L’auto-entartage de Bernard Henri-Levy…
I love it that there is actually a single word in French for “to flan someone in the face”. Presumably Bernard Henri-Levy’s latest piece of public tomfoolery amounts to “auto-entartage”.
“He never has to know the actual facts of any issue; instead he’s equipped himself with a persuasive ploy which enables him to make non-experts believe he knows more than experts.”
Here’s Plato’s take on experts, evidence, and evidence of expertise. These words were first written more than 2,000 years ago – it seems both intriguing and perhaps also a bit depressing that they still have so much currency today.
The text below is from a dialogue between Socrates and Gorgias, a well-known ’sophist’ who made his living from teaching the art of persuasion – aka “rhetoric”. The word ’sophistry’ is today synonymous with arguments that are superficially plausible, yet nonetheless bogus…
From Plato’s Gorgias
Socrates: …You claim to be able to train up as a rhetorician anyone who’s prepared to listen to your teaching on the subject. Yes?
Gorgias: Yes.
Socrates: And you’ll teach him all he needs to know to persuade a crowd of people – not to make them understand, but to win them over. Is that right?
Gorgias: Yes.
Socrates: Now you claimed a little while back that a rhetorician would be more persuasive than a doctor even when the issue was health.
Gorgias: Yes I did, as long as he’s speaking in front of a crowd.
Socrates: By ‘in front of a crowd’ you mean ‘in front of non-experts’, don’t you? I mean, a rhetorician wouldn’t be more persuasive than a doctor in front of an audience of experts, of course.
Gorgias: True.
Socrates: Now, if he’s more persuasive than a doctor than he’s more persuasive than an expert, isn’t he?
Gorgias: Yes.
Socrates: When he isn’t actually a doctor himself. Yes?
Gorgias: Yes.
Socrates: And a person who isn’t a doctor is ignorant, of course, about the things which a doctor knows.
Gorgias: Obviously.
Socrates: So any case of a rhetorician being more persuasive than a doctor is a case of a non-expert being more persuasive than an expert in front of an audience of non-experts. Isn’t that what we have to conclude?
Gorgias: Yes, in this instance, anyway.
Socrates: But isn’t a practitioner of rhetoric in the same situation whatever the area of expertise? He never has to know the actual facts of any issue; instead he’s equipped himself with a persuasive ploy which enables him to make non-experts believe he knows more than experts.
Gorgias: Doesn’t that simplify things, Socrates? Rhetoric is the only area of expertise you need to learn. You can ignore all the rest and still get the better of the professionals!
Who’s been eating dinner with your MP?
As part of its slow, painful crawl towards transparency and accountability, the UK Parliament has just published a list of “Functions and Events” hosted by MPs with help from the House of Commons Banqueting Office over the last five years. A surprising number of these involved the “controversial” (a helpful euphemism if ever there was one) global weapons manufacturer BAE.
The following MPs have all hosted events at the House of Commons on behalf of this unconventional operator:
David Borrow (Labour), David Crausby (Labour), Patricia Hewitt (Labour), Michael Jack (Conservative), Diana Johnson (Labour), Kevan Jones (Labour), Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour), Keith Simpson (Conservative) and Rachel Squire (Labour).
Update – BAE admits criminal charges and is fined £280 million…
Amazing work by the 10:23 campaign
Many long-established campaign groups would struggle to achieve anything like this level of coverage – yet in just a few months the 10:23 campaign has gone from nowhere to getting national exposure several days in a row.
Here’s just one example from the BBC:
Homeopathy sceptics have staged a mass “overdose” of homeopathic remedies, in a bid to prove they have no effect.
Protesters ate whole bottles of tablets at branches of Boots in places such as Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, London, Leicester, Edinburgh and Birmingham.
They have asked the pharmacy chain to stop selling the remedies, which they call “scientifically absurd”.
The Society of Homeopaths called it a “stunt”. Boots said it followed industry guidelines on homeopathy.
From 2005 to 2008 the NHS spent almost £12m on homeopathic treatments, according to a 2009 Freedom Of Information request by Channel 4 News…
The demonstrations were organised by the Merseyside Skeptics Society (MSS).
