Friday, 21 August 2009

Bloggers beware? Google forced to identify anonymous blogger

A US court has ordered Google to hand over the identity of a blogger who used her website to defame Liskula Cohen, a former Vogue cover girl. What does the ruling mean for the blogosphere?

From The Daily Telegraph
Bloggers beware? Google forced to identify anonymous blogger
By Claudine Beaumont, Technology Editor
20 August 2009
Comments 15
Bloggers beware? Google forced to identify anonymous blogger

Liskula Cohen, a Vogue covergirl, has won a court ruling asking Google to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger who called the former model a 'skank'

Liskula Cohen, a 37-year-old model, was called a “psychotic, lying, whoring...skank” by the blogger. Cohen needed to know the true identity of the blogger in order to sue her for defamation.

The ruling has divided the blogosphere, with some applauding the decision, and others fearing it could be the thin end of the wedge, setting a dangerous precedent that will enable companies, organisations and individuals to demand the unmasking of any internet commentator they take a dislike to.

The reality, of course, is somewhere in between. There can be little doubt that, over the years, many blogs have used the cloak of anonymity afforded by the web to stir up hatred, resentment and sometimes even fear in the blogosphere, launching deeply personal and threatening attacks on people with little danger of their vitriol and abuse being traced back to their door.

“The rules for defamation on the web — for actual reality as well as virtual reality — are the same. The internet is not a free-for-all,” said Cohen’s lawyer after the case.

Technology blogger Kathy Sierra famously called on the web community to take a stand against “trolling” and abusive comments. She made the move after receiving dozens of death threats through her website. Horrified and outraged, she suspended her blog, and started a debate about whether a “bloggers’ code” needed to be drawn up in order to regulate the behaviour of posters and commentators online.
In circumstances such as that, when someone is in genuine fear for their life or safety because of something that has been said online, it’s hard to argue against naming and shaming those responsible. After all, you would not be able to get away with such attacks in real life; nor should you in cyberspace.
The difficulty comes, of course, with blogs that are merely controversial rather than out-and-out defamatory or threatening. The anonymity that allows cowards to mete out insults and hide behind an avatar is also used by those seeking to expose the reality of life inside a brutal regime, or simply to give an insight in to an organisation or service that impacts other people.
Take, for example, Random Acts of Reality, a blog that charts the work of a paramedic in the London Ambulance Service. Many of the opinions expressed within the blog could be considered controversial, but it would be hard to argue that the blogger’s identity should be revealed; simply exposing something to scrutiny by providing an insight in to its workings is rarely defamatory, or grounds for impinging on freedom of speech.
Likewise, the anonymity of bloggers is crucial, particularly in oppressive regimes. During the disputed Iranian elections, blogs and social media sites allowed people to provide an unsanitised account of what was really happening inside their country’s borders; revealing that blogger’s true identity at the behest of an embarrassed or angry government would deal a grave blow to healthy dissent.
In truth, this ruling simply serves to underscore that real world rules apply as much online as they do in the street, in the workplace, or in school.
The majority of bloggers, no matter how controversial the topic of their blog might be, have little to fear from this court case. It’s the trouble-makers and trolls who need to think hard before hitting publish on their next post.

Related Articles

  • Google exposes blogger

    Related News

Monday, 10 August 2009

News of the World settles Cherie Blair libel case and publishes an apology

An article published by the News of the World falsely accused Cherie Blair of having an 'inhuman' attitude in a discussion about victims of crime.

From by Mark Sweney
Monday 10 August 2009 16.07 BST
News of the World settles Cherie Blair libel case
News of the World settles Cherie Blair libel case

Photo: Cherie Blair: the criticisms were made following her appearance on a panel at a meeting attended by victims of crime. Photograph: Scott Barbour/Getty Images

Cherie Blair has settled a libel action against the News of the World for an article that falsely accused her of having an "inhuman" attitude in a discussion about the victims of crime.

An article penned by News of the World columnist Carole Malone, which appeared on 5 October last year, contained a string of criticisms of Blair after she appeared as a panellist at a meeting attended by victims of crime.

The News of the World settled the libel claim made by Blair, printing an apology in yesterday's edition of the tabloid and online accepting that Malone's claims were "unfounded", and paid unspecified damages and legal costs.

Malone's column made a number of false claims, including that Blair had arrived with hordes of secuity men, only made the appearance at the event for publicity purposes and gave "inhuman" responses about the Human Rights Act when questioned in a panel discussion.

The News of the World apology stated: "In the Carole Malone column on 5 October, several criticisms were made of Cherie Blair after she appeared as a panellist at a fringe meeting attended by prominent victims of crime.

"In particular, it was not right to say Mrs Blair arrived with hordes of security men, only appeared for publicity and was "inhuman" in her responses about the Human Rights Act.

