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ruled that search engines, and so with also other internet service providers have to filter out irrelevant, old and no longer valid content.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.

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!!!

People only read the headlines but do not click through to read the whole story.

I think this story from Brazil is proof that people do not click through to read whole stories but only look at headlines and first sentences. It is given considerable weight in English law that readers are expected to read the whole story but every judge in the High Court refused my argument that people just do not have enough time to read everything they are confronted with and only look at headlines. The head line and first sentences provide a lasting memory in the minds of most readers and Internet visitors today.

I still notice today that when I search for my own name, very old stories come up tops,which are long out of date and have nothing to do with recent developments.

Brazil has opted out of Google News altogether when they noticed their sites actually got less traffic.

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.

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.

A new iron curtain?

I suppose the title of my most previous post “A bad political strategy” could also head this one, which is about the Russian, Iranian and world political relationship.

Russia now refuses sanctions against Iran over the Iranian development of nuclear energy. The UN, in line with western expectations accuses Iran of wanting to develop nuclear weapons. It all sounds like the run up to the next invasion of some eastern country by western and UN led forces.

Iran say they have a right to develop peaceful nuclear energy but the West of course accuses them of wanting to make nuclear weapons. We had arguments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it led to the Iraq invasion and enquiries ever since. Iran has long been a thorn in the eyes of the western politicians, as it will not bow to pressure and is outspoken in opposition to all western policies. Israel has already vowed to invade Iran and attack them to destroy the nuclear power plants they have built or are about to build.

The Russian – Iranian allegiance makes this very interesting though in a dangerous sense.

Britain is at its best to seriously annoy the Russians though, which again draws a big international line across our world geography. Russian oligarch has won case against Russia in the case of murder allegations. Now has an active court case before the High Court, in particular Justice Eady, claiming billions from the owner of an English football club who happens to be Russian. So the Russians do not mind being part of our western world. Anybody really loves their footsie. The West however wants to see more submission to us in the political sense as well as the football club alone.

If Eady J now lets the Russian defector win against the Russian football club owner, there will be some serious thinking to do what can be done with the political headache that is about to become a giant migraine. Of course I said it before and say it again, the courts and in particular civil law is not the method to make politics but this is what is emerging. Judges make politics these days and it not only jeopardises the functionality of justice, it also can cause a war. Think about it. If Russian sides with Iran and the West attacks Iran and Russia is on their side, we have a big dangerous scenario.

News: Joshua Rozenberg Interviews Mr Justice Eady

News: Joshua Rozenberg Interviews Mr Justice Eady.

It is worth blogging this just to highlight the discrepancies of reporting in the Sunday Times and what the well-known Inforrms blog makes of the content of the interview.

There is the reflection on Article 8 to both privacy and libel as a recent development. However the privacy of sexual activity is again the focus point of an interview that points out the dialogue between public interest and personal habits.

The dialectic of Justice

I am surprised that Mr Justice Eady made that judgment in the football privacy case after all the arguments I brought before the court in my own cases, which I lost. I provided the court with lots of evidences about how electronic communications and communications networks function and how users can be established and the arguments came that whatever was written was fair comment. I evidenced also and so did many before me that communications work on different channels (Lennox Lewis case), a bit like the old-fashioned village gossip really. Can anyone stop people from talking about something?

Word goes around and does not stop at certain borders but one should expect that facts stay facts really. It is not a question about the facts in the footballer case, which is different from my own cases. In my own cases the facts were disputed but this is not so in the footballer privacy case.

I heard only yesterday who that footballer allegedly was because it was on the BBC website and I usually only get wind of things once its on the BBC. The Scottish Herald argues that Scotland is not within English jurisdiction, quite right but why was that Injunction granted in the first place.

In my view its because justice always worked to defend the rich and those who can afford it even if it is a little bit silly. If it bothers someone really a lot and they are willing to spend a lot of money on it then justice will serve that person. Of course I also argued in my case about seeking Judicial Review that this principle “We are all the same under the law” was only invented so that the rich could be prosecuted for the same crimes as the poor but that was not properly digested by the court.

Especially in cases where there is no legal aid the courts are only willing to find for those who can afford the best lawyers for th longest amount of time and of course footballers can really spend the most money on anything.There is some very pungent case law that proves that cases were only continued because litigants could proof they can pay costs and those cases where then won by those who could afford to pay costs; the case of Prince Radu is the best example.

That is why this silly judgment came about that really doesn’t make sense especially not as the story seems to be true. How can anybody stop people from talking about something that is true?

I posted about this before, if people do not want people talking about their sexual behaviour they should simply not exercise that sexual behaviour. It is the oldest story on earth that the rich and famous always had “concubines” as they were called under the French royal courts. And it is a bit the same, isn’t it, that what the old Aristocrats did then the rich still do now. Who can blame the poor girls for wanting to be fancied by the rich? No one really can apart from the church.

The matter has by now become ridiculous and I am not about to make myself very popular with those who do not want to be able to look truth into the eye or have been made to believe that their case has really good merit because they could afford to pay justice to allow them to rule that make belief. That is really the danger, that if you can afford to pay for something then very powerful people will support you and you will only be shown the door by the poor masses who do what they always did, Gossip in one form or another.

The question arises should English justice really always serve the rich in civil cases or show more common sense and avoid making a few bucks out of some applications?

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits