British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

andyandy said:
Surely, surely our MPs can actually see that this law needs a massive overhaul? And whilst there is some head of steam building over this cause celbre, it is a law that has needed change for years. God our elected leaders are pathetic....
Click to expand...

Yes, but they may, personally, find it useful some day.
 
andyandy said:
Does anyone know when a judgement is due? It is staggering to the point of unbelievable that this is tying up the number of judges and barristers it is, for as long as it has already....

Surely, surely our MPs can actually see that this law needs a massive overhaul? And whilst there is some head of steam building over this cause celbre, it is a law that has needed change for years. God our elected leaders are pathetic....
Click to expand...

In part it seemed to be fixing itself before Eady got his hands on it.
 
andyandy said:
Does anyone know when a judgement is due? It is staggering to the point of unbelievable that this is tying up the number of judges and barristers it is, for as long as it has already....
Click to expand...


The judges have other things to do as well. If you look at today's Cause List (i.e. the one for 10th March - it will soon change to the one for the next day) you'll see, for example, that Lord Justice Sedley is involved in four cases on it. The barristers will also be involved in other cases.

What the judges are doing, in effect, is writing a detailed essay on the law involved in the case. This would take time even if they weren't busy with other cases.

The judgment is expected some time this month.
 
BillyJoe said:
Each to his own I guess, but I'd be surprised if SS uses a law which he believes to be wrong
Click to expand...

Singh's option is to sue for actual libelous statements, not non-libelous statements like the BCA is doing. Singh does not advocate the abolition of all libel laws in England, just revising or replacing the current law.

For example, I believe the personal injury laws in California are ripe for abuse. But if I were injured in an accident in California, I would still reserve the option of suing under those laws. I just wouldn't sue for injuries I didn't actually sustain, nor would I sue for money beyond what would be needed to pay my medical bills and lost wages.
 
Instead of just talking about it, perhaps all newspaper and book publishers should actually stop exporting to England and block access to their online versions in England.
I wonder how quickly that would get a response?
 
BillyJoe said:
Instead of just talking about it, perhaps all newspaper and book publishers should actually stop exporting to England and block access to their online versions in England.
I wonder how quickly that would get a response?
Click to expand...

My suspicion is that it wouldn't get a response at all. It would simply reinforce what many within the British courts appear to believe.

One of the books I've read is Tom Bower's Maxwell: The Outsider. There are those that seem to suggest that had Bower not written the book, nor had it been released, Robert Maxwell would still be with us; that Maxwell was hounded into committing suicide. My own suspicion is that much of the content in Bower's book was already known to the majority of those in power in England, and Maxwell was already on the edge as it was.

Still, some might suggest that this is adequate reasoning for Britain's libel laws to remain as they are.

Counter that, however, with the book Spycatcher, in which Peter Wright examined the possibility that Roger Hollis was a Soviet Mole. Perhaps he was, perhaps he wasn't, but the question needed to be examined. That it was allowed to be published in Scotland suggests that there are some rather screwy minds behind England's libel laws.
 
BillyJoe said:
Instead of just talking about it, perhaps all newspaper and book publishers should actually stop exporting to England and block access to their online versions in England.
I wonder how quickly that would get a response?
Click to expand...

Must publishers are multinationals and it isn't practical to shut yourself out of the UK market.
 
geni said:
Must publishers are multinationals and it isn't practical to shut yourself out of the UK market.
Click to expand...
If they did not publish on the UK market, but somebody bought it and brought it into England, would it then still be subject to British libel laws?
 
steenkh said:
If they did not publish on the UK market, but somebody bought it and brought it into England, would it then still be subject to British libel laws?
Click to expand...
Yes and that is the point. It does not even have to come into this country.

If a Tibetan writes something about a Zambian and it is only published in an Alaskan Newspaper, the Legal action can take place in the UK, as long as the person (allegedly) being libelled has a 'reputation' in the UK.

Some people in the UK think this is wrong. This is one of the critisims of the UK libel laws. Others include the presumption of guilt unless innocence can be proven and the ability of the lawyers to claim double their fees if they win.
 
Last edited:
volatile said:
Can someone explain to me why Eady heard a case in London from Boris Berezovsky, a Russian, who sued a Russian TV station over claims he murdered Litvinenko? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8559543.stm). How can a Russian citizen sue a Russian TV station in the UK?!
Click to expand...
These claims could damage his reputation in the UK as a money launderer buisinesman.
 
steenkh said:
If they did not publish on the UK market, but somebody bought it and brought it into England, would it then still be subject to British libel laws?
Click to expand...
Lothian said:
Yes and that is the point. It does not even have to come into this country.

If a Tibetan writes something about a Zambian and it is only published in an Alaskan Newspaper, the Legal action can take place in the UK, as long as the person (allegedly) being libelled has a 'reputation' in the UK.
Click to expand...


As far as I'm aware the material complained of would have to have been available to be read in England or Wales. For example in the Bin Mahfouz v. Ehrenfeld case the English court had jurisdiction because although the book had been physically published in the USA, it was available in the UK via internet retailers, and a chapter had been available on the internet (see paragraphs 14 and 15):
In December 2003 it came to the claimants' attention that the book was being published in England and Wales containing defamatory allegations about them. The book was being sold through online retailers such as Amazon.co.uk, Blackwells.co.uk and Amazon.com.

