religious affiliations but were just intelligence gathering exercises.  I had put plenty of evidence before the court to show that the names involved were never ever connected to any Baader-Meinhof group and still the court found it more important to protect Der Spiegel and affiliated British publishers rather than get to the bottom of the facts on the matter.

Of course then the case was defended because some thought it is more important to defend the right to spread lies under the mantle of freedom of expression. I did in fact proof to the court that non of the names involved where ever connected to the Baader-Meinhhof gang but that didn’t impress the court who still fiddled the case to allow the Big British win and the press to connect anything to Baader-Meinhof to stop people thinking in different places.

local reverend criticises the bishop

I haven’t blogged much lately; that is due to the fact that currently I have no less than five voluntary jobs and despite not being employed, I am very, very busy. One way for me to take respite from the strains of life and indeed gather strength to do all the good deeds I do, is the weekly prayer service in church on Sundays.

Our local vicar, the Reverend Alan Green previously worked in Liverpool and spoke about an ongoing discussion between church ministers to correctly practise religion and whilst he talked about democracy and Freedom of Speech, he started to attack Archbishop Sentamu for using the Sun newspaper to widen the gospel preachings he does and therefore endorsing the new Sun on Sunday newspaper. The vicar explained that during his time in Liverpool, it was at the time of the Hillsborough disaster, the Sun wrongly blamed Liverpool fans of anti-social behaviour and causing the disaster. I do not have a transcript of today’s sermon but that is what sticks in my mind about it.

The vicar said that this problem has not been completely resolved and though an apology was made, the Sun still has not proven that they do not want to continue their publicity smears of ordinary people.

Of course I have had a long-standing argument with some mainstream publishers and the methods they use to put forward strategies to influence the thinking of readers. It is of course one thing, is writing in a mainstream newspaper and another is endorsing all political tendencies such a newspaper might bring with it.

Yet in the field of gay marriage Bishop Sentamu is outspoken and against it and papers like the Sun are most likely to give him support, if only indirectly because all papers these days are bound by the strict anti-discrimination laws, set out by Europe.

It is refreshing to see that within a church there can be a difference of opinion and if it is so down to earth and brought by someone who at first hand experienced the wrongful publishing smears of a major paper and what this did to large areas of local people then that opinion is very important indeed.

What this also shows is that there are different sides to every coin, because it is quite impossible to get anyone media these days where one can agree to everything a paper does and that there is always some reason to be disgruntled. But when it comes to plainly lying to maintain a strategy that is quite serious indeed and I can completely understand reservations one will have towards that paper. Just looking at my personal experience with Der Spiegel for example, I can understand very well were the good reverend is coming from.

Yet in my case I forced the big publisher Axel Springer to completely change a whole cover and a whole article from 1975 and I just wonder whether the Sun can be forced to re-write an article as well. But at the same time a High Court judge defended them to the hilt.

Yet the question handled by the Leveson enquiry is where does investigative journalism end and where does sheer malicious lying start and it seems it is a very long-winding enquiry, which keeps us all on full suspense and on the edge of our seats. I have long wondered about the political tint of churching these days and find that the message of the bible is more in support of Christians and active followers of Christ rather than in support of all other religions. How politically correct or even neutral can a church be in a state where religion and state are separate entities compared to some other nations where religious leaders also lead the nation.

The Reverend and Rector Alan Green is a well known figure here in East London and beyond. As I found out from searching the Internet for him, he defends the local Mosque and rights of Muslims and he leads an Interfaith forum. In last week’s scripture readings in our Christian church we read Exodus 20: 1-17. There is says: …for I the LORD your God, am a jealous God…..You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name…..

Later on in the Corinthians 1: 18-25 we hear reference to the Jews and Gentiles as well as the Greeks, denouncing them as secondary believers and telling all that Christ is best. But in those days  there is no reference to the Muslims in the bible and maybe that is the reason why today so many Christian feel attracted to them and feel they cannot denounce modern religions that were founded after the original text of the bible has been written. Islam only started from the 6th Century AD and that makes it clear why it is not mentioned in the bible, but that this does not make it suitable to not treat it the same way as the bible treated the Jews, the Gentiles an the Greeks who were of about the same age or older than Christianity.

I think it is a sheer mockery of God’s word to praise all religions as having he same weight just because they started after today’s text of the bible has been written.

PS: In relation to the Hillsborough disaster it has now been made clear that documents relating to the Hillsborough disaster are getting publicised.  A BBC article is titled

Fans blamed in Hillsborough files

Keep free speech real and responsible

Another person agrees with me and he has the luck of support from the high and mighty BBC publication machinery. In his case its a false case of saying he is a paedophile to ruin his business.  His case was as bad, Tony Bennett of Kwikchex was falsely accused of child molestation, I was accused of Terrorism connections by bloggers but in a way that sounded very serious to the readers.

Yet when I complained to the court, I was inundated with further abuse and a barrage of defences from the English Defend Free Speech League. Here the business man finds that it is very easy to ruin a reputation within 5 minutes and that it takes months to get it removed if ever. It is not possible to ask an online publisher to agree to responsible publishing because its all to do with freedom of speech and expression and once editors starts editing then they become responsible but not otherwise. Well, that is exactly the sticking point.

I made my complaint to the High Court and was put through 3 1/3 years of hell, further accusations and no right of any defence. I was accused of other hideous crimes in the course of the proceedings. The court then even came along and put things in judgements that are unsustainable and took it upon themselves to imagine what the police force of another country could have been thinking without consulting them on the matter. A sheer nightmare.

If a German court would put judgements in which they assume the thinking of British police, I bet the British would not like it at all.

The British are so confused about their procedures, it is a complete mess. As my matter stands after over 3 years of civil proceedings the police issued a crime number against the original publisher because of further hate-crime publications, whilst the English court gave the publisher the right to continue publishing the original untruths.

I have now asked the police to formally take action on the crime number given and await their reply on this. My business was ruined, I had no such luck as Mr Bennett had, who could repair his business and save it from going under.

This happens to many every day and they have no support from publishers like the BBC, they are left to rot with the online abuse and nothing is done to help them. It ruins lives. Most people have no other choice but to take legal action because the publishers refuse to remove content. Then there is the great danger, that a lack of legal support makes things worst, as it happened in my case. The court has now given my torturers the best reason ever to additionally stalk everything I do because I now owe them money. I suppose it makes it easier for the court to ill-treat a German woman immigrant, who is not so lucky to get the support of the mighty BBC.

Normally the English are rather cowardly when it comes to publishing and justice. They do not shy to completely destroy a single individual without the aid of legal support in a court of law, they are also proud of it; what a nation of cowards. If they were so courteous and gallant as they make out to be they would give a person a chance to have legal support, yet they are not strong enough to show that they could never win if they gave everybody an equally good chance. They do not mind to be really rude in public and they never apologise for bad behaviour. Long gone are the days of Mr Steed with his bowler hat and the old-English gentlemen, those were the days.

Now they hide behind masks and anonymity and rudeness.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,624 hits