"We apologise to her for these assertions which we accept were unfounded."

Graham Atkins, a partner at law firm Atkins Thomson, which represented Blair, said: "Mrs Blair is delighted with the settlement and that her reputation has been restored by taking this action. She will be paying the damages she received to her foundation."

The law firm also pointed out that Blair has spent a "considerable period of time investigating and highlighting for public attention issues relating to crime in this country". She was formerly the patron of Victim Support London.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".
- - -

Here is a copy of an apology published in the News of the World (News Group Newspapers Ltd.) 09 August 2009:
Cherie Blair


IN the Carole Malone column on 5 October, several criticisms were made of Cherie Blair after she appeared as a panellist at a fringe meeting attended by prominent victims of crime.

In particular, it was not right to say Mrs Blair arrived with hordes of security men, only appeared for publicity and was "inhuman" in her responses about the Human Rights Act.

We apologise to her for these assertions which we accept were unfounded.
Hat tip: Blair Supporter

Note to self. Today, in the sidebar of this site, I have added a link to Graham Atkins, Atkins Thomson and put it at the top for a good job well done.

Cross-posted today at Blair Foundation Watch.

Monday, 27 July 2009

United Kingdom: Court decides against a blogger's rights to anonymity

From Global Voices:  
United Kingdom: Court decides against a blogger's rights to anonymity
June 23rd, 2009 

by Judith Townend

A new legal precedent has been set for UK bloggers.

Last week, in the England and Wales High Court, Mr Justice Eady ruled that a police officer who previously wrote about his working life on his NightJack blog, did not have the right to remain anonymous.

The claimant - now known to be Detective Constable Richard Horton- had unsuccessfully attempted to get an injunction against The Times newspaper (UK) to stop it naming him. Following the court's ruling Horton has now been issued with a written warning by his police force, the Lancashire Constabulary.

A victory for freedom of expression (The Times')… or a severe restriction for freedom of expression (anonymous bloggers)? Popular opinion is divided, though a blog search would indicate that blogger opinion veers towards the latter.

NightJack, the judge said, did not “qualify as information in respect of which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy – essentially because blogging is a public activity”. Eady, who is well-known in the UK for his privacy-protecting rulings, stated:

“Furthermore, even if I were wrong about this, I consider that any such right of privacy on the Claimant's part would be likely to be outweighed at trial by a countervailing public interest in revealing that a particular police officer has been making these communications.”

And the implication for bloggers? “Those who wish to hold forth to the public by this means often take steps to disguise their authorship, but it is in my judgment a significantly further step to argue, if others are able to deduce their identity, that they should be restrained by law from revealing it.”

It's hard to find anyone in the UK (or international) blogosphere overwhelmingly in support of The Times' ruling; and The Times' own stories about their battle received severe criticism from commenters, even if, as Malcolm Coles suggests, some of the negative comments are a little tricky to find…

Three things to bear in mind for background:

  • NightJack had had undergone the scrutiny of a judging panel in order to win the prestigious Orwell Prize for blogging. The prize's director, Jean Seaton, argues why she believes Eady's ruling to be wrong, here, on the Guardian Organ Grinder blog.
  • Horton, who ended his postings after being shortlisted for the award, donated his prize to the Police Dependants' Trust.
  • One of The Times' main arguments for outing him was its claims that ‘he was also using the blog to disclose detailed information about cases he had investigated, which could be traced back to real-life prosecutions.'

The bloggers and commenters have reacted with force, many personally attacking Patrick Foster, the journalist at the centre of what Eady called the ‘deduction and detective' process. I've previously rounded up a good mix of links on the Editors' Blog and my own blog which tell the story, but here are a selection of the best blog posts, which draw out interesting nuances. Opinions include:

  • Those who defend their right to anonymity as a blogging police officer. Eg. PC Bloggs.
  • Others who work in the public sector and write about their life and work. Eg. Tom Reynolds, an ambulance driver with a book deal.
  • Those who think NightJack was a little naive in his attempt to remain anonymous: Eg. Letter from a Tory
  • Those with other criticisms against The Times' approach to the case. Eg. Hopi Sen, once an anonymous blogger.

This is just a summary of a complicated debate. Perhaps the court's decision has surprised onlookers so much because it happened in the UK. We're not living in a repressive autocracy with threatening media laws. While we have stringent libel laws, our freedom of expression extends far more widely than it does for many societies. Perhaps more than it does for most nations in the world - not least because the English language is understood by so many. Yet an award-winning blogger, whose voice, it could be argued, aided the democratic process (see Seaton's article), was not able to stay nameless.

To what extent it affects UK bloggers' future privacy and right to anonymity remains to be seen. I shall report back. In the meantime, all those who are blogging anonymously might do well to take a look at Global Voices Advocacy's guidelines … then they might stand a chance of keeping it that way. Perhaps taking up jiu-jitsu in a Lancashire town, and then writing about it, was a reckless decision on Horton's part.

Please do add any other good links below.

Friday, 17 July 2009

Profiles of top libel specialists in UK

When legal letters threatening action for defamation arrive in an editor's in-tray, the names of certain lawyers can induce a queasy feeling. Robert Verkaik, The Independent's Legal Editor, profiles the libel specialists.

From The Independent
Defame academy: The libel specialists
By Robert Verkaik, The Independent's Legal Editor
Monday, 07 July 2008
Keith Schilling, senior partner of Schillings.

At the beck and call of some major and some very minor celebrities, Schilling has established himself as the "must have" libel lawyer for soap stars and footballers' wives alike. Rubbing noses with the A to Z-listers has also given Schilling a heightened sense of his own stardom, evidenced by an all-year tan and expensive hair highlights.

His firm has a reputation for browbeating newspaper editors which has earned Schilling the sobriquet, "Prince of Darkness." But the firm's aggressive billing policy backfired in 2006 when a judge was dismissive about his use of press cuttings to support his high fees.


Sienna Miller and Naomi Campbell jostle with Noel Edmonds and Michael Flatley for Schilling's personal attention. His big legally significant case was the libel claim by Roman Polanski against Vanity Fair over allegations that Polanski seduced a Scandinavian model just days after his new wife, Sharon Tate, had been murdered. The pint-sized film director successfully won damages against the magazine in the High Court without ever setting foot in the UK.

Nigel Tait, long-standing partner at Carter-Ruck.

Since the retirement and subsequent death of the firm's founder, Peter Carter-Ruck, Tait has steered the firm into pole position on the defamation law firm grid. This achievement is all the more remarkable given predictions of the practice's own demise following a very critical court ruling concerning the way the firm had racked up costs in a case against the Sunday Telegraph. In 2004 the High Court described fees charged by the firm, up to £750 an hour, as "extravagant" and called for a cap on libel costs. The court warned that such high level of fees could have "a chilling effect" on investigative journalism.


The firm is acting for Tesco in its libel and malicious falsehood claim against the Guardian newspaper in which the paper investigated tax avoidance schemes set up by the supermarket giant to protect its massive profits. Tait prefers to talk about the time he represented a six-year-old-boy in a £35,000 libel claim against the Sun – the youngest ever claimant.

Adam Tudor, partner at Carter-Ruck

In a field of law which has a reputation for producing colourful and flamboyant characters, Tudor remains stubbornly dour and humourless. According to those who have to deal with "trivial point scoring" legal correspondence the experience is a joyless one. Recently told a newspaper that if he hadn't been a lawyer he would have joined the police force. "They often (and on occasion deservedly) get a bad press, [but] they serve a crucial role in the community and in society," Tudor earnestly told the interviewer.


Most recently acted for the McCanns in their unobstructed £550,000 libel victory against Express Newspapers. Wasting no time in taking centre stage Tudor, who is also a solicitor advocate, donned legal costume to address the court directly on behalf of his well-known clients.

Alasdair Pepper, partner at Peter Carter-Ruck

Pepper has been at Carter-Ruck since he qualified in 1984. At nearly 7ft tall he is, according to one of those on the wrong end of his "turbo aggressive" legal correspondence, as pompous as he is tall. "Why use one word when ten will do, is his motto," claims another. Pepper is the brains behind Carter-Ruck's early warning system, through which the firm helps clients deal with unwanted press interest before it hits the papers. The firm says clients like him and he has a "no nonsense" approach to litigation.


Has made a name for himself representing former England footballers, including Kevin Keegan (who won £150,000) and Alan Shearer. Also acted for Ken Bates in his defamation claim against the London Evening Standard.

Gerrard Tyrrell, senior partner at Harbottle & Lewis

His reputation for taking no prisoners in matters of libel litigation has won him few friends in Fleet Street. "Comes across as a head boy by trying to make the most of very small points," says one solicitor who regularly acts for Fleet Street. "The last time I dealt with him he started reciting the telephone number of Press Complaints Commission down the phone. When I asked him what he was doing he said if I didn't accept his argument I should ring the PCC to get their perspective of the rights and wrongs of the case," remembers a defendant editor.


Has recently picked up the Clarence House brief and now regularly acts for the Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and Princes William and Harry.

The firm's hard-won royal connections are somewhat tarnished by its association with Beckingham Palace, home to Britain's alternative royal family, Posh and Becks. Last year Tyrrell acted for Victoria Beckham against Richard Desmond's Star magazine in which she was described a "grade-A bitch". Mr Tyrrell told the High Court that Star magazine had agreed to pay substantial damages and Beckham's legal costs and undertaken not to repeat the defamation.

David Price, David Price Solicitors & Advocates

Regarded as something of a maverick when he first opened the doors of his one-man defamation boutique ten years ago. In a direct assault on the Bar he qualified as a solicitor advocate so he could offer clients a one-stop shop. Now proudly boasts the ownership of a rare statue of Rumpole of the Bailey, the fictional figurehead of the Bar, who greets visitors to his Fleet Street offices. Price has grown the firm into one of the most successful defamation outfits in the market. "He has one of the finest libel brains in the business, but he doesn't rub your nose in it," says a defamation defence lawyer.


The fact that Max Clifford, the king of tabloid PR, prefers Price to represent him in his libel dealings with the media says it all. Other clients include Paul Burrell, Samantha Janus and Kerry Katona.

Sarah Webb, head of defamation at Russell Jones and Walker.

Webb is one of only a handful of women who have made it in the highly macho world of claimant libel law. Other notable successes are Tamsin Allen of Bindman and Partners and Amber Melville Brown at David Price Solicitors & Advocates. Webb has built on her firm's long-standing representation of the police and is now the first port of call for police officers who believe they have been defamed by the media. Regarded as easy to deal with, Webb, married to a circuit judge, also has a reputation for being a little "horsey", an observation corroborated by the fact that she is a member of the Equine Lawyers Association.


Webb has since broadened her client list to include MPs, judges, public schools and senior civil servants. Recently acted for Michael Fuller when he was Assistant Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police (he is now Chief Constable of Kent) against the Sunday Mirror which paid out in excess of £20,000.

Eddie Parladorio, partner at London law firm Statham Gill Davies.

A former solicitor with Schillings, Parladorio is regarded as a bit of a rough diamond among London's libel fraternity. "Don't mess with Eddie in or out of court," warns one leading litigator. Parladorio once complained police were tapping conversations he was having with one of his clients. He also caused a bit of stir at a legal bash a few years ago when he turned up on the arm of Ulrika Jonsson, shortly after she split up from Sven Goran-Erikson. Jonnson was a former client.


This month acted for Everton manager David Moyes who won libel damages over claims made in Wayne Rooney's autobiography "My Story So Far".

In the book Moyes was accused of a serious breach of trust towards a "young player under his management." But Parladorio told the High Court last month: "There was no breach of confidence or betrayal of trust by Mr Moyes."

Nick Armstrong, partner at Charles Russell

Claims never to have lost a libel trial. Has a real insight into how newspapers work after a 10-year stint at a firm acting for Times Newspapers. Only picks up the phone to newspapers when his client has at least a reasonably good case. "Never points the gun of litigation unless he means to fire it," says one lawyer.


Acted for former England manager Sven Goran Eriksson and his agent over the Mazher Mahmood News of the World sting when Sven was lured to Dubai to meet a fake Sheikh. The action was resolved with an apology to the former football manager plus all his costs and an undisclosed damages payout to charity. Continues to look after the FA and now represents Fabio Capello as well as a range of soap stars.

New internet watchdog can order bloggers to take down offensive messages or photos

Internet users will be protected from abusive bloggers and malicious Facebook postings under proposals to set up an independent internet watchdog, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

New internet watchdog to police Facebook
By Nicole Martin, Digital and Media Correspondent
The Daily Telegraph
Published: 29 July 2008
The body, made up of industry representatives, would be responsible for drawing up guidelines that social networking sites, the blogosphere, website owners and search engines would be expected to follow.
The recommendation is one of several that the House of Commons culture, media and sport select committee is expected to make in its long-awaited report on harmful content on the internet and in video games.

Under the proposals, the new internet watchdog would operate in a similar way to other industry bodies such as the Press Complaints Commission, which enforces a code of practice for the UK newspaper and magazine industry, covering accuracy, discrimination and intrusion.
The watchdog would not have any statutory powers to impose fines but would investigate complaints and most likely publish its decisions in instances when its guidelines have been breached.
It is understood that it would also be able to order bloggers and social networking sites such as Bebo and MySpace to take down offensive messages or photographs.
A source who has seen the report said that the committee wanted to give the public "a form of redress" "At the moment consumers don't know where to go if they want to complaint about something they have seen on the internet," the source said. "The absence of any industry body is leading to a great deal of confusion and to widely differing practices.
"The idea is that a self-regulatory body like the Advertising Standards Authority would be set up to make sure that members, including, internet companies and search engines, subscribe to the code and abide by rulings."
The proposals follow a rash of complaints about malicious and inaccurate postings on Facebook and other social networking sites.
A British businessman was last week awarded £22,000 libel damages from a school friend who made false accusations against him on a fake Facebook profile.

Mathew Firscht launched the High Court action after inaccurate claims about his sexuality and political viewers were posted on the site.

A woman also recently claimed that her life had been destroyed by strangers who stole her identity and set up a Facebook profile describing her as a prostitute.

