New battle lines are drawn in Britain both for political and personal conflicts. The personal conflicts involve the many criminalised rioters who burst out onto Britain’s streets and also the few falsely accused criminal cases like the recent nurse that was accused of poisoning patients and now had to be released after suffering a living hell. A landlord was accused of killing a tenant. It also involves me, when I lost my libel cases after over 3 years through the English courts and no satisfaction at all.
On the communal front we see strikes of police support staff and now demos over NHS changes and racial tension also mounts around the EDL and left-wing anti-demos taking place in London Whitechapel today.
People, including myself simply have lost faith into the legal and political system and people are scared of what is to become of our country. We all want to live in peace and be able to belief in truth, justice and our future but that has become increasingly difficult.
I have lost my faith in the English judiciary to do with the ability to judge a libel issue on the facts and on the laws as they are. I have seen how the judges juggle along and just want to fulfil a policy to push through cases on a whim and do not really examine the evidence before them fairly. Well at the time, when my cases went through the court, the political landscape in Britain was fairly easy. The Left was manageable and there was relatively little open discontent, as it has now spilled onto Britain’s street. But I saw the signs and warning bells rang in my head as I can see and listen to what is said and I could see the discontent brewing underneath and now it has finally spilled out. I think worst is to come in relation to racial tensions.
I would have accepted the loss of my cases if I thought that the court had come to the conclusions they did on a proper basis but I am not satisfied with the decisions the court has made. The many judgements made throughout the cases were highly contradicting. For example in one instance Mr Justice Stadlen remarked how prolix my performance really was and on the other hand Lord Justice Thomas said that I am very articulate and can make the points that any skilled applicant can make.
Altogether in my view, the whole process was not properly carried out and the court followed a legal doctrine to dismiss the case and reasons were found to follow that legal doctrine.
Yet it shows that if a court mangled up all facts to fulfil the aim to decide a case within a legal doctrine that actual evidence and facts remain unsatisfactory.
unfortunately the English court does not seem it necessary to control publications as for correctness and in the very important field of being able to speak freely ones’ grievances, and in the even more important field of terrorism, the courts are not worried whether publishers use actual facts or assumed facts and the English law unfortunately does not need to examine cases properly.
More worryingly still the ECHR does not do their job properly either. There are now single judges that decide whether cases are being allowed and those judges also follow legal doctrines. The ECHR does not even show an interest to police their own guidelines through the English courts. 90% of applications to the ECHR are dismissed for failure to comply with listing regulations. That is more than concerning and shows that the ECHR is unable to deal with a mounting discontent over judicial processes throughout Europe, which should be a huge worry for lawlords. Yet I have not read one article that judges are actually worried about this.
Quite often throughout my case evidences were not properly examined and much time was spent looking at other case-law, which was not relevant to my cases. Evidences from the Defendants was presented, which was quite obviously printed all on the same printer when it was said that it came from several different parties and the court accepted all this without question.
What I am trying to say is that if people get the impression that courts do not account for evidences properly any longer then people get the impression that justice isn’t working any longer and if people cannot rely on justice they tend to spill out into anarchy. I think that every sentenced and imprisoned person somehow agrees to a judgment against them if they can understand and appreciate the reasoning behind the sentence but if those sentenced feel that justice was flawed then they can appeal. and if justice doesn’t allow a fair appeal process then they often enough become violent. I have however no plans to become violent at all and feel that we need to keep it together and make sure that our daily lives go on as peaceful as possible.
Unfortunately in civil cases the law sees little joy in helping those without money and those with money can win cases as long as they can afford an expensive lawyer.
The law sees the importance only on the cases where people can pay costs and that is most likely going to be the downfall of UK civil law. You cannot purchase justice because justice is something that must not be dependant on financial status but if it does depend on financial status then it becomes automatically a corrupt process and unfortunately I have to say that English civil justice has become corrupted.
Regardless of that, I think we all enjoy our lives in peace and serenity, at least as much as possible and the current situation in the UK is of real concern to us all. The overall discontent has now only recently emerged with the establishment of the new government. Yet the disagreements are not very deep I should say. During my legal cases the Conservatives, Labour and Liberals all agreed amongst each other that this case brought by me the German immigrant deserves thorough dismissal. Mr Osler posted on Mr Gray’s blog that the Germans were defeated just as in World War II again. Yet the pleasure the English still have on winning World War II shows how sentimental they really are and still live in the past. But there are changes on the horizon.
The recent concert of an Israeli orchestra was interrupted here in London, which is quite astonishing, considering the UK takes considerable pride in having defended the Jewish race against the Germans in World War II. So there is an important shift in the political agenda to the far right in this current political climate.
There is wide-spread protest on current reform plans and open revolt among young people against this new government. The recent harmony that was reached on the Internet highways over my case has totally disintegrated into open hate against the government, when they thought they could help their way out of unpopularity by helping Labour win the case against me. Well that didn’t last very long and didn’t help the Conservatives push through the ‘reforms’ they wanted to achieve. It however shows how false and two-faced the Conservative Party is when on one hand they took my membership contributions and on the other volunteered a lawyer to defend the political opponents against my case. Prominent Conservative public figures appeared in evidence against me and for the Labour Defendants. The same prominent public figures who loudly voiced sexist remarks especially Guido Fawkes made controversial appearances on behalf of the Taxpayer’s Alliance. In his astonishing disgusting remarks against me, Mr Fawkes received widespread support from a group of anonymous bloggers.
