Change font size
It is currently Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:25 pm


Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 4   [ 49 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:11 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Readers of The Sunday Telegraph (hard copy and online) may be surprised to see what appears to be an apology in the current edition, relating to Rajendra Pachauri. As far as the paper goes, however, it is actually a non-apology – as a careful study of the words will reveal to anyone with a modicum of intelligence (a dwindling band, one fears).

View full article here

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:38 am 

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 6700
It's odd. Whenever someone engages Farter-Cuck you know that they are bang out of order and trying it on anyway.
It is worth remembering NuLabour were all lawyers anyway with bed- and legal- chambers somewhat interchangable.
This shows that Farter-Cuck are "Enforcers for Scum".....
But we knew that.

_________________
If you don't get grumpy as you grow older then you aren't paying attention


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:45 pm 
On 22 August 2010 we published a post about The Sunday Telegraph and its item “Dr Pachauri – an apology (for a human being)”. The post was not intended to suggest that the newspaper was withdrawing any of the claims made in the original article or to suggest – and this is a red herring forced on us – that the moon was made of green cheese, and we accept that Carter Fuck found that Dr Pachauri could make them “millions of dollars” in fees. We apologise to The Sunday Telegraph for any implication of retraction.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:22 pm 
Press freedom is an important in holding powerful men and organisations to account. Your report is alarming in a week when we learn of two super injunctions imposed by footballers trying to keep their names out of the newspapers. These super injunctions are part of the judiciary's attempts to impose a European style privacy laws. There are also moves in South Africa to curtail press freedom.

I am only mildly interested in the antics of premiership footballers even on the field, but when an elected politician who bribes other European leaders has a second secret family hidden behind privacy laws then I am worried. I doubt very much that the current coalition government is too concerned about the libel laws or covert privacy laws. I suspect this creeping censorship suits their purpose.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:30 am
Posts: 3172
Location: portugal/germany
Medes & Persians...............provided you 'belong' to the self-defined right people you are fireproof. Of course, self-definition is a variable & depends on which particular elite has wormed, lied or, in rare cases, forced its way to power; but the result is the same.
There simply is no justice today for the average burgher, even if he has a bottomless pocket & those days are long gone. 'Redistribution of wealth' into the pockets of the elite, naturally, has put each & every law-abiding citizen in a carefully designed bureaucratic jeopardy in which he has no recourse to so-called justice.
Horror stories abound & are a daily occurrence...one such Kafkaesque example today at:
http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/fig ... -sandwell/
We are irretrievably in the deepest ordure....that's what happens when you drop your guard, go to sleep...or are plain fucking stupid.
Waaaaaaah!
Too late!

_________________
Know thine enemy..........The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
Ronald Reagan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:01 pm 
There is a wider point here and I am unsure of the truth of my received wisdom.

Perhaps someone can assist?

Richard - you allude to "no win - no fee" insurance - several years ago I was told by a drunken solicitor that that was the reason for the explosion in claims in the motor insurance business - the scum sucking bottom dwellers could insure for "out of pocket expenses" in the event of a "no win - no fee" action spinning out into the weeds. So "no win no fee" transforms into "win-win" wink, wink.

Am I labouring under a paranoid delusion or is this indeed the case ?

Proven vexatious claims should be easily actionable too - as in this case simply rattling the legal cash tin is enough to put the wind up some folk - I think the perpetrators should have some financial exposure . I recall an amusingly bad tempered spat with a solicitor I called an "ambulance chasing lying scumbucket" who came after me threatening libel after a very minor fender bender where he sent me a detailed medical claim within 24 hours of the event before his driver had even been seen by a medic.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:30 am
Posts: 3172
Location: portugal/germany
Scum in every profession....but only the legal profession has turned scum into a profession.

_________________
Know thine enemy..........The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
Ronald Reagan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:07 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:34 pm
Posts: 123
Location: Hampshire
So am I to understand that the Telegraph is to pay over a hundred thousand pounds to the law firm, even though they believe there is no substance in the accusation? Surely the paper could not sustain such losses for long and so they will have to stop printing any contentious articles or go out of business.

_________________
The truth is out there


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:10 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Tom wrote:
There is a wider point here and I am unsure of the truth of my received wisdom.