Kerry Harvey, 23, received unsolicited calls from "punters" who found her details, including her date of birth and mobile phone number, on the site.

Proposals for an internet watchdog come only weeks after the Government pledged to set up a new UK Council for Child Internet Safety made up of figures from the Government, children's charities, parents and young people.

The council, which will report to the Prime Minister, was one of the recommendations made by Dr Tanya Byron, the television psychologist, in her Government-commissioned report on the dangers of video games and unsupervised use of the internet.

Ministers also plan to launch a £9 million advertising campaign to raise awareness of the internet. Dr Byron's report urged parents to take an interest in what their children were watching online.

She said that a "digital divide" was developing within families as children mastered the internet and video games while their parents, grandparents and carers too often had little clue about the material they were looking at.

I've been left a rather disgusting message attacking my sexuality on facebook from someone I dont even know ..i complained to facebook 3 times..and guess what ..NO REPLY. I'm thinking of taking it further and this whole watchdog group couldnt come at a better time. - iestyn on August 14, 2008

Hear! Hear! Kay Tie. There are a lot more people who agree with what you say than those opposed to freedom of speech think. Our day will come! - Victimlesscriminal on August 03, 2008

You know why this is happening: the internet is libertarian by nature, the Left has few quality blogs, and so the usual coalition of the Left will crush opposition by legislation. Cutting out robust criticism is a direct attack on democracy. The Left always go too far and sometimes they go beyond the ability for democracy to restrain them, as happened in Spain in the '30s. Let us hope that the Labour Party disintegrates before things get nasty. - Kay Tie on July 30, 2008

Related Articles

Defamation on the internet - Court order can be obtained requiring site operator to disclose a commentators identity

Damages For Chat Room Insults
By Rizwan A. Yusuf, Solicitor, Eversheds, Direct Dial: +44 (0) 113 200 4700
08 May 2006 (via Legal
Michael Keith-Smith, a former Conservative party member was recently awarded £10,000 damages in a libel action brought after insults posted in an internet chat room.

According to reports Keith-Smith was debating on the Iraq war on a discussion board, when Tracy Williams, who used a pseudonym to hide her identity, labelled Keith-Smith, a sexual offender, racist bigot, Nazi and other insults. Keith-Smith obtained a court order forcing Yahoo!, who hosted the discussion board, to reveal the identity of Williams, and then successfully sued for damages.

In assessing the damages, the judge took account of Keith-Smith's upstanding reputation and his commitment to work with educational institutions and charities. £5,000 was awarded as general damages. The remaining £5,000 was awarded as aggravated damages due to the behaviour and contempt of Williams. Williams was also ordered to pay costs of £7,200. Although some observers have commented that this case will open the floodgates to similar actions and place constraints on freedom of speech, the judgment confirms that the law of libel applies to the Internet as equally as any other medium.
- - -

From Times Online
March 21, 2006
UKIP candidate wins £10,000 for internet libel
By Philippe Naughton and PA News
A prominent member of the UK Independence Party won an unprecedented £10,000 in libel damages today from a woman who waged an abusive campaign against him on an internet bulletin board.

Michael Keith Smith, who contested the Portsmouth North constituency at the last general election, brought High Court proceedings against Tracy Williams, who was a contributor to the same Yahoo! discussion board.

Ms Williams, of Tomlinson Close, Oldham, Lancashire, used a pseudonym to post claims that the 53-year-old chartered surveyor was a "nonce", a sexual offender, a racist bigot and a Nazi.

Addressing him as "Lardarse" or "Lardbrain", she also alleged that he had sexually harassed a female co-worker, had been charged with soliciting boys and cottaging and that he was a sexual deviant of the most perverted kind.

In June 2004, Mr Keith Smith, of Castle Street, Portchester, Fareham, Hants, obtained a court order requiring the site operator to disclose Ms Williams’s identity. Legal proceedings then started which only served to provoke her into more "frenzied abuse", said Judge Alistair Macduff.

He said that Ms Williams, who was not in court and did not file a defence to the action, had not sought to justify her statements which were clearly seriously defamatory. They continued well into 2005.

Assessing damages, he said that Mr Keith Smith, who had given expert evidence in the courts and served on committees for charities and schools, had a reputation of some integrity.

He said that although the libels were available to the whole world through the internet, it was likely that few people had read them and many of those who did would have dismissed them as "ramblings".

Nevertheless, he awarded Mr Keith Smith £5,000 general damages plus £5,000 aggravated damages to reflect the way Ms Williams - who had met a request for an apology with contempt - had behaved.

He granted an injunction preventing the publication of the same or similar libels and ordered Ms Williams to pay the costs of the action, which Mr Keith Smith put at £7,200.

It is believed to be the first time that the High Court has awarded damages for defamatory comments posted on an internet bulletin board, although a retired teacher won £1,250 in damages at Lincoln County Court in May 2002 for comments posted about him on the website Friends Reunited by a former pupil.

Mark Thomson, a partner at libel specialists Carter-Ruck, said that there had been many similar complaints about defamation on the internet. But he said: "Most of these cases go away quite quickly - people pull down the allegation - so it's quite rare that people actually sue over internet comments."

Sunday, 28 June 2009

Who leaked a secret dossier for Iraq war inquiry to the Sunday Mirror and why?

Thanks to British newspapers such as the Mirror and Daily Mail, the Iraq war inquiry has turned into a farce before it has even started. Someone has leaked a secret 100-page dossier to the Mirror, and the Daily Mail has published details of the same 'secret' report naming 'a Sunday paper' as its source.

How are readers able to determine whether a 'leaked secret report' is true or not? Surely the Mirror and Daily Mail ought to be investigated and fined for publishing details of a secret document written (by whom?) for former Army head Sir Mike Jackson. What was the leaker's motive, will s/he get away with it, and what has become of the Official Secrets Act, I wonder.

See News report by RUPERT HAMER, Sunday, 28 June 2009 - Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to blame over Iraq war, says Army report - excerpt:
A secret report by Army bosses to be presented to the Iraq war inquiry blames Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for the botched occupation of the country.

The dossier - prepared for ex-military chief General Sir Mike Jackson - criticises then Chancellor Mr Brown for withholding funds to rebuild Basra for FIVE months after our troops went in. And the 100-page document attacks Mr Blair for "uncritically" accepting flawed US plans for the March 2003 invasion, which led to tens of thousands of deaths, including those of 179 British troops.

The report - Stability Operations in Iraq - will not be officially made public because the inquiry's head, Sir John Chilcot, ruled all documents will remain secret.

But the contents have been leaked to the Sunday Mirror. [...]
Note that (and thanks to eagle eyed Blair Supporter for pointing it out) the photo of Tony Blair published in above report is incorrectly titled as follows:

Here is a better photo, taken on the same day. The caption tells us that the photo was taken in Sderot, southern Israel. Why should one believe a word the Mirror says?

Tony Blair during a visit to Sderot, southern Israel, Sunday, March 1, 2009.

Photo: Middle East Envoy and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair looks at a display of rockets that have been fired at Israeli communities by Palestinian militants in Gaza, during a visit to Sderot, southern Israel, Sunday, March 1, 2009. (Source: Daylife Publishing/Washington Post Newsweek Interactive)
- - -

Here's another question. Did the Daily Mail plagiarise the Mirror's report or are they in cahoots with each other or what? See the following excerpt from the Daily Mail -
Army bosses blame Gordon Brown and Tony Blair for botched occupation of Iraq
Last updated at 3:11 PM on Sunday, 28 June 2009:
Army chiefs have laid the blame for the botched occupation of Iraq full square on the shoulders of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.

In a devastating secret memo to the Iraq war inquiry, they say Mr Brown's refusal as Chancellor to release vital funds for the Army played into the hands of insurgents.

The report, written for former Army head Sir Mike Jackson, also attacks Mr Blair for 'uncritically' accepting flawed U.S. plans for the invasion when he was prime minister.

The 100-page dossier, Stability Operations in Iraq, will not be made public but its contents were leaked to a Sunday newspaper. [...]

The report will not be made public because the head of the Iraq war inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, has said that all documents sent to him will remain secret.
Finally, here is an excerpt from The Independent today that quotes Ben Bradshaw, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on his views re the upcoming Iraq war inquiry.

From The Independent
Sunday, 28 June 2009 at 08:41 am
Ben Bradshaw: Glad to be 'more Wagner than Wenger'
Does he think the Iraq inquiry should be held in public? His response is controversial. "To be perfectly honest I'm not convinced by the need to have one, because I think there will be people who will never be satisfied, and what people seem not able to accept on the Iraq war is that it's possible to reach sincerely and strongly held views on both sides of the question as to whether it was the right thing to do.

"However, an inquiry [having been promised by the Government], I accept there needs to be one, and it should be as open as possible."

How about Tony Blair's fears that it would be a "show trial" if held in public? "What his critics hate is the fact that they have never been able to pin anything on him. In my view they never will. Some people have just got to accept that they took a view on the war that this Government did not share and I think history will be the judge as to who was right."
I say, what a profound response. Well said, Mr Bradshaw.

Saturday, 27 June 2009

Urgent message to Lord Soley for guidelines or legislation re mainstream media and online libel and slander

R.I.P. Michael Joe Jackson 1958-2009

R.I.P. Michael Joseph Jackson August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009. (Photo source: soumya/

The following message is for Lord Soley who ought to be a Guinness World Record holder for being the world's first blogging Lord. Lords of the Blog is Clive's brainchild. Sadly, his original blog (circa 2003-2007), Clive Soley MP, has disappeared from the Internet.

Dear Clive, I am posting this message to you at Lords of the Blog in the hope that the site acts as an email contact address for you. I have published the following today (Saturday, 27 June 2009) at my new blog, BLAIR FOUNDATION WATCH - A Blairite's blog:

Dear Clive,

I hope this finds you well. I often think of you and still miss your first blog and great writings on press standards. Hence the reason for this note to you (that I have turned into a blog post) to request you please to start writing blog posts at Lords of the Blog that focus on ways and means that people can be protected from libelous and slanderous commentary published about them in mainstream media and the blogosphere.

Over the past six years, it pains me to think of the miles of outrageous lies and disgusting foul hateful comments that I have seen online about Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Michael Jackson, Prince Charles and Tony Blair, to name a few. Even though a court of law found the late great Michael Jackson not guilty, the world now knows that it contributed to costing him a fortune and his life.

Something must be done to protect people from being verbally ripped to shreds and hounded to financial ruin and/or death. In my view, the rabidness of feral journalists and commentators online has become worse, not better, post-Diana, Princess of Wales.

Recently, I have interacted online with a blogger who goes by the name of 'Blair Supporter' or 'B'. S/he anonymously authors a three-year-old blog called 'Keeping Tony Blair for PM' (recently re-named 'Tony Blair').

We are horrified by the grossly unfair treatment that Tony Blair is getting at the hands of mainstream media, pressure groups, politicians (particularly Clare Short), bloggers and commentators. The avalanche of unfair accusations, lies and propaganda could become unstoppable and deadly dangerous as it spreads around the world for all to see in the run up to, during, and after the inquiry on Iraq.

We want to be able to do something about it. At the moment we are working hard tracking and blogging, writing rebuttals, responding to commentary, etc., but there is only so much two people can do without being armed with some sort of warning that carries weight.

For example, in our blogs, and when finding slanderous comments, etc., we need to be able to point to a URL that provides the latest Codes of Conduct and/or guidelines on legislation that warns publishers (and anonymous authors) against libel, slander, character assassination, bullying, etc. If the latest Codes of Conduct are useless and legislation does not exist, we need your help and advice on pushing for urgent legislation.

Also, please see (copied here below) what BNP leader Nick Griffin said about Tony Blair at the BNP's recent annual conference.

Clive, I hope you will be able to find the time to do some blogging on the above issues.

Kindest regards
Ingrid Jones (Ms)
Address and phone number (on the coast of southwest England, UK) is still the same, since 2000.
Author of:

PS Clive, here are four links - including the one re BNP mentioned here above.

Ethics for the “Feral Beast”

What if a free media is not a watchdog guarding citizens’ rights, but a “feral beast,” sinking its teeth into any politician’s throat? Legislation providing for a free press is not sufficient to establish a democratic press. The media itself must be accountable for its own actions. Journalists must know that their first duty is toward the public, not toward their shareholders. Codes of conduct and a sufficient degree of self-regulation must be in place, preventing media frenzy that may result in biased reporting, disregard of facts, or plain disregard of the public. Media assistance donors are aware of that and provide journalism training to promote, among other objectives, professional ethics. For instance, the UK Department for International Development (DFID), UNESCO, and Internews support the establishment of press councils and professional codes to strengthen the media’s ability to self-regulate.

“At present, we are all being dragged down by the way media and public life interact,” Blair stated toward the end of his remarkable speech. There is no doubt that democracy needs a free and independent media system. But upholding freedom of the press comes with a subscription to another democratic value: balance.
- – -

Blair: media is feral beast obsessed with impact

By PATRICK WINTOUR, political editor, The Guardian, 13 June 2007

British newspapers will and should be subject to some form of new external regulation, the outgoing prime minister, Tony Blair, said yesterday in a broadside that attacked the media for behaving like feral beasts and eschewing balance or proportion.
- - -

The Internet Journalist - Fact Checking and Defamation requirements
By Don Burleson, Burleson Consulting website:
- - -

Ref: Nick Griffin, MEP for the North West, addressing the BNP’s victory rally in Blackpool on 20 June 2009.

In a wide ranging speech which covered several topics he also revealed that he would personally be laying a war crimes charge against Tony Blair over an incident in the Balkans.

See this excerpt from BNP News [20 June 2009, BNP website: 'Establishment Parties Have Turned Britain into a Multicultural Bankrupt Slum, Says BNP Leader]:
“We all know that they have announced that there will now be another inquiry into the Iraq War,” Mr Griffin said. “Of course there should not be an inquiry, but rather a war crimes trial, based on the principles established during the Nuremburg Trials.

“The accused must include the politicians and the propagandists who generated the background to the war,” he continued.