I have decided to re-publish all my posts made during my civil cases because I took them off whilst I applied to have the cases heard before the ECHR who have now refused to look into them because they simply want to play along with the UK on this one. I think it’s a mistake by the ECHR but obviously they care very little what I think. I am perceived as a totally unimportant person and as a woman at that, English and ECHR justice cares little about their own failures to examine their own legislation properly and failure to adhere to their own rules. Whilst I won a hearing before Justice Stadlen over the publication rights of an English blogger, the court failed to examine properly who is actually publishing what and failed to determine the actual technical status and web master’s status of Mr Hilton. It is immensely important to the case that Mr Hilton actually never was the web master of his own blog as it was then and that he only actioned a browser panel as user of the service. That is immensely important under Regulation 19 and the E-commerce regulations. I still belief Justice Stadlen had some wrong interpretations despite finding for me on that one.
To me it just shows how ridiculous the legal process has become when a whole court can sit over 3 years and produce judgment after judgment against 1 single woman and feel good about that without even given me any type of legal support. This shows how little justice cares to be seen to be working in the UK today.
I am not bitter about the outcome of the legal action but do think it reflects the corruption of UK and European Justice today and it is only a very small part of the overall disorganisation and corruption that affects the UK and Europe today. Of course the big corruption affects us all in the shape of the recession we are in today and the constantly ongoing cases against banks. The economy is down and we are also suffering an age of natural disasters. It is important to keep focussed. I do not want any problems because of my own problems with the courts. But I feel if they do not improve their workings they will just drive themselves into the ground and to a halt.
But we have seen the problems that Freedom of Expression has already suffered during the recent riots. That the Prime Minister openly called for the stop of Social Network messaging when people call for riots to take place.
I would say there is an important differentiation to be made. It hinges on the facts.
1. If people are genuinely disaffected and have suffered discrimination, maladministration of justice, poverty, hunger, or other genuine problems, then there is a genuine cause to discuss this openly and that may lead to a common cause for open revolt. That is something no government can stop because if there is a common cause then people will always organise to overthrow a bad regime and even if that takes a long time.
2. But there are always those who wish to instigate revolt by publishing material that is ill-founded and untrue and is aimed to radicalize the few that just wait for a trigger to go over the edge and cause damage to their otherwise peaceful communities. The Baader-Meinhof group is just one example of an ill-founded uprising.
I think that my cases fell into that second category. I still maintain that the publications about me were untrue and I have provided ample evidences to the court about this. The facts I presented to the court were accepted by the court. It is just that the court could not decide that if you accuse somebody of an underlying terrorist association, that this is illegal. I have studied the publications that exist about Germany in the 60s and 70s and some publications, which are also on the BBC website say that in Germany at that time up to 35% of Germans had passive sympathy for the Baader-Meinhof group. I find this unbelievable. That would mean that every 3rd or 4th person you meet in the street supports the activities of that terrorist group. I lived in Germany at that time and never even met people who openly supported their activities or even spoke about them.
Simultaneously we see those reports of students protests that went on in Germany. The fact is those were very isolated incidents and did not widely take place. If you get a demo in one street in one town that does not mean that this actually takes place all over the country.
Compare it to today’s riots in Britain, those riots were much more violent and widespread than any Baader-Meinhof sympathy ever happened in Germany and yet the English publishers would not write that 35% of all people in Britain sympathised with the rioters. Of course the UK publishers do not want to be seen writing about open support for rioters in their own country. They only ever do it about other countries.
It is very unfortunate in my view and will have dire consequences that the publication machinery today simply is out of hand and facts are distorted to please a policy. Even if I now read reports about what happens in Iraq, Syria and especially about the alleged atrocities and human rights abuses under Gaddafi, I often ask myself but where is the evidence to proof that allegation. We are presented with cases that say that such and such people are responsible for the death of so many but where is the proof? We have seen it in Iraq, that publishers or politicians made a case for invasion and that took place despite later evidences saying that there were no weapons of mass-destructions.
Unfortunately the reading public is gullible and fed so much information that has no proper basis whatsoever other than the gruesome facts that are then blamed on the bad person that the media and the politicians have chosen to pursue.
We recently have seen a string of media scandals whereby persons had publicly been vilified by the press and then it emerged that reports were false, sensationalist and ill-founded. Large amounts of compensations had to be paid out and reporters had also been found to intrude in people’s private lives by hacking into their phones. Yet the law has not come to grip with good case-law to stamp down on irresponsible media reporting and the general public continue to be mislead by the press until it comes to the crunch and we are eventually told that it was all wrong, but in the meantime we have to belief what they tell us.
Publications often disperse as bullying one person or another. In my view this state of affairs reflects on the facts that our economy is down and people lost their way and the diplomatic decency and respect towards each other and is simply a reflection of social disintegration that I hope can be put back into function when the economy picks up again. People who work are usually more content and less prone to become verbally abusive towards each other.