Michael Marshall, from the MSS, said: “We believe that they shouldn’t be selling sugar pills to people who are sick. Homeopathy never works any better than a placebo. The remedies are diluted so much that there is nothing in them.”
Mr Marshall said demonstrations were also planned in Canada, Spain, the US and Australia.
The Society of Homeopaths said it did not expect the protesters to suffer any adverse reactions from taking large quantities of the remedies.
Comment from Reverend Sizer
I’m grateful to Reverend Stephen Sizer for getting back to me (having initially chosen not to comment) with a detailed clarification of his position in the recent “Seismic Shock” controversy, which I am reproducing below. Again I have no position on the original argument but having given space to one side of the dispute, I felt it was important that Stephen Sizer have the opportunity to give his side of the story. He says:
I approached the police because I felt my life was put in danger by his defamatory statements. In the last year we have had a rather violent break in to our home, had computers and cameras stolen, then my car has been vandalised and more recently broken into and possessions stolen. I receive anonymous phone calls and very nasty emails on a regular basis. Other academics, journalists and clergy targetted on the SS blog have also been in correspondance with the police.
In the last 18 months SS (I think he chose the name as a play on my name so it was very personal) has associated me with holocaust deniers, white supremists, antisemites, islamists, terrorists, suicide bombers, and the 7.7 bombers, on a weekly if not daily basis. He used anonimity to do so. I repudiate racism and anti-semitism as well as his allegations unequivocally. I believe my occasional blog articles as well as published writings give evidence of this. I feel no need to clarify or justify my theological views further which are entirely consistent with mainstream conservative evangelicalism.
Politically, I uphold the rule of international law, I want to see the Arab-Israeli conflict resolved peacefully and diplomatically with a secure Israel and viable independent Palestine – the postion of the UK government, EU, USA and UN – so hardly controversial, except in Zionist circles. I have written a couple of books on Chritian Zionism and US fundamentalism, which I regard as a threat to the security of Israel as well as future of Palestine, so I understand why SS and his friends do not like me.
The police initially consulted me for advice (not the other way round) on extremist groups on the edge of the Christian community. On their advice I approached the local police to investigate whether the articles posted on the SS blog constituted harrassment and incitement to religious hatred.
Their investigations led to the identification of the individual. Apparently he agreed to remove certain material and apologised. I was asked to inform them if it happened again. The police have given me and my family a measure of additional protection. I do not know his name but believe he is a Christian living in Leeds. It makes me sad that a Christian would use anonimity to harrass other Christians in this way.
I don’t plan to respond to him personally. He has many friends who have already expressed their opinions quite plainly and explicitly this week. The invitation I made to him a year ago to meet and talk through our differences personally remains open. I am happy now to leave the matter in the hands of the police.
Comment: In “Don’t Get Fooled Again” I lambast the tendency of the UK media to assume that “balanced” reporting entails giving equal weight to two opposing views, while remaining stubbornly neutral about the actual merits of those views. In my view commentators should not only present information, but also be up-front about what they believe that information points to.
On the basis of what I’ve seen so far, I do not believe that Reverend Sizer is a racist or an anti-semite, and can well understand why he would take exception to any such claim. But neither do I believe that Joseph Weissman (aka Seismic Shock) would be guilty of “harrassment” – a criminal offence – if he had made such a defamatory claim on his blog, however many times it happened. Clearly if Reverend Sizer has had his home and car attacked and received threatening phone calls, then this is a serious problem for which Police involvement is quite justified. But I have not seen any evidence that Weissman or his blog are in any way responsible for those crimes.
There does, however, seem to be evidence that “harrassment” has been dangerously vaguely defined under the current version of the law, and that as a result the police are getting involved in disputes that should, at most, be problems for the civil courts to deal with.
Controversial vicar refuses to comment over his use of the Police to threaten blogger
Update – Having initially chosen not comment, Reverend Sizer has got back to me in some detail, for which I’m very grateful.
Stephen Sizer has now replied to my request for clarification of his reasons for calling in the Police over his spat with the blogger “Seismic Shock”. Reverend Sizer states that “I do not wish to comment and am happy to leave the matter to the Police”.
This is obviously his business, but it does mean that his critics have pretty much a clear run on this issue. Sizer must surely have realised by now that they aren’t going to shut up about it, however many times he threatens them.
I am genuinely interested to know what Reverend Sizer’s perspective on this issue actually is. At the moment all we have is a story about a representative of our only state-sponsored Church making a lot of very strident comments about the political situation in the Middle East but then calling the Police when some people who (even more stridently) disagree say mean stuff about him on the internet. Surely if Reverend Sizer really has the courage of his convictions he will be prepared to stand by his words, and his actions?
Uproar as UK vicar reportedly uses police to intimidate blogger
Whatever the truth about Reverend Sizer’s political views, calling the police to deal with a blogging spat seems completely absurd – and of course the fact that the police would actually indulge such a request seems even more disturbing.
I’ve contacted the Reverend to hear his side of he story, but he has now got back to me saying that he does not want to comment (see update 4 below).
Update 1 - Just to clarify that what follows below is a direct quote from the blogger ‘Seismic Shock’ writing on the website “Harry’s Place” – I have no direct involvement in this issue, nor do I have a view on the rights and wrongs of the original argument between Sizer and his critics. But I am concerned at reports that the police are becoming involved in a bloggers’ dispute.
Update 2 – Index on Censorship report that West Yorkshire Police say they visited the blogger after receiving a complaint of “harassment”, and that he then “voluntarily” agreed to take down his website. The implication seems to be that writing mean things about someone on the internet is now on a par with prank calls, hate-mail, bunny-boiling etc…
Update 3 - Interestingly there seems to be a pattern here – this is a quote from Oliver Kamm, back in 2008:
“Yesterday morning I got a telephone call from a bewildered gentleman at Abingdon Police Station saying he had received a complaint from a Mr Neil Clark. Mr Clark (pictured) is the author of such essays as “Milosevic, Prisoner of Conscience” and (regarding the Iraqi interpreters in fear of their lives) “Keep these Quislings Out”. He is also an imaginative theorist of global conspiracy… I learned from my interlocutor… that Mr Clark was upset about disobliging references to him on the World Wide Web. Mr Clark had meticulously assembled a file of these, to which presumably this post will be added…. Mr Clark maintained… that he was the victim of a campaign of criminal harassment orchestrated by me.”
Update 4 (30/1/10): Stephen Sizer has now replied to my request for clarification, stating that “I do not wish to comment and am happy to leave the matter to the Police”. This is obviously his business, but it does mean that his critics have pretty much a clear run on this issue. Reverend Sizer must surely must have realised by now that they aren’t going to shut up about it, however many times he threatens them. Equally, I am genuinely interested to know what Reverend Sizer’s perspective on this issue actually is. At the moment all we have is a story about a representative of our state-sponsored Church making a lot of very strident comments about the political situation in the Middle East but then calling the Police when some people who disagree say mean stuff about him on the internet. Surely if Reverend Sizer really has the courage of his convictions he will be prepared to stand by his words, and his actions?
Update 5 – 31/1/10 I’m pleased to say that Reverend Sizer has now got back to me with a detailed response.
From Harry’s Place:
At 10am on Sunday 29th November 2009, I received a visit from two policemen regarding my activities in running the Seismic Shock blog. (Does exposing a vicar’s associations with extremists make me a criminal?, I wondered initially). A sergeant from the Horsforth Police related to me that he had received complaints via Surrey Police from Rev Sizer and from Dr Anthony McRoy – a lecturer at the Wales Evangelical School of Theology – who both objected to being associated with terrorists and Holocaust deniers.
(Context: Sizer has associated with some very nasty terrorists and Holocaust deniers; McRoy has delivered a paper at a Khomeinist theological conference in Iran comparing Hezbollah’s struggle against Israel via suicide bombing with the Christian’s struggle against sin via the atoning death of Jesus, and describes the world’s most prominent Holocaust denier as an “intelligent, humble, charismatic, and charming” man who “gives quick, extensive and intelligent answers to any question, mixed with genial humour”).
