« Boring, Boring, Boring | Main | Catholic Orangemen Update »
January 14, 2009
UK Libel Laws Busted
We have comprehensively blown wide apart the UK's infamously repressive libel laws. Up until now, these have routinely been used not to prevent untruth, but to hide truth on behalf of the ultra-rich. In so doing they have spawned a whole universe of massively wealthy lawyers devoid of any moral values, dedicated only to the service and pursuit of money.
The leeches at Schillings appeared to have scored a routine victory on behalf of their client, notorious mercenary commander Tim Spicer, who has made a fortune from the war in Iraq. They threatened my publisher, Mainstream, with highly expensive legal action and Mainstream dropped my book.
Only ten years ago that would have been it - it would have been extraordinarily difficult to find a way to get the truth out to a wide public. Schillings, Spicer and the British legal system are still living in the 20th Century when English libel laws could effectiively give untold opportunity for repression.
But we are living now, so we put it free online, and published some copies privately. After just two days, a Google search on the precise phrase "The Catholic Orangemen of Togo" brings up 1,810 hits. A great many of these lead to a free download of the book. 23,000 copies of Murder in Samarkand have been sold so far, and most of those have been read by more than one person. But readership of The Catholic Orangemen looks likely to overtake in two weeks the readership that Murder in Samarkand achieved in two years.
So well done Schillings! The greatest publicist I could have!
Now what of Tim Spicer? Having put the very expensive Schillings on to me, he has either discovered a new commitment to free speech, or he was bluffing. No injunctions have appeared at my home in Sinclair Gardens. So now Spicer has either to sue, or stand revealed to the World as a man who tried to bully the truth out of print.
He will not sue, no matter how much I goad him. Not even if I show him some of my own legal advice:
There is no doubt that Craig is telling the truth. I do not say this because on any question of fact I would believe Craig over Spicer, though that is the case. The simple fact is that Craig can corroborate his story whilst Spicer can't. Spicer has no witnesses who were present at his meeting with Craig and who can confirm what he says. Craig has a witness in the person of another Foreign Office official who not only participated in the meeting but who actually took notes during the meeting and who Craig says was the one who actually produced the text of the UN Resolution so that it could be read out to Spicer. Following the meeting Craig informed his Foreign Office superiors about his concerns about Spicer. A whole series of meetings and discussions about the Sierra Leone situation then followed lasting many months over the course of which Craig abundantly and exhaustively documented his views about Sierra Leone and the conflict there. These are the diametric opposite of those that Spicer says Craig expressed during the meeting between Spicer and Craig. The Foreign Office obviously believes Craig over Spicer because, instead of disciplining Craig, which it surely would have done if Craig had contrary to official policy first given Spicer the green light to sell arms illegally to Sierra Leone in breach of a UN embargo and then lied about it, it instead appointed Craig to a senior diplomatic post in Accra where he was given the important job of brokering a peace agreement to end the Sierra Leone conflict.Since the comments Craig makes about Spicer are true I would have thought it most unlikely that Spicer would risk bringing a libel action against Craig. This is not just because in a situation where Craig can corroborate what he says whilst Spicer can't the odds overwhelmingly point to Craig winning. It is because of the serious consequences for Spicer if he were to bring such a case and lost. These would go far beyond damage to reputation and financial loss. If a Court were to find that Craig had not libelled Spicer because Craig was telling the truth, Spicer could find himself once again facing criminal charges for illegal arms trading. His defence (that the the Foreign Office in the person of Craig had given him the green light) would be shot to pieces since it would already have been discredited in advance by the libel Court. The CPS would be looking at an open goal and this time it might be difficult to do what was done back in 1998 and simply close the prosecution down. Simply by bringing the libel action Spicer would have given the whole matter further publicity whilst by discrediting his own defence Spicer would deprive the CPS of its main grounds for not bringing a prosecution. There would even be a risk (not great but by no means negligible) that the trial judge might even recommend to the DPP that a prosecution be brought against Spicer in which case calls for such a prosecution would probably be irresistable.As for Craig's other comments about Spicer, it is a matter of public knowledge that Spicer is a mercenary even if that is not the word he uses to describe himself. Craig is very careful not to make his allegations about Spicer's activities as a mercenary too specific, so I personally can see no grounds for a libel action there. It is again a matter of public record that Spicer (along with lots of other mercenaries) has been involved in and made a great deal of money from the war in Iraq. Craig makes a frankly gratuitous comment about Spicer's facial appearance, but this is scarcely grounds for a libel action.
I did not have to pay for this advice, because living life as an honest man brings advantages of friendship and respect. I have never knowingly libelled anyone. I have, however, made it my business to uncover truths which the powerful do not wish you to hear.
This blog has probably been the subject of more lawyer's letters - from the British government, from Alisher Usmanov, from Tim Spicer - in the last four years than any other, but I have never once been taken to court, let alone lost a case.
What I hope I have now proved, with the help of Schillings, is that in the digital age any attempt to suppress truth can simply lead to that truth becoming much more widely known. I most certainly hope that the wealthy take note of this and reach less quickly for these fatcat lawyers.
This really is it now, Schillings and Spicer: put up or shut up.
Posted by craig on January 14, 2009 11:11 AM in the category The Book
Comments
We have all done our best to add your links to our blogs and websites.
I notice there are also copies on all the illegal filesharing sites and many people are downloading it.
Posted by: Sue at January 14, 2009 12:23 PM
Dear Mr. Spicer,
Welcome to the Internet. You just got pwned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned
Posted by: Leo Davidson at January 14, 2009 1:03 PM
Well done, Craig. Congratulations. One small step for a Murray, but a giant leap for freedom!
Posted by: writerman at January 14, 2009 1:18 PM
Please, please, please... don't make me wait for the book to arrive from Amazon... what's the gratuitous observation about his facial appearance?
Posted by: Neil Hoskins at January 14, 2009 1:33 PM
Neil,
I'm sure Craig did not mean to imply that he was shifty-eyed.
Posted by: Johan van Rooyen at January 14, 2009 2:06 PM
@Sue: it is not helpful to describe peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing as "illegal filesharing"; this suggests that even those supportive of the idea that 'information wants to be free' have bought government and corporate propaganda on the subject.
It is of course true that P2P systems are used for illegal purposes, but the technology itself is not illegal, which is an important distinction. I suspect information dissemination in our age of re-emerging authoritarianism will depend increasingly on P2P technology, so it is important that those of us who want the corrupt to be exposed not to (unintentionally) discredit it.
@Neil: download a free version and have a sneaky peek!
Posted by: Jon at January 14, 2009 2:20 PM
Another reason why Spicer might be reluctant to sue is the fact that such a case may reveal more information as to the ownership of Sandline. This may be the central issue as to why Schillings tried to prevent publication of your book rather than the fact that Spicer lied etc.
Posted by: Ruth at January 14, 2009 2:53 PM
Congratulations, very well done! Can't say better than that. Looking forward to the 'real' book arriving - the one made of paper and ink.
I hope more people who have been in your sorts of situations, and there must be more than a few, will be inspired to write the truth similarly.
Posted by: ken at January 14, 2009 3:12 PM
Good news Craig.
And hey I made no.3 in that Google search.
The last time Craig hat a Schillings letter on the Usmanov case I also got some
spam from them as I mirrored his post.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2007/09/they-get-spam.html
Now I mirror his book and wonder if they'll send me another one.
I'll just tell them: Lalalalala
Best
Bernhard
Posted by: b at January 14, 2009 3:55 PM
De l'audace, de l'audace et toujours de l'audace...
Very best of luck, Craig!
Posted by: hillblogger at January 14, 2009 4:32 PM
Couldn't resist copying out here a chunk of the Schillings "chilling" letter you posted up earlier under "Free Speech For Free". In the teenage vernacular, sooo fuck you, Schillings!
"Please immediately take into your possession all drafts of the Book prepublication, all notes, emails, correspondence, memos, images and other documents relevant to the publication of this Book, and preserve them safely
pending the outcome of this dispute. They will need to be disclosed in due
course if litigation has to be commenced. Also, you will need to disclose the financial arrangements for the sale and licence of the Book to other publications.
In the circumstances, we require that you confirm immediately that you agree to undertake on behalf of Mainstream publishing Company (Edinburgh) Limited not to publish any libels regarding our client in any editions of the Book or at all.
We require the above undertaking by 4pm on Friday 11th July 2008, failing
which we will have no option but to advise our client with regard to making
applications to the High court for an injunction to restrain publication and ...for pre-action disclosure. You are on notice that we will seek to recover the costs of any necessary applications from you."
Posted by: Strategist at January 14, 2009 5:10 PM
Good news, so far, Craig.
Needless to say, the government will be looking at the libel laws in response.
It may be that libel becomes a criminal offence in which case the bloggers will be disciplined.
Posted by: MerkinOnParis at January 14, 2009 7:33 PM
Try googling for 'Tim Spicer'
Craig is No 1 on google.co.uk and No 3 on google.com
Posted by: derek at January 14, 2009 11:07 PM
we are all part of something special that Craig has started...How different the world would be without you.
Posted by: Stevie at January 14, 2009 11:43 PM
Not only did I order a copy of The Catholic Orangemen, but I will be ordering a copy of Murder in Samarkand from a local bookstore, which I have long contemplated buying. I will, of course, pass the books on to others when I am done reading them.
Posted by: ianjuggles at January 15, 2009 12:33 AM
They don't like it up them Craig!
The 'Catholic Orangemen' should be quite popular with the patrons of my local public library, if North Lanarkshire Council add it to their stock as I am requesting they do.
I live in the heartlands of the Celtic-Rangers football divide - I can just imagine the local head-scratching amongst the fitba' literati when they see the title.
What a pity the author's name isn't Billy Pope!
all the best Craig!
Posted by: joe90 kane at January 15, 2009 9:03 AM
@Sue as mentioned above by Jon; P2P file sharing is not inherently illegal.
It is however a fantastic way of disseminating information, in whatever format, in an efficient and above all decentralised manner. One can only assume that is the reason for the disproportionate level of world wide governmental attempts to control it.
Posted by: Matt at January 15, 2009 10:32 AM
Congratualtions, I shall ask Norwich Library to stock it, indeed we must all ask our local libraries to be so kind and lend us this book. Well done Craig I'm chuffed, just think of the scope for the future, the mind boggles and Arsenal might even be rescued.
Posted by: ingo at January 15, 2009 10:22 PM
Whoopeeee! Well done!
Looking forward to my hard copy. :)
Posted by: oulwan at January 16, 2009 10:35 PM
My comments are being eaten.
Disappearing ... :(
Posted by: oulwan at January 16, 2009 10:39 PM