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I still notice today that when I search for my own name, very old stories come up tops,which are long out of date and have nothing to do with recent developments.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

The naked prince of Las Vegas

Obviously the person who took those pictures must be familiar to Prince Harry, as I do not suppose that this nakedness happened in a crowded room full of people but it rather looks like an intimate little party to me. The pictures have been carefully selected to cover up the lady but show the prince in a relatively modest pose. I am sure there are much more naughty snaps.

Is public nakedness now in fashion? The judge dealing with the naked rambler doesn’t think so and kept him behind bars, under lock and key pending a psychiatric assessment. Stephen Gough now has an argument in that it has become acceptable to show yourself of naked in public in one form or another whether on the street like he does or in pictorial form like Prince Harry does.

Of course the Sun is desperate to sell papers, in the light of plenty of free reading material laying around like Metro and Evening Standard.

The fight for the reader’s money bring papers to more risk taking and we are confronted with increasing nakedness and private stuff. Thanks for sparing us toilet pictures and the like.

I do not want to compare Prince Harry with Stephen Gough, I want to compare our society with Stephen Gough. We want to see naked bodies, Stephen shows it and we can’t wait to see more.

Of course good old Mary Whitehouse knew that this would happen and she was booed on many occasions for trying to prevent the obvious. Ever since nuns threw away their veils society has become more hungry for the flesh.

The probably ensuing legal case between the Palace and News International might help to define the meaning of privacy or what we really need to see as the public these days. But then the old Greeks had no problem with the naked torso; ;look at the beautiful statues.

The fantasy that ensues the onlookers mind is their problem isn’t it? Obviously not every person gets the same emotional reactions when they look at naked flesh surely it is very much an individual’s thing.

A Labour smear campaign

Since the article that caused the editor of the London Bangla newspaper to appear in court, I can only comment at this stage, that this smear campaign leads directly to the Labour Party headquarters here in Bethnal Green because it announces a meeting there in conjunction with a smear on a candidate for the Tower Hamlets Mayoral elections. Wonder how much Freedom of Expression that case is going to get.

Considering that the Labour Party meeting rooms in Cambridge Heath Road are Helal Abbass’ meeting rooms as well, it must have been a double whammy for him to find that his opponents wanted to heckle him outside of the party rooms.

There is a lot of double crossing going on in political parties in this area and all parties, if need to, just pull together to defeat one enemy created by a party machine in favour of somebody winning an election.The Bangla court case was announced today on Ted Jeory’s website.

From the e-mail address of the publisher of the ad, is little to be known but there is a mobile number given. Would not guarantee that the chip still works. But this just about shows how low the quality of “political” campaign is in this area.

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?

The contemporary sting of privacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 months to complain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest free-speech controversy

Just as I thought, ‘how long can any celebrity marriage survive the scandals’? I read that Irma Nici, sues David Beckham back under Freedom of Speech legislature and her representative is supposed to have alleged that Beckham tries to stifle free speech by suing her for alleging Beckham paid for for a threesome sex session.

Nici’s lawyer reckons Americans value their right to speak about the ‘truth’ in print. Yet Nici has not provided “any” evidence for her claim.

It’s going to be very interesting this one, to watch and follow the tangle to unfold.

Those broadsheet scandals can become seriously expensive to a celebrity player, as  Wayne Rooney had his £7 milliono Coca Cola advertising contract cancelled over his prostitute sex shame as the Sun calls it.

I don’t know, in the old days it was generally accepted that husbands could go astray and keep Concubines and other second-hand partners on the side, but today, it’s a big deal literally.  There are a lot of rich men’s wives who put up with it, as they know they can’t do anything about it but then others rather take a divorce settlement instead. Is it really in the public interest to revel in rich men’s extraordinary sex lives. Once papers get hold of someone’s alleged misgivings, for whatever reason that can put a serious strain on that person’s live, marriage and earnings potential. I am not sure whether this is really in the public interest or rather a private matter.

