Do Not Feed The Troll

February 7th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

Someone really should have a word with Dave about Nadine Dorries. The sort of word that you’d have with someone that had their shirt poking out through their trouser zip…

(source, source) (h/t @dlandoncole, screenshot by @unslugged)

There is so much in that tweet that says so much about Dorries, that it is a little gem that just sums her up.

It’s hysterical. It tries to shut down her opponent immediately. It is threatening, whilst taking a victim stance. And as to the law, it is completely wrong. It is also completely at odds with a couple of other tweets from Dorries over the previous two hours…


and the tweet that got the reply from @mrhazzers…


Now, without implying @mrhazzers was trolling (he wasn’t, it was a good point that Nadine continuously refuses to address), that’s a funny old laugh Dorries has got.

*If you don’t know what @mrhazzers is referring to then you want to read the following:

#Dorries: The MP Who Cried Wolf (The Letter, Part One)
#Dorries: The MP Who Cried Wolf (The Letter, Part Two: Flitwick & humphreycushion)
#Dorries: The MP Who Cried Wolf (The Letter, Part Three: Chris Paul and a special surprise… or two)
#Dorries: The MP Who Cried Wolf (The Letter, Part Four: A Burglary, Carter-Ruck & Me)

Paul Dacre must di…

June 23rd, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

A couple of links.

Angry Mob – Abuse and Defamation

Angry Mob receives a Nasty-O-Gram from the lawyers of Associated Newspapers.

Ministry of Truth – Daily Mail threatens media blogger with libel action over two year old article

Unity casts an over over the blog post in question and the letter sent to the hosting company.

Needless to say, neither the Daily Mail or Paul Dacre, come out smelling of roses.

Bahrain: I’ll get my dad on you!

June 15th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Via D-Notice2012 (the blogger formerly known as D-Notice) I hear that the Bahrain government is going to sue the Independent for publishing stories about anti government protesters being shot by police, torture, being in the pocket of Saudi Arabia, etc. Y’know, the usual Middle East dictator/ruling royal family past-times and hobbies.

My first reaction was “good luck with that”, but then I remembered our courts aren’t the most sensible at times, especially when a foreign government (and one that is now in the Saudis’ pocket) is concerned.

D-Notice notes that UK local governments can’t sue in English courts, so foreign one shouldn’t be able to either. It looks like they’re gonna try, though.

If Bahrain does get to court it’ll be for libel, I presume and so the onus will be on the Indie to prove what it says is true rather than Bahrain to prove otherwise. This, I’m guessing shouldn’t be too hard for the Indie to do seeing as a) it isn’t just the Indie saying this stuff and b) the Bahrain government has singled out Rober Fisk as the main reporter responsible and Fisk has a reputation for being bob on with this type of thing.

But does Baharain really want to go to court, or is it, more likely just trying to scare the Indie/press?

Bahrain has much more resources than the Indie and so could drag this out and cost the Indie so much that it hashas no choice but to capitulate, after all, if this did get to court and the judgement went against Bahrain, it could open it up to charges of war crimes or crim against humanity (or whatever) and end up with arrest warrant being issued against it’s leaders for the International Criminal Court (or whatever the place is called).

Would that threat if the ICC scare the Bahraini officials? I doubt it.

My second reaction was ” WTF? hasn’t this guy read the British press?”

The “Publications director-general and acting press and external
media director-general” Nawaf Mohammed Al-Maawda has

called upon all media to observe accuracy and objectivity and project the true image…

Hahahaha! In the British press?! Like I said, good luck with that one.

Another opinion that isn’t up to scratch

July 24th, 2010 § 4 comments § permalink

This is getting fucking ridiculous.

Surely an opinion is not legally fucking actionable? Calling someone or something stupid is subjective and so not a fact.

When Councillor John Dixon called the Scientologists stupid, that was his opinion. If you put Scientology up against, ooh, I don’t know, any religion I could come up with, then it doesn’t look quite such a stupid thing to be dicking around with. Compare it to atheism and yes, it’s fucking stupid.

The same goes for design. The old addage of beauty being in the eye of the beholder is true. Take a look at this site. It’s Gordon Browns’ place on the web. Y’know, the ex-prime minister.

What do you reckon to it? I think it’s a bit shit and agree with this chap, Luke Bozier

I apologise if I’m blunt, but this website is not befitting of a former Prime Minister. It has an unprofessional feel to it, and doesn’t portray the image of a statesman and one of Labour’s biggest figures.

Some other people think differently, like Tangent One who make the template for it. In fact they like it so much they are threatening to try and find a judge that likes Gordons’ site and fuck Luke for all he’s worth in a libel suit.

What the fuck has happened to make these people and entities think that a subjective opinion is actionable? Isn’t libel supposed to be about the mis-representation of facts? How can a design be factually good? Like hasn’t tried to present Tangent as trying to con Gordon Brown or any of they’re other customers, he’s just stated his opinion that they’re website template isn’t suitable for an ex-prime minister. Luke even states that Tangent make “some brilliant websites for the likes of Levi’s, Channel Five, Cadillac & Borders…”.

Tangent PLC’s executive director…

I really don’t like the prospect of either a public slanting match or legal action, but if I need to protect my company’s business and reputation, I will.

May humbly suggest two ways of protecting Tangents reputation, and hence business…

  1. make better websites
  2. do not threaten spurious legal action over opinion, especially on the internet. It has a habit of er, not going as planned

Notes on Tyrone D Murphy vs Groucho Club

February 28th, 2010 § 2 comments § permalink

I’ve just had this comment left that, after checking with Tyrone about it’s accuracy, deserves a post of it’s own…

Groucho –V- Murphy
The Groucho –V- Murphy case is now at an end as the Groucho Club pulled out at the very last minute. The Club issued a discontinuance notice on the 3rd November 2009.

This move came just 5 days after a manager from the Groucho Club came forward and made a statement to support Mr Murphy’s case. The lengthy and revealing statement with attached exhibits that included internal e mails and CCTV footage from the club was immediately lodged with the Courts. The manager’s damming statement totally refuted the Groucho Clubs statement of case. Murphy is now chasing the Groucho Club for his costs.

Another interesting development in this case is that the Groucho Club have issued a Bankruptcy petition against Murphy for costs of £5000 on the very same day they issued the discontinuance notice for the failed libel action which will allow Murphy to claim his costs which are over £50,000.

This raises some very serious questions about the Groucho Club’s tactics and overall conduct throughout the duration of this case. The Groucho Club would of course have know that Murphy is entitled to claim his costs (£50k) so why would they then would they make such a dubious move and issue a bankruptcy petition for a much lower amount of £5k . Was this nothing more than an underhanded tactic that was merely done to avoid paying Murphy’s costs in the failed libel action? If so, is this an abuse of the legal process? If not, what other possible reason or motive could the Groucho Club have to make such a dubious move?

There is yet another episode to this dark and lengthy saga – Murphy who at all times has represented himself as a litigant in person (LIP) had taken an action against the Groucho Club in a Wales County Court This was a Data Protection Act case, Murphy’s statement of case was that the Groucho Club had not complied with the Data Protection Act and failed to supply him with CCTV he requested from the evening of the 12th June 2008 . Murphy’s case also stated that the Groucho Club had more than 2 CCTV cameras at the Club on the evening and he was seeking the additional footage from these cameras

The Groucho Clubs position in the case was that they did supply Murphy with all of the footage he requested and that the club had only ever had 2 CCTV cameras, 1 camera in Dean Street and 1 camera in the reception. The Groucho Club stated they had complied with and adhered to the Data Protection Act and provided Murphy with footage in response to 2 separate subject access requests under the Data Protection Act.

Murphy also stated that the Groucho Club CCTV system was not registered with the Information Commissioners Office until a year later 25th June 2009 and any footage that was recorded before this time would have been recorded illegally. Murphy also stated that the CCTV system had no signage in place or a trained or licensed CCTV operator

The footage supplied by the Groucho to Murphy was alleged by the Groucho Club to be from the 2 CCTV cameras in the club, (1) Dean Street and (2) the main reception of the club. This was the Groucho Clubs official position for over a year and the same line was also stated by the Groucho Club in their statements before that were put before the Courts.

The Groucho Clubs Defence to particulars of Claim also stated clearly that the Groucho Club had only 2 CCTV cameras (1) Dean Street and (2) the main reception of the club and that they had supplied Murphy with the footage from those 2 CCTV cameras. In addition a solicitor within the firm of Devonshires, who represented the Groucho Club also stated to Murphy over and over again when he inspected the footage at the firms London offices, “this is the camera from (1) Dean Street and this is the camera (2) the main reception of the club”.