Perhaps someone can assist?

Richard - you allude to "no win - no fee" insurance - several years ago I was told by a drunken solicitor that that was the reason for the explosion in claims in the motor insurance business - the scum sucking bottom dwellers could insure for "out of pocket expenses" in the event of a "no win - no fee" action spinning out into the weeds. So "no win no fee" transforms into "win-win" wink, wink.

Am I labouring under a paranoid delusion or is this indeed the case ?

Proven vexatious claims should be easily actionable too - as in this case simply rattling the legal cash tin is enough to put the wind up some folk - I think the perpetrators should have some financial exposure . I recall an amusingly bad tempered spat with a solicitor I called an "ambulance chasing lying scumbucket" who came after me threatening libel after a very minor fender bender where he sent me a detailed medical claim within 24 hours of the event before his driver had even been seen by a medic.


It is actually even worse than this ... by some strange quirk (if it is a quirk), lawyers working under the no-win, no fee system can charge double for their costs. And since their costs are entirely unrelated to the scale of the damage, you have the system where it is not the fear of damages that becomes the constraint, but the excessive legal costs, which completely alter the calculus. A newspaper might take a risk on going to court, knowing that even if they are found against, the damages will be minimal. But where the costs are out of all proportion, it becomes too expensive to take the risk.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:12 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Derek wrote:
So am I to understand that the Telegraph is to pay over a hundred thousand pounds to the law firm, even though they believe there is no substance in the accusation? Surely the paper could not sustain such losses for long and so they will have to stop printing any contentious articles or go out of business.


This is what is killing investigative journalism. Why should any paper take the risk? More to the point, as you suggest, few newspapers can afford the risk.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:30 am
Posts: 3172
Location: portugal/germany
Obviously such a situation is completely untenable & unacceptable...it must not simply should, be changed.
Who was initially responsible for introducing this travesty? I suspect yet another elitist scam to frighten even those with deep pockets, from speaking up. It amounts to a further curb on the freedom of speech (teehee) at the highest level, the Press....and when that goes, you know exactly under what conditions you are governed...WW2 was fought, obviously in vain, to rid the Country of the threat of such dictatorial ordure.
Make no mistake, this particular nail in our already well-sealed coffin must be removed ASAP if not much sooner.
The Battle of Britain Days of Glory thread is running concurrently!!!
Sheesh! What was it all for?

_________________
Know thine enemy..........The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
Ronald Reagan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:44 pm 
They can charge double their "costs"???

Sounds like yet another word in the English language has lost it's meaning in the legal lexicon..., I mean, costs are simply that = a reimbursement with possibly an admin fee element - surely a accurate reckoning of the time expended at an hourly rate is on the court records too - open to public scrutiny? Ho-hum, it is law and not justice I suppose.

An Augean stable scenario for sure.

I'm still none the wiser about who's doing these insurance policies though - if they exist I think we should know exactly who issues them and what the terms are.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:46 pm 
Five years ago I was asked to advise the defence in a libel case. A magazine had claimed that Roman Polanski, the convicted paedophile, had tried to seduce a waitress in New York while en route from London to Los Angeles to identify the body of his wife, Sharon Tate, who had been killed by the Manson "family". The allegation cannot be true, I told them - he could not have been in NY at the time.

However, it'll be fine, I thought, he has no reputation to lose. Also, he cannot even visit the country for fear of being extradited to the US. How could he get round that if he wanted to appeal directly to the jury? He was allowed to give evidence via video from Paris! It was amazing: this little television with his face on was a constant reminder that the man was on the run for sodomising a 13 year old. And still the jury thought he had a reputation to lose.

The judge awarded him 50 grand. Costs were 20 times that...

All these publications have insurance. I wonder why they no longer claim on them.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:53 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:34 pm
Posts: 123
Location: Hampshire
It seems astonishing to me that the newspapers are not campaigning for a change in the law. After all the press still have enormous power.

_________________
The truth is out there


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A non-apology
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:10 pm 
There's this outfit (warning: Denis McShane pictured):

http://www.libelreform.org/pledge-wall

One of those pictured is Jonathan Ross. The first paragraph of this article suggests that he is a very strange inclusion indeed:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 931985.ece


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 4   [ 49 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net