“This will include the newspaper editors and media owners who are just as responsible for the lies which led to that war.

“However, we have enough evidence right now to make a case against Jeff Hoon and Tony Blair for an incident during the Balkans War when a Serbian TV station was bombed. I will be laying a charge with a central London police station very soon over this matter.

“Even if they do not want to take it any further, the groundwork has been laid for it to be taken to the war crimes commission in The Hague. As an MEP, I have the right to pursue this matter, and Tony Blair is going to have that hanging over him,” Mr Griffin said to applause from the crowd.
- - -
Update about half an hour after publishing the above blog post:

Here is a copy of my comment that is awaiting moderation at Lord Soley's blog post at Lords of the Blog - News of the World and Lobbying - 05 February 2009:

Ingrid Jones
June 27, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Dear Clive, I have just tried twice to post a comment here but as soon as I press send a white page appears saying “discarded”.

So, I hope to get my message to you via my new blog

Please see:
Message to Lord Soley: Call for guidelines on legislation against mainstream media and online libel and slander

Kindest regards,

Thursday, 25 June 2009

Guardian issues correction but no apology

From the The Guardian by its Corrections Editor, 25 June 2009:
In a report, The £7,000 roofing bill two days before Blair left office, we said that Tony Blair declined a peerage on stepping down as prime minister and as an MP in 2007 partly to protect his post-Downing Street finances from scrutiny. This was untrue. Peerages have customarily been offered to prime ministers on leaving the House of Commons, but Tony Blair's office has informed us that having neither sought nor been offered a peerage, he has not declined one to protect his finances from scrutiny (19 June, page 4)
Note that the correction contains no word of apology and fails explain that the roofing bill was for work carried out several months before.

Journalists libelling Alastair Campbell

For the record, here is a copy of Alastair Campbell's blog post, 25 June 2009:
Apology from the Spectator on Iraq boosts Henry Hodge fund
I have never been a fan of the libel laws, and contrary to the claims of some in the media, I rarely bother to complain about things written about me. Life is too short and in any event if people in our street believed the bile and the bilge in papers like the Mail, I wouldn't be able to walk down to the shops.

But it would seem some critics of government policy on Iraq think it is once again open season to say what they like, including the kind of thing that I simply cannot allow to go without comment and action. This not least because many journalists now routinely regurgitate libels without making any independent checks whatever.

I was grateful to Steve Richards of The Independent for agreeing he had misrepresented my position with regard to prior consultation about the Iraq inquiry, and my position as to whether it should be public or private. It didn't stop William Hague making the same claim in the Commons, but there is not much I can do about that other than point out he was wrong.

Today The Spectator, who also did not bother to check before committing to print, ran a report making all sorts of claims about TB, GB and Peter M in relation to the Iraq inquiry. It is up to them if they want to do or say anything about those claims. But amid it all there was a statement - as in statement of fact - that I prevailed upon Lord Butler to water down the most important sections of his report on intelligence about Iraq.

Put to one side that this may be defamatory of Lord Butler in its suggestion that he allowed such prevailing to make him change his report. It is certainly defamatory of me in suggesting I tried. And it is totally untrue.

I left Downing Street in 2003, a year before his report was commissioned. Though I continued to keep in touch with the PM, I played no part in the Butler Report at all, at any stage. I did not discuss it with Lord Butler or any of his committee, to which I was not a witness. I did not see the report in advance of publication.

I think the allegation that I, as a former government employee, sought improperly to influence the content of such an important report, is a serious allegation to make and there is no substantiation for it.

I called the editor Matthew D'Ancona to complain this morning, after it was drawn to my attention. He checked it out with the reporter, John Kampfner, and reported back to me that Kampfner stood by the story and that his source was on the Butler committee.

By now, I got a lawyer involved. I do not know what discussions Matthew D'Ancona then had with Kampfner but I do know that as I left a conference in Manchester a few hours later, he called to say he accepted Kampfner could not substantiate the story, and agreed to run the apology I had drafted for him in the morning, which runs as follows.

'In John Kampfner's article, we stated that Alastair Campbell prevailed upon Lord Butler to tone down important sections of his report on intelligence used in the build up to war in Iraq. We are happy to accept that this is not so, and that Mr Campbell, who left Downing Street in 2003, played no role in relation to the Butler inquiry to which he was not a witness. We apologise to him for our error and have agreed to make a donation to the fund he has established for Leukaemia Research in honour of Henry Hodge.'

My lawyer has since been on saying I should have got far more out of them, as it was a serious libel. But I am glad Matthew D'Ancona sorted it all out speedily, and suggest Kampfner and others minded to print what they might want to believe to be true do a little more checking first.

To any other journalists who feel they may have libelled me in relation to this or any other agenda-driven nonsense, please feel free to visit