During the case Murphy lodged evidence with the courts that suggested that the footage supplied to him by Groucho club was not at all from the main Reception CCTV camera of the Groucho club but was footage from an obscure doorway at no 42 Dean Street, the other end of the building.

This is where the Groucho Club story changes; they put forward a new version of events that totally contradicted their earlier version. This new and different version that came very late in the case had now stated that the Groucho club did indeed have more cameras than the 2 CCTV cameras as Murphy had asserted, but they said that the 3rd camera was not working on the evening of the 12th June 2008, the footage from the night that Murphy had been seeking.

Murphy maintained throughout that he viewed himself on the CCTV monitor in the main reception of the Groucho Club on the 12th June 2008 and sought an explanation from the Groucho Club as to why he was supplied with footage from a CCTV camera from an obscure doorway at no 42 Dean Street instead of the footage from the CCTV camera in main reception. He did not get a satisfactory answer

Yet another twist in the case, Murphy had managed to procure the old CCTV system from the Groucho Club and he had brought it to the Court as evidence. This included the Video Recorder, Video tapes, a CCTV Switcher and the original CCTV cameras from the club. The CCTV system also included the CCTV camera from the main reception. This CCTV camera is still in good working order

Margaret Levin the managing director of the Groucho Club was in attendance in Newport along with a specialist barrister and a very expensive legal team. The court denied an application made by the Groucho legal team to dismiss Murphy’s case on the grounds it was totally without merit. Although Murphy did not succeed with his application he did however lodge crucial evidence with the Courts that will be used in another action that Murphy is planning against the Groucho Club

When the issue of costs was addressed the Groucho Club sought £21,000 in costs. In addition Margaret Levin the managing director was seeking first class rail tickets for her trip to sunny Newport, Murphy strongly objected to this and stated to the court that he, as a litigant in person and could not afford first class. It was during this stage of the proceedings that the managing director, Margaret Levin lost her temper and blew a fuse. She shouted to the Judge “Don’t be so bloody cheap”

Margaret Levin’s superior demeanour towards the Court and the proceedings was obvious to all who attended. Although they sought £21,000 in costs the Court answers was to award the Groucho the poultry sum of £220 in costs. This was a severe kick in the teeth for the Groucho Club as Margaret Levin’s haughtiness had now cost the Groucho Club dearly

I think what we all forget is that Murphy is one man, a litigant in person who has taken on a very powerful media club and its owner corporation, He has succeeded in the libel case where others have failed and has had he guts to see it through to the bitter end and never back off.

BBC backs down against Trafigura

December 17th, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

The BBC caved in

[Claimant] In September 2009, a joint statement was agreed and issued by Trafigura and the solicitors representing around 30,000 Ivorian claimants who had brought personal injury proceedings in the English High Court. The statement (which was endorsed by Mr Justice MacDuff, the Judge who had been due to hear the trial, as “100% truthful”) recorded that the experts instructed in that case had been unable to identify any link between exposure to the slops and the deaths, miscarriages and chronic and long-term injuries alleged.

Following Trafigura’s complaint over Newsnight’s story, the BBC carried out a detailed further review of the available evidence and of Trafigura’s detailed response in its Reply in these proceedings. The BBC accepts the conclusions reached by the experts in the personal injury action and reflected in the Reply. The BBC therefore acknowledges that the evidence does not establish that Trafigura’s “slops” caused any deaths, miscarriages or serious or long-term injuries. Accordingly, the BBC has withdrawn those allegations and has agreed to broadcast an appropriate apology on Newsnight, to join in the making of this Statement in Open Court, and to publish the Statement on its website.


My Lord, on behalf of the BBC I accept everything my friend has said. The BBC withdraws the allegation that deaths, miscarriages or serious or long-term injuries were caused by the waste and apologises to Trafigura for having claimed otherwise.

The BBC hopes that by the joining in the making of this Statement it will assist in setting the record straight.

via BaldyWilson Index On Censorship

BBC silenced

December 15th, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

Trafigura, the multinational oil company that got it lawyers, those most ethical of legal eagles Carter-Ruck, to put a super-injunction on the UK press and, inadvertantly or not, Parliament have threatened to sue the BBC about a Newsnight report.

That report has now gone. It’s been pulled. Below is the Newsnight report:

The is also a .pdf of the report too.

For more see Richard Wilson.

Please embed the videos (1, 2) and link to the .pdf on your site too.

/via D-Notice

Operation Freedom: Proof reader needed

October 20th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

Operation Freedom, the new campaign for er, something by the BNP have just made another cock up.
The latest email update libelled Peter Hain with the headline…


Peter Hain has stated he may (or he is?) take(ing) legal action to stop Fat Nick going on the BBC Question Time as the BNP may not be a legally constituted party.

Peter Hain was arrested in the past, apparently, but is not a bank robber, obviously.

The email with the libel was sent at 11:31am, with a follow up at 11:47 with the word ‘suspect’ added in the headline. Whether this correction will inhibit Peter from taking any action, I don’t know, but presume it does. Which is a shame.

Oh dear, BNP. You had better be more careful in future.

Trafigura, Carter Ruck and a sock stuffed in a mouth

October 13th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

The Guardian has had a legal sock stuff in their mouth by those champions of justice Carter-Fuck on behalf of Trafigura

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations

I am absolutely staggered that a court would give such an order.

Alex Massie in the Spectator reckons he knows what the question is and the gagging order is to try and suppress this report.

This gagging order may not go right to the heart of Parliamentary privilige, which alllows an MP to speak in the house without fear of being prosecution or legal action, but it punctures a lung of an open parliament.

It may be the case that groups and individuals may be barred from being named, granted anonymity, in the reporting of parliament for reasons of national security, but to have that applied purely for commercial reasons is disgusting.

An open, freely reported parliament is essential for a smoothly run and corruption-free (as far as possible) democracy.

Something has gone very, very wrong.

I also found this at Sweeney* Maddison, the judge that approved/passed/whatever-it’s-called the order needs his arse kicking about this, too.

*apologies to Mr Justice Sweeney there.

Groucho Club vs Tyrone D Murphy

August 28th, 2009 § 6 comments § permalink

After a few days of trying to find out anything concrete from an independent source, it is here, by Judith Townend

The Groucho Club is to take libel action against an author of a book not yet published to prevent publication of allegations about the famous media haunt, Index on Censorship and can report.

In October, a case management conference will take place at the Queen’s Bench division of the UK High Court to decide future progress of the case, Kapital Ventures and the Groucho Club London v Tyrone D Murphy and Classic Media Entertainment. The claimants expect to recover in excess of £15,000, it is stated in the claim form.

Previous to this, and the same on Index on Censorship, all that turned up in searches were comments almost exactly like the one left on my blog, press releases on free-press-release websites and a small blog by the author of the comments. Nothing authoritative or independent. Matt Wardman, who also had a comment left on his blog, tried contacting the Groucho Club directly, but they didn’t feel too chatty.

As Matt points out in his more comprehensive post on the matter, there is a precedent for this, Where solicitors Schillings acting on behalf of mercenary Colonel Tim Spicer tried to get an injunction on one of Craig Murrays’ books.

I was wary about this when brought to my attention as the manner of it looked like either a scam (that I hadn’t worked out the hook) or a ham-fisted attempt at promoting a book by an internet naive PR company. There may be an element of the latter, but it doesn’t seem that way now. At least not a scam anyway.

It seems, once again, that thanks to our archaic libel laws mean free speech is going to be either suppressed without proper chance of being proved correct or come at an enormous price, where the lawyers win.

We await more details.

For more information see:



  1. I don’t doubt that this libel case is real, not for a minute, but there are a couple of things that play on my mind:

    The author. On it states…

    The authors are currently seeking information to include in the book

    but then further down lists Tyrone D Murphy as the sole author. That’s a pretty basic mistake that isn’t just a spelling mistake but makes the statement inaccurate.
    In a post on his blog EF Orwell states that he is the author. Although he doesn’t mention the book or club by name, it is obvious that that is what he is talking about with the other information that we know. That’s not the usual thing to do is it? Would that get more help?

  2. has the registrant recorded as ‘g-book’. The registrant of a domain has to be a proper, real person. Who is this site really registered to? Why have they obscured themselves? What have they to hide?
  3. Who’s the anonymous Wikipedia editor

Some answers are needed, even if only to clear things up.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with libel at Sim-O.