Thursday, April 10, 2008

Legal Beagles Sniff My Blog

Crumbs! I must say I feel very privileged to discover an internationally renowned firm of libel lawyers taking a keen interest in my humble jottings. London based Schillings specialise in what they call 'reputation and brand protection', and according to my counterstaterometer they spent the best part of 15 minutes this afternoon studying the 109 comments appended to my initial posting of the Dreamland fire.

In the past Schillings have successfully had the plug pulled on a number of UK based blogs on behalf of ultra-wealthy clients, without the expense and inconvenience of having to go to court to actually prove defamation or libel. This they achieve by sending strongly-worded letters to quivering ISPs who generally without a 'by your leave' cave in quicker than a Thanet cliff face. Many people have had their life's work (well, their blogs at least) zapped as a consequence, including such luminaries as Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekhistan, and Tory candidate for Mayor of London Boris Johnson. To read more, click here.

Quite why, and who, sent them this way one can only speculate. There again if you are thinking of speculating, on balance I'd rather you didn't.


Anonymous said...

Fringe political group Thanet Independent Action has disbanded, according to its leadership

Rick said...

Dr Paul Darke was taken on by the Leonard Cheshire charity re domain name and has an anti Leonard Cheshire website now. IE CLearly a site setting out his criticisms, as a disabled rights activist and former employee of the charity, of the charity. That dispute did not appear to be about challenging the facts asserted (like the charity four million per year PR budget or the executive salaries or the low number of disabled people employed by the charity)

But if you google up Leonard Cheshire you may find their numerous websites tend to swamp the result.

My own internet contributions have now been cited in the thesis of Dr Laurence Clarke (the comedian who did the anti Jim Davidson show) of Sheffield University. This is published on web with no attempt at action.

Without speculating as to whom, I doubt that the possible interest taken in your site is backed by a four million per year PR budget ?

You are a reasonable chap. If approached by email you would address any issue properly brought to your attention.

You may know the answer to thism one. Two years ago the Times and the Mail on Sunday were allegedly interested in reporting a story arising from their interest after the PRO release re the Nazi war criminal Horst Kopkow (protected and recruited by MI6)

A journalist (and TV documentary producer) approached me. I continually referred him to the website I maintained then. BUT he said that he could not refer readers to a website as the newspaper becomes liable for the whole contents they refer to. (IE Beware of links).

What appeared to be happening was that he could admit to reading the internet piece and what he then publishes must be based only on the explanation he sought from me ....

I refused to co-operate at the end. As it was clear to me he wanted to attribute to me evidence which was that of Regional Crime Squad. I deposed what the RCS man told me as first hearsay which would be admissible under inquisitorial rules of evidence.

But that is different from saying that I formed the suspicions.

My point is then also that maybe the lawyers aint targetting you for action but investigating whether you might be useful in another action ??

Best of luck

Anonymous said...

Let's keep Schillings' own reputation to the forefront of all blogs.
As blogged in Cally's Kitchen recently which relayed an exchange with Mr Schilling himself.
(Real or imagined.)

"Next time you speak to Mr Schilling perhaps you could ask him why he represents rapists* and embezzlers**; presumably he thinks their actions are not more heinous than the remarks they object to.

* Roman Polanski - drugged and sodomised a 13 year old child. He was 44 at the time but thought it was legal to have sex with 13 year old girls in California, not because he thought she was older. What decent 44 year old man would want to?
** Denis Christel Sassou Nguesso - the son of the President of the Congo used the national income of the impoverished country on luxury goods for himself. Mr Schilling tried to get an injunction to stop that information coming into the public domain - he failed.

And not forgetting *Iorworth Hoare - a violent serial rapist who won the lottery. Mr Schilling did not know Mr Hoare was a rapist but nevertheless when he got a call from a convicted criminal to say he had won the lottery whilst in jail and didn't want anyone to know, Mr Schilling took the case on - obviously with no questions asked."

All in the public domain. There's bound to be more - what about the Government of Saudi Arabia - another failure (Ofcom Report) and on the day a Saudi woman was sentenced to flogging for being raped. Great PR.

When are Schilling's clients going to realise going to a self grandising firm like Schillings means their business is broadcast around the globe?

Rick said...

Good points

But what I was saying to ECR is that it maybe (A small chance) that his site is being screened in order to quote selectively in a matter between other parties ?

IE Not targetting ECR but using his site ?

Rick said...

For example someone who alleges libel who might have difficulty establishing that he has a good reputation locally to damage ?

Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

Didn't Schilling do very well in winning Ringleton Manor Shan Lambert half of the twenty million family fortune (Adscene group)in her divorce settlement.

Heather Mills could have done with him on side ?

Anonymous said...

Shan Lambert was awarded a higher divorce settlement than Heather McCartney because:

1. Shan Lambert made an equal contribution to her former husband's business and was therefore entitled to half its £20m valuation.

2. They were married for 23 years.

Hardly comparing like with like.

Anonymous said... have a history of caving into to this sort of bully boy stuff quite quickly even when they know full well they is no legal authority over them in the courts they are threatened with. Just so you know.