A surprising outcome

My appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Stadlen against the Kaschke v Hilton [2010] EWHC 690 (QB), decision was declared as totally without merit. Well that might be good as the court at least gives my case some credit. So the Court of Appeal has refused to re-consider the decision in the Light of Striking out the claim either in terms of publication or merit of the claim itself in terms of value.

I just had those news from Mr Dougans who got it from the Court of Appeal so he says, though the official website results do not show it yet. 10:35.

Even though I made the decision mainly over the costs order against me that followed, it is good in terms of that the Court of Appeal doesn’t feel that the decision could have included a strike out, as it was intended by Justice Eady when he gave permission to appeal to Mr Hilton.

At the worst case scenario the Court of Appeal could have heard the Appeal and allowing counter appeals and deciding that Mr Justice Stadlen should have dismissed the case there and then. But another possibility is that the court declares the application for permission to appeal the Hilton ruling as totally without merit because the case had been struck out by now. Another fine way to get around another determination of the Regulation 19 issue. I doubt there is someone in that court that would know how to do it properly. They are just trying to avoid the issue, lol.

Even if I win this case I will write to Strasbourg for an opinion on the merits of the analysis with regards to the E-Commerce Regulations, as I am interested in that subject.

Unfortunately I feel very much discriminated against in the court, compared to the former Defendants I was always asked to proof treble strong what I tried to achieve whilst the court always held in favour of the Defendants from the start. I felt very much excluded and forced into the outsider position, in which I still am. You can see if you read the judgments, they are favourable to the Defendants, they promise them victory and they discriminate against Freedom of Association issues. I wondered why Justice Stadlen mentioned my Respect membership as if it was the last party I belonged to and he makes it look like he uses that as reason to justify the bloggers publications about me. He wrote I am a member of the Respect Party when I became a member of the Conservatives on 11.9.2007. I think this was done with intent to make the judgment more convincing and condemning.

Yet that can only come from someone who is prohibited in discriminating against people for certain associations.

I personally have an interest and do research in political development and have done so for a while. I have started to write a book on the subject as well but had no time to come anywhere near completion.

I think any trained lawyer can see the mistakes in the judgments, the parts and quotes that have been used out of context to decide in the favour of the former Defendants. But not even the best arguments will help if the court is decidedly against me. Mr Justice Eady started it off basing his judgment on pure assumptions and case law like Godfrey v Demon, for witness statements being struck out if the publication cannot be proven, Stern v Piper for the repetition rule have all been ignored to concoct some rulings that are entirely bizarre.  I can see the threat in all judgments that strike out are based on an assumption of left-wing activities and try to justify the allegations, but that is strictly speaking against the rules of the European Court of Human Rights.

A lot of the case-law in the latest Stadlen judgment has been taken out of context. The court tries to misconstrue quotes from other authorities and in particular Burstein, Lord Denning made some very good remarks about admissibility of character evidence but it was all dependant on justification and or properly before a jury. Whereby properly before a jury actually means before a jury and not assuming it is before a jury and deciding what that assumed jury might decide.

I think it is too easy for a court to say, you are not going to get much damages, as that is a purely relative and subjective impression.  This rule can be used on anyone the court doesn’t like or wants to push out in favour of a Defendant. This rule is open to abuse.

I can only continue to persevere because that is what the European court rules expect me to do.  I think I suffer a considerable miscarriage of justice.  I run against a wall of consented ignorance and condemnation towards me and wonder whether it is partly because of my German origin.

My learned friends!

My confidence is rising, even though I am not on a Mission from God, I have seen the light. I am now looking forward to the appeal procedure because I feel I have some very good arguments in support of my case. May any judge find what they feel fit to find, it is their decision in the end, that is the decision that sticks with them forever. It is a free world, isn’t it just.

Just a secret, my Reverend tells me each and every week to do God’s work in the coming week. Ah. So I shall.

Access to Justice

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

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

This fast removal procedure denied them Access to Justice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Access to Justice is the key to both problems.

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

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

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

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,121 hits
%d bloggers like this: