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.

Advertisements

Miliband sees my point on publishing

Labour has now experienced first-hand how publishers character assassinations can ruin someone’s public profile completely. Reason, political tendencies are being created by denouncing a person’s character using political rhetoric. BBC has produced several articles about this, see one link here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24361040

However it was Labour’s own strategy to use those denunciations whilst Brown and McBride worked together. Indeed David Osler, John Gray and others, used the tactics to smear me publicly and I lost a libel case due to the fact that high-profile publisher Iain Dale, started to collect funds and several friends of the defendants used a Conservative lawyer to produce mostly falsified evidence in court. The court was of course only too glad to accept the evidence because it helped to protect the British flagship publisher Der Spiegel.

But one of the defendant’s ally, namely Iain Dale is already falling victim to his own bad character. He recently assaulted a peaceful protester and got a caution. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24285711

Prison in lock-down

I find this story that a Serco run private prison is in lock-down quite interesting in a very personal way.

During my trial against Gray in particular Kaschke v Gray, Mr Gray’s most important argument was to say to judges that because I had been locked up for 23 hours per day, I must have been perceived as potentially a very dangerous prisoner. The judges throughout the high court accepted his argument.

Looking at this Serco prison, Thameside jail, it seems that locking up prisoners for that amount of time is merely a matter of prison management and cannot reflect on the status of the prisoner.

I was merely on remand in 1975 and found to be completely and totally not guilty of anything, yet prison authorities found it easier to put me in as isolated prisoner with 23 hour lock-up rather than let me mix with others.

This is yet another reason why the judgements of the High Court of Justice and all Justices finding on my cases is totally unacceptably flawed and should be struck out retrospectively.

It is quite obvious that the High Court was practically looking for reasons to strike my cases out and any reason was gladly accepted. Of course Mr Justice Eady was the leading judge in the proceedings against me who held these biased trials right from the start, to protect Der Spiegel.  That then rubbed off on the cases against Osler and Hilton too.

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!!!

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.

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.

I agree with Assange in one aspect

The rule of law is breaking down because English lawyers use the law to make political decisions. It is woefully inadequate how the publication laws are unable to stop secret material to be published because the Freedom of Expression gives everybody a right to spill the beans on government secrets.

I think Assange must answer claims of the sexual nature that he has been accused of but the law should never use another reason to enforce those Swedish claims.

I noticed it during my own case that there is a disturbing mix of sexual harassment and political agitation going on and that always needs victims, unfortunately I may add. Yet the English courts are terribly indecisive and do not want to upset freedom of expression at any cost, which is too expensive really.

I have experienced myself how high-court judges put a political goal before the stark reality of the evidence in the case before them. In fact I think of trying a complaint in that nationalist emotions have lead a judge to make a ruling that is not supported by the actual evidence and that evidence has been bent to fit the case as desired. That is a crime.

But has it not always been like that with show-cases and show-trials. It doesn’t matter what you say or put before the court, they are determined to find one party guilty and that is set outcome. Are we any better? No!

Is there ever a chance to get justice from a justice system that is bent?

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

about publications

due to lack of time I bulk-republished over 150 posts. Somebody had complained that I took all my posts off from the court case. I have no time to go over each post individually right now. If you have a complaint please contact me and I shall remedy it straight away. Thanks

an era of discontent

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.