47 – Nil, 47 – Nil, 47 – nil, 47 – nil, 47 – nil, 47 – nil 75

Been doing some filing. Thought you might like these statistics relating to legal threats received by this blog since it started five years ago. These figures also include letters from the Treasury Solicitors threatening action under the Official Secrets Act and other legislation.

Dedicated to Jack Straw, Alisher Usmanov, Tim Spicer, the Quilliam Foundation and nine other bad people with something to hide, who have wasted money trying to frighten this blog out of telling the truth:

Number of letters received from lawyers threatening legal action 47

Number of lawyers involved 11

Number of lawyers told to go ahead and sue or prosecute 11

Number of suits/prosecutions brought Nil

Number of apologies and retractions issued Nil

Damages Paid Nil

Number of flasehoods published Nil

Who says it is not fun running a blog?

Of course, some of these rich criminals and mercenary killers have succeeded in hindering me by legal bullying of other people. Alisher Usmanov had us closed down for three days when he got my webhost to close down the site by threatening legal action. (The Quilliam Foundation tried to pull the same trick but found I now have a much more robust webhost).

Ultra wealthy mercenary killer and war profiteer Tim Spicer threatened my publisher into preventing commercial publication of the Catholic Orangemen of Togo. But he backed down when I published it in full online.

Britian’s notorious libel laws are designed to inculcate fear in those who would publish the truth. But, as with most situations in life, a lack of fear makes things much less fraught.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

75 thoughts on “47 – Nil, 47 – Nil, 47 – nil, 47 – nil, 47 – nil, 47 – nil

1 2 3
  • A Taxpayer

    The point I’ve been making is that your opinions don’t make any sense. You simply pluck them out of the air to suit the moment.

    Upon examination they fall apart at even the slightest probing.

    In short, you’re quite simply not competent to give an informed opinion. You haven’t done the work necessary.

    You’re just a passive consumer of the latest media fashion, a fool, a buffoon, a dupe, without any critical faculty of your own, and absolutely no conception of the complex issues you address.

    It all requires much more work than lazy people like you are prepared to put in.

  • eddie


    Don’t be a moron and a patronising twat. Anyone is entitled to have an opinion. Opinions are not built upon objective facts, they are built upon a subjective interpretation of facts, otherwise we would all think the same and then what would the world look like? Your opinions make no sense to me, but I support your right to hold them.

  • A Taxpayer

    There was an idiot who used to post on Irish cultural and political newsgroups some years ago, before blogs, whose tediously repetitive screeds bore an uncanny resemblance to your inane and pointless utterances.

    His name was Eddie Wall.

    I hope it’s you.

    If there are two of you, we might as well all just give up now, sign up for Faux News and live out our days in ignorant, dribbling bliss…

  • eddie

    I doubt you’ve ever paid any taxes in your life. Do you want us to carry on abusing each other or do you have anything significant to say?

  • A Taxpayer

    Sadly, I’m not rich enough not to pay taxes. Deducted at source, I’m afraid.

    But still. Happy to play my small part.

    As to the matter of abuse, fear not. I don’t feel abused by you, not even were you capable of such scintillating wit and barbed repartee as to demean me so.

    You see. Such transaction would require that I value your opinion.

    Nor am I abusing you. I merely hold the mirror of your words and you see what you see.

    And if you’re bored with little old me, I’m sure you’ll find that Craig has much of significance to say. I trust you’ll rip his arguments to shreds in your usual style.

  • Jon

    Come on folks, let’s not have a slanging match. It clutters up the board, and produces no light.

    @eddie, I’ve mentioned the language thing before, since it looks like you are just trying to get up people’s noses rather than have a civil debate. Please try to be decent to people – it’s not that hard :o)

  • Zen

    There is a simple way to offset risk of libel action. Stage 1 is to produce a document of facts you know you can prove blindfolded and standing on your head. You send it privately to your opponent, stating that you will release it publicly in, say, 10 days, and if there is anything in the document they feel aggrieved about, would they kindly inform you in writing within the 10 day period. This forces them to think and expend resources. Assuming no response, you publish. Then you produce a re-draft containing the next level of allegations. Continue until you have everything in the public domain. If at any stage they decide to sue, you have already learnt a lot about the way they think. And if they sue late in the day, you can justifiably say “Why did you not sue earlier!” I used this technique against a district council engaged in criminal activity over planning permissions. I had several properties, no cash, no lawyer, and was never sued.


  • George Laird

    Dear Eddie

    “eddie, I’ve mentioned the language thing before, since it looks like you are just trying to get up people’s noses rather than have a civil debate. Please try to be decent to people – it’s not that hard :o)”

    It seems that I am not the only to speak out about your language.

    We are all big boys and girls on here so have no problem in people having a pop at us.

    But you should consider that Craig is such a good writer that his blog is probably read by the younger community.

    Craig has used robust language as well but generally in the context of his articles to convey an emotional feeling.

    Firing the lead, no problem but we all have to exercise judgment.

    Yours sincerely

    George Laird

    The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

  • eddie

    Hi George – had a quick look at your site, but could not see any reference to human rights abuses at Glasgow Uni. Can you kindly provide a link?

    You are right that Craig frequently uses abusive language.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.