The claimants also discovered that the first chapter of the book was separately available on the ABC News website.
Click to expand...


I think it might also be necessary to demonstrate that copies have actually been sold to people in England or Wales; in the case of something published on a non-UK website, I think it might be necessary for the claimant to demonstrate that it had been accessed in England or Wales.

NB: I am not a lawyer.
 
volatile said:
Can someone explain to me why Eady heard a case in London from Boris Berezovsky, a Russian, who sued a Russian TV station over claims he murdered Litvinenko? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8559543.stm). How can a Russian citizen sue a Russian TV station in the UK?!
Click to expand...


See the second paragraph of the judgment:
The channel is free to view. It is available without subscription throughout the United Kingdom. There are thousands of Russians and Russian speakers living in Britain (indeed, I was told that there may be several hundred thousand in London alone). One of the witnesses, Mrs Marina Litvinenko, told me that many of them do not integrate too well here and are still very much focused on life in Russia and on the Russian viewpoint on current affairs generally. Her evidence is supported by other witnesses. Mr Yuli Dubov, for example, compared Vesti Nedeli to Newsnight, although he thought it would attract "a broader audience". It is likely to have attracted particular interest on the night in question because it had been trailed in advance as throwing new light on the notorious murder of Mr Alexander Litvinenko the previous November. The likelihood is that the viewers of the programme in the jurisdiction will have been measured in the thousands.
Click to expand...
 
Well, this explains a great deal. Thanks for this, Mojo.

It also explains why Singh ought to sue the hell out of the BCA. They've slandered in fact, rather than in a theoretical manner. He's not misusing the British libel laws, but utilizing them in the manner intended.
 
Lothian said:
These claims could damage his reputation in the UK as a money launderer buisinesman.
Click to expand...

It is pretty incredible just how much power UK law cedes to these Russian Robber Barons who plundered their country of billions businessmen. Alisher Usmanov is another example. Except you can't even find out much about him any more without hassle because he employs attack dog lawyers and google washers to make sure that any google hits are either positive or taken down.....

Craig Murray's account survives on the interweb by bloggers:

[Editor's Note: Craig Murray, former United Kingdom Ambassador to Uzbekistan, author of the book, Murder in Samarkand: A British Ambassador's Controversial Defiance of Tyranny in the War on Terror, and contributor to Atlantic Free Press has recently had his personal blogging site - as well as a number of sites not owned by him and on the same server, taken down by his U.K. hosting company due to pressure from Schillings, a high-powered London Law firm, on behalf of Uzbeki Alisher Usmanov - the latest Russian billionaire to move to the United Kingdom. Usmanov's lawyers have gone after the host of Murray's site rather than Craig Murray himself. It seems they would prefer not to have Murray on the stand in a courtroom. Usmanov is allegedly livid - as it has been leaked that he was not a political prisoner at all, but rather a hard-nosed criminal.

We at Atlantic Free Press feel that bloggers, hosting companies and Internet publishers cannot operate if they are bullied by rich plaintiffs.

Defamation law in the United Kingdom, asinine as it is - needs reform. Mistakes on blogs can easily be sorted - particularly where they permit commenting which allows postings to be criticised, facts corrected, and arguments opposed. Rather than arm-twisting legal tactics.

However, Usmanov, the nouveau riche thug that he is, chose to throw money at his lawyers to shut down those who dare to legitimately criticise him and has now gotten his hands full and has been locked in the cyber jaws of what is known as the "Streisand Effect" and learned what the power of the Internet really is. THOUSANDS of blogger's have rallied to support Craig and those who have been taken out by Usmanov's high priced lawyers at Schillings (whose reputation, backed up on their website by the laughable case studies currently being mocked across the "blogosphere", is now at stake). Too bad they did not do enough research nor care to notice that other well-known political figures were on the same servers as Craig and were also pulled - including prospective candidate for London mayor Boris Johnson. Now it's now gone viral on the Net and is being picked up in the mainstream media.
Click to expand...
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/ne...hug-criminal-racketeer-heroin-trafficker.html
 
Last edited:
I don't really see a problem with being able to sue in UK if it can be proven that there was a UK reputation at stake. The real problem IMO lies in the assumption of guilt until proven otherwise. That's the main driving force of the UK libel tourism.
 
Roadtoad said:
It also explains why Singh ought to sue the hell out of the BCA. They've slandered in fact, rather than in a theoretical manner. He's not misusing the British libel laws, but utilizing them in the manner intended.
Click to expand...

I must admit I have not seen where they have slandered him, except for one occasion when they rapidly withdrew the comment.
It is that particular occasion that you are referring to, or are there others that would make a case for SS legitimately sueing them?

In any case, I think it's a mute point, because SS is not going to tie himself up in legal matters for another 4 years. Already he has had to withdraw from the Guardian and he has had to delay the start of his new book by a year already.

Also he could be seen to be using laws that he condemns.

All in all, it would be a very bad move by SS, in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom