Comments on: A Setback for the Brotherhood in Britain

By: Alec M

Alec M — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:18:01 +0000

Pre-empting any plaintive cries – such as from Sunny Hundal – about why we can take any delight in financial ruination of the NLCM or trustees.

By: Gordon Bennet

Gordon Bennet — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:15:57 +0000

I still disagree with the potential of libel laws to silence dissent and line the pockets of serial litigants, but the PE did not initiate this… the NLCM did, presumably with the hope of ruining the PE.

Not sure I follow the logic, Alec.
Why is it “but”?
Of course NLCM initiated this – and PE are the ones who were supposed to be silenced.

By: mettaculture

mettaculture — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:09:56 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haZPPBJC8Ic

By: amie

amie — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:08:31 +0000

For those of you are eagerly awaiting a change of gvt- Dominic Greave in his interview yesterday stated that he was against any amendment of the libel laws to place the onus on the claimant, or to tighten up the jurisdiction rules (so that you should not be able to sue in the UK if as in one case all the parties are Ukrainian, the statement was published in the Ukraine and maybe 3 people in the UK may have read the Ukrainian website.) He was only in favour of one reform, namely to the fee structure and the conditional fee arrangements.

By: PetraMB

PetraMB — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:46:13 +0000

Oh, oh, I think HP is in trouble: if suspecting the mosque of doing anything “Hail Mary”-like doesn’t lead to another libel suit, I don’t know what would…

By: Alec M

Alec M — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:41:31 +0000

I doubt it’s more to do with Eady’s kritocratic munificence than the sheer absurdity of the case brought by the NLCM. I still disagree with the potential of libel laws to silence dissent and line the pockets of serial litigants, but the PE did not initiate this… the NLCM did, presumably with the hope of ruining the PE.

I hope they dig deep into their pockets.

Have a look at what a certain someone said:

http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2007/12/newsnight-rips.html

By: Frank

Frank — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:23:26 +0000

Isn’t North London Mosque the ’success story’ that Bob Lambert is always going on about?

You know, the one where the Metropolitan Police helped to defeat Abu Hamza’s jihadism by appointing a Hamas jihadist in his place.

Nice work. Thanks for that.

By: Adrian Morgan

Adrian Morgan — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:28:53 +0000

Monty
27 November 2009, 8:20 pm

Are we expected to believe that Mr Justice Eady finally got something right, and it wasn’t at gunpoint?

Perhaps someone should send for an ambulance, he must have had some sort of nasty bang on the head.

___________________

It is surprisingly out of character for him.

He got Polanski to sue Vanity Fair in London while the plaintiff stayed in Paris on a video-link. This was done lest Polanski get arrested in Britain and deported to the States to face justice for the paedophilia he confessed to.

Allowing a known fugitive from justice to conduct a libel trial in Britain on a video-link, helping him to avoid his punishment and then giving Polanski the benefit of the case was probably one of the lowest moments in the history of British justice.

By: Monty

Monty — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:20:41 +0000

Are we expected to believe that Mr Justice Eady finally got something right, and it wasn’t at gunpoint?

Perhaps someone should send for an ambulance, he must have had some sort of nasty bang on the head.

By: Lynne T

Lynne T — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:01:59 +0000

Alec:

Even broken digital clocks are correct for a second once every 24 hours.

I must say that given how heavy the onus on the defendants are under British defamation laws, the plaintiffs must have had an extremely weak case.