July 10, 2008
Iraq Mercenary Boss Hires Schillings To Block My New Book
Schillings are a firm of libel lawyers dedicated to prevent the truth from being known about some deeply unlovely people. They managed temporarily to close down this blog (and several others) to keep information quiet about the criminal record of Alisher Usmanov. Now they are attempting to block the publication of my new book in the interests of mercenary commander Tim Spicer, one of those who has made a fortune from the Iraq War. It is sad but perhaps predictable that private profits from the illegal Iraq war, in which hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died, are providing the funding to try to silence my book.
Libel law in the UK is a remarkable thing - Schillings can go for an injunction when I haven't published anything about Spicer yet and they haven't seen what I intend to publish. People might conclude that Spicer has something to hide. You will see that they also are attempting to censor not only the book, but what I say at the Edinburgh Book Festival on 12 August. I can assure you that they will find it impossible to affect what I say about Spicer at that event.
Nor will they prevent me from publishing the truth about Spicer, one way or another.
Keep making 'em sweat, Craig!
These former Scots Guards-turned-mercenaries are determined to stay in the news at the moment, aren't they?
Posted by: BristleKRS at July 10, 2008 6:38 PM
"Schillings are a firm of libel lawyers"
Yes indeed. Enough said, I think.
A graphic demonstration of the difference between the law and morality.
What I would like to know is Spicer's relationship with the government/establishment?
Aegis appears to be the army of the establishment who rake in vast profits from the blood of Iraq?
I would like to know where the funds came from for setting up Spicer's companies?
Due to some nice PR, there are no Mercenaries anymore.
I pointed out to the BBC that under the Geneva Conventions, there is no such thing as a "private security contractor". Under the Geneva conventions, these men would be classed as Mercenaries. It makes no difference whether they are employed defensively rather than offensively. I asked the BBC if journalists were instructed not to use the word "Mercenary".
The head of BBC News, Helen Boaden (or someone writing on her behalf) responded.
"There is no policy as to how the Blackwater employees are described but in general it is our policy to give as precise a description of people as possible and to describe them as mercenaries would imply that they were employed for the purpose of taking part in armed combat."
Yet there is no such implication as I pointed out in my email. It makes no difference whether a combatant is acting offensively or defensively (e.g. defending a General). Does a soldier suddenly cease being classed as a soldier just because he has been deployed in a defensive capacity? Of course not.
So the BBC place Mercenary company PR above the definitions in the Geneva Conventions. They are of course not alone in this. Without this kind of media complicity, such firms would probably not be able to operate.
Perhaps in the future we can look forward to some BBC documentary on the US war of independence where Hessian Mercenaries are redefined as Hessian Private Military Contractors.
I doubt Schillings can get an injunction against this:
Follow the link below - comment in Lawyer mag from Gideon Benaim, solicitor from Schillings says:
"for the record, I am not against free speech".
Can you email me a tel number where I can call you either this evening(preferably), next hour,or tomorrow.
To discuss a case.
Posted by: Jay at January 28, 2009 10:19 PM