The sergeant made clear that this was merely an informal chat, in which I agreed to delete my original blog (http://seismicshock.blogspot.com) but maintain my current one (http://seismicshock.wordpress.com). The policeman related to me that his police force had been in contact with the ICT department my previous place of study, and had looked through my files, and that the head of ICT at my university would like to remind me that I should not be using university property in order to associate individuals with terrorists and Holocaust deniers (I am sure other people use university property to make political comments, but nevermind).
With my research on Reverend Sizer’s associations with terrorists and Holocaust deniers making its way into a publication of the Society of Biblical Literature, I was quite content to hold my peace. However, now that Reverend Sizer is now misrepresenting what has happened in my case in order to intimidate others, now is the time to speak up.
A Christian blogger – “Vee” of LivingJourney, who is based in Australia – linked to my blog as a resource for Christians to learn about anti-Semitism in the Church, including “lots of info on Stephen Sizer and Sabeel”.
Rev Sizer left her this comment:
Dear Vee,
You must take a little more care who you brand as anti-semitic otherwise you too will be receiving a caution from the police as the young former student of Leeds did recently. One more reference to me and you will be reported.
Blessings
StephenSure, Stephen Sizer managed to somehow arrange a police visit to me from within the UK, but does Sizer genuinely think he can use police on the other side of the world to this effect?
Why is Reverend Sizer claiming that I received a police caution, when the police stressed I did not receive a caution?
…Who is Reverend Sizer reporting to, and why does Reverend Sizer genuinely feel he has the power to close down debate by threatening police action? Why call the cops rather than answer his critics?
“Justice” Jackson’s charlatan’s charter – a self-serving stitch-up by our bloated legal establishment
It’s widely acknowledged that one fundamental problem with our draconian libel system is that it’s possible for a defendant to win their case in court, yet still lose thousands of pounds through unrecovered costs.
This effectively gives the super-rich an absolute right to impose what amounts to an arbitrary fine on anyone who criticises them – even when those criticisms are totally justified.
The ‘paradigm case’, (to borrow a phrase from today’s extraordinarily ill-conceived report by Lord “Justice” Jackson), is that of vitamin salesman and AIDS denialist Matthias Rath, who sued the Guardian newspaper and Ben Goldace after they pointed out some uncomfortable truths about Rath’s activities in South Africa. Rath lost the case in court, and the defendants were fully vindicated, yet the Guardian still lost over £100,000.
Justice Jackson has today proposed to make the situation even worse. Under the current system, successful defendants are at least able to recover a portion of their costs. Jackson – after consulting closely with, among others, members of the legal profession who benefit so handsomely from the current system – wants to change things around so that the defendant can recover nothing. Even if the overall burden of costs is reduced from its current extraordinarily high level, a defendant who has been found wholly innocent of the alleged libel will still end up thousands of pounds out of pocket.
To a rich, titled, former high court judge such as Lord Jackson, this may seem like a trifling matter. But to a writer or academic faced with the threat of a crippling libel suit by a powerful multi-national simply for speaking the truth about their activities, this will, in even more cases than now, mean that they have little choice but to settle the case out of court and issue a grovelling apology, even when the truth of the alleged defamation is clearly demonstrable.
Under the changes recommended by Justice Jackson, rich liars and charlatans will now find it even easier to suppress legitimate criticisms of their behaviour – and unscrupulous law firms will continue to profit as a result. Even more libel defendants than under the current system will effectively be denied their right to a fair trial. Even more than now, freedom of speech will be the exclusive preserve of the rich. It’s difficult to believe that it could not have occurred to “Justice” Jackson that this would be the effect of what he is proposing.
The Committee that drew up the report can be contacted here.
Tell Withers LLP where to stick it – UK law firm in new “Contempt of Parliament” libel abuse scandal
Tell Withers LLP where to stick it
UPDATE – MPs vote unanimously to investigate Withers LLP for “Contempt of Parliament”.
In line with our absolute right to report on the proceedings of Parliament (I’m going here with what the government says, rather than Carter Ruck’s questionable opinion), I am reproducing a “Private and confidential” email sent by Withers LLP to John Hemming MP, demanding that he undertake not to repeat an allegation that he has previously made against their (un-named) client “particularly in Parliament”.
The Speaker John Bercow has made the rather savvy move of publishing this threatening email in the Parliamentary record, which means that it ain’t “Private and Confidential” any more, and we are all free to quote from it.
Law firms who attack the sovereignty of Parliament are engaging in political activity, and therefore, in my view, making themselves fair game for peaceful political protest. I’d be interested in hearing any ideas readers might have on this – in the meantime perhaps a good start would be for as many people as possible to reproduce Withers’ “Private and Confidential” email on their own blogs…
From Hansard:
Subject: Private and Confidential
Dear Mr Hemming
Thank you for your various e-mails yesterday. My client’s response to the points which you have raised in these and earlier correspondence is as follows.
1.The original leaflet and offending text
It is abundantly clear that the offending text referred to, and would have been understood by those reading it to refer to, our client. You have alleged that the compulsory purchase order (CPO) proceedings involve other parties. However, it is clear from Councillor David Osborne’s evidence given to the public inquiry on 14 July 2009 that he was not aware of any other parties who owned plots or who were objecting to Tesco’s proposals and presenting alternative proposals other than our client. Asda and Sainsburys had already sold their land to Tesco. It is clear from the context of the offending text that you were only referring to plots of land which are part of the CPO and only the plots owned by our client. Even though he was not specifically named, he was clearly identifiable to the thousands of people to whom you distributed your defamatory and maliciously false leaflet.
You were clearly wrong to say that our client purchased his plots with the intention of delaying the Tesco development, as you now admit. Moreover, we do not agree that a landowner objecting to a CPO of his land and who has made very serious alternative proposals for redevelopment can he be guilty of “spoiling tactics” and this defamatory and maliciously false allegation is strongly objected to by our client.
In order to settle this matter we, therefore, require an apology in respect of both the serious allegations plus payment of our client’s costs, a substantial payment to a charity of his choice and an undertaking not to repeat the allegations or any similar allegations, particularly in Parliament.
Your threat to make a statement in the House of Commons referring to our client’s alleged “spoiling tactics” in this and other situations and that our client’s threatened proceedings amount to “bullying and an attempt to gag opponents” is tantamount to blackmail. These allegations are untrue as our client is only trying to put right a serious wrong to his reputation. We note that you would only make these allegations under the cover of parliamentary privilege. My client objects very strongly to you doing this and would ensure, via other sources, that the House of Commons were fully appraised of the true situation and not misled.
We deny that our client has been involved in any “spoiling tactics” at the Swan, Maypole or in Worcester. He certainly does not have, as you claim, a track record of “spoiling tactics”. By making such allegations you are clearly aggravating the damages which you will now have to pay to a charity of our client’s choice.
You say that you have spent time meeting my client and talking about the Swan development. Notwithstanding, it seems that you have failed to understand what my client is trying to achieve.
All that my client wants is to vindicate his reputation as swiftly as possible. However, if a suitable correction and apology, costs, damages and an undertaking not to repeat these or any similar defamatory and maliciously false allegations cannot swiftly be agreed, he will have no alternative but to issue proceedings.
We obviously also need to discuss how quickly you can circulate your apology around the constituency. Clearly this will have to be done much more quickly than your usual six weekly cycle in order to alleviate the continuing harm to our client’s reputation.
Meanwhile, could you please inform us, as we requested in our original letter of 29 July 2009, how many copies of the offending text were distributed; who wrote the offending text; who authorised its publication; who published it; and the date of issue.
2.Alternative wording to those to whom the original leaflet was not delivered
As previously indicated today, our client has no objection to replace the offending text with the new text set out in your e-mail of yesterday’s date sent at 12.32 pm.
Yours sincerely,
Withers LLP]
Nigerian sceptic Leo Igwe held on trumped up charges
*UPDATE* – Leo has reportedly now been released on bail, but at the time of writing still has a trumped-up murder charge hanging over him. Full details here.
Nigerian sceptic and humanist leader Leo Igwe was detained this morning, apparently on trumped up charges, and at the behest of a man who stands accused of raping a ten-year-old girl – Leo had been campaigning for justice on the girl’s behalf.
In response to this appeal I phoned the Police who were holding Leo, to ask what the basis was for his detention, and emphasise the international interest and concern around the case. If you would like to support Leo Igwe at this difficult time, this is the appeal from his family:
Leo and his father risk being tortured or murdered in police custody for his role seeking for justice for Ms Daberechi whose parents are very poor and cannot afford two meals in a day not to talk about paying legal charges.
We need to call the Police authorities in Nigeria about the risk of additional international outrage now that this fertile ground of religious bigotry and suppression of justice and human rights has already misled a citizen of ours to suicide in the name of God!
The numbers to call are : AIG Ringin: +2348033225349
PPRO Umuahia: +2347030988278
Com Aloy Okoro: +2348037217361
I am monitoring the situation closely and will report back. But anyone who is able to call will be helpful to scale up the pressure.
When I called the first number on the list and spoke to the police, they denied that Leo was formally under arrest and said that they were simply speaking to him in order to investigate the complaint that had made. They also allowed me to talk to Leo directly. Yet it did seem that Leo had been forcibly detained – he had been visited at his home by a number of men, including several soldiers, who had taken him away to the police station. Leo himself told me that he had, in fact, been arrested.
When I asked Leo what people internationally could do to support him, he emphasised the need to raise awareness both of this case, and the wider campaign of harassment that he and his family have faced over his efforts to secure justice for a young victim of rape.
Leo has reportedly been denied access to a lawyer.
In addition to calling the authorities directly on the numbers above, you can spread the word on Twitter using the hashtag #LeoIgwe, and watch for updates on the case from Alan Henness at Think Humanism.
New statement from Amnesty: “There were 15 reported deaths”
The day after the BBC backed down in the face of legal threats from Trafigura over their claim that the company’s waste caused deaths…
In August 2006, toxic waste was brought to Abidjan on board the ship Probo Koala, which had been chartered by oil-trading company, Trafigura.
This waste was then dumped in various locations around the city, causing a human rights tragedy. More than 100,000 people sought medical attention for a range of health problems and there were 15 reported deaths.
On 23 September 2009, the High Court of England and Wales approved a $45 million settlement between nearly 30,000 victims of the toxic waste dumping and Trafigura.
Index and PEN condemn BBC climbdown
From Index on Censorship
Index on Censorship and English PEN today have expressed dismay that the BBC has conceded the libel action brought by toxic waste shippers Trafigura in the High Court. We believe this is a case of such high public interest that it was incumbent upon a public sector broadcaster like the BBC to have held their ground in order to test in a Court of law the truth of the BBC’s report or determine whether a vindication of Trafigura was deserved.
The case was brought by Trafigura after the BBC claimed in its Newsnight programme of 13 May 2009 that Trafigura had caused deaths by being involved in the dumping of toxic waste in Abidjan in the Ivory Coast.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur Prof Okechukwu Ibeanu concluded in a report on 3 September 2009 that:
“On the basis of the above considerations and taking into account the immediate impact on public health and the proximity of some of the dumping sites to areas where affected populations reside, the Special Rapporteur considers that there seems to be strong prima facie evidence that the reported deaths and adverse health consequences are related to the dumping of the waste from the Probo Koala.”
Read here
Trafigura has paid out $200 million to the government of the Ivory Coast, and in London settled for £30 million a joint action made by 31,000 Ivorians.
But the BBC has now apparently conceded that the toxic waste dumped by the Probo Koala did not cause deaths, serious or long-term injuries and retracted their Newsnight piece in full and removed all reports from their web site.
English PEN and Index on Censorship believe that costs were a major factor behind the BBC’s decision. According to a leading media lawyer, Mark Stephens of FSI, the cost of such a case would have been in excess of £3 million. In its statement the BBC said:
“The BBC withdraws the allegation that deaths, miscarriages or serious or long-term injuries were caused by the waste and apologises to Trafigura for having claimed otherwise.”
John Kampfner, CEO of Index on Censorship said:
“Sadly, the BBC has once again buckled in the face of authority or wealthy corporate interests. It has cut a secret deal. This is a black day for British journalism and once more strengthens our resolve to reform our unjust libel laws.”
Jonathan Heawood, Director of English PEN, said:
“Forced to choose between a responsible broadcaster and an oil company which shipped hundreds of tons of toxic waste to a developing country, English libel law has once again allowed the wrong side to claim victory. The law is an ass and needs urgent reform.”
Are Carter Ruck losing their touch? BBC article dubbing Trafigura a “Killer toxic waster” seemingly unaffected by recent legal action…
To my mind the piece I’ve linked to above is even more damning than the two that Carter Ruck managed to get taken off the BBC’s website – presumably at considerable expense.
The Guardian today confirmed that the substance of Trafigura’s libel case against the BBC’s Newsnight programme was that “that the oil traders had been wrongly accused of causing deaths, not just sickness”. A ‘resolution’ of the case, presumably in Trafigura’s favour, is expected about now.
Yet this article, originating from the BBC World Service, appears to make exactly the same allegation with impunity, and in even starker terms. Are Carter-Ruck losing their touch? Are they really worth the £500 per hour that they reportedly charge?
UPDATE – The grovelling apology has been announced – but at the time of writing the above World Service article is still online. Interestingly, according to CNN, the often-cited “20 experts” who concluded that Trafigura’s waste “did not harm anyone” were not independent – they had all been hired by the company. According to Index on Censorship the case could have cost £3 million to defend – yet more proof of the urgent need for Libel Reform.
UPDATE 2 – The footage has also now disappeared. Guess that’s the end of that then…
UPDATE 3 – Oh look…
Poll: Should the BBC cut senior executive pay to free up cash for a Public Interest Libel Defence Fund?
The BBC appears to have decided to withdraw a hard-hitting news investigation rather than risk a libel action against the controversial oil traders, Trafigura.
Such an action would certainly be costly, yet by failing to stand up to Trafigura, the BBC is sending a message that even the UK’s largest broadcaster can be bullied into sacrificing freedom of speech.
So is it time to cut the BBC Directors’ pay in order to free up funds to defend its public interest reporting? YOU decide…
Guardian reports decision on Trafigura vs BBC libel case due today – and guess who’s the judge?
From The Guardian
Trafigura’s lawyers brought a libel action against the BBC on the basis that the oil traders had been wrongly accused of causing deaths, not just sickness. Official statements by a UN investigator, the Ivory Coast government and the British government referred to deaths being caused in Abidjan by the dumping.
But the eventual compensation settlement between Trafigura and the British law firm Leigh Day, which brought the action, resulted in an agreed statement making no claims about deaths. It was said that expert evidence, so far unpublished, found no evidence of any deaths.
BBC lawyers are understood to have been engaged in a mediation process with Carter-Ruck. The BBC would not comment on today’s planned court hearing.
Support the Carter-Ruck Christmas Stamp Appeal!
Help us ensure that more BBC investigations get quietly shelved!
The “One Show” had an excellent feature last night on the Libel Reform campaign, with a truly illuminating contribution (3 mins 55) from Carter-Ruck’s Nigel Tait.
Asked by Mitch Benn why his firm charged such astronomical fees, Tait cited several critical factors, including the high cost of central London office space, and the fact that “we have to write long and expensive letters”.
It struck me that these letters must be very, very, very long indeed – and the postage quite staggeringly costly – to necessitate charging £500 an hour to send them. Poor Nigel Tait must have to write hundreds of thousands of words each time, on dozens of pages of extremely heavy paper.
And then I had an idea. Back in October, the “Twittersphere” mobilised en masse to destroy Carter-Ruck’s Trafigura super-injunction – maybe now it’s time to lend them a hand (it is nearly Christmas, after all). If every person who Tweeted about #Trafigura were to send Carter-Ruck a little book of six First Class postage stamps, maybe this would help to offset some of the humungous expense of all these legal letters that they keep having to write.
So please spare a thought for the libel lawyers this Christmas! Carter-Ruck’s address is 6, St Andrews Street, London EC4A 3EA, and you can buy stamps online here, or at most newsagents.
Calling all bloggers – Help beat the gag on the BBC
You can help beat Trafigura’s gag on the BBC by embedding this Youtube video on your website…
…and linking to this pdf!
Here’s why…
Late last week the BBC chose to delete from its website a damning Newsnight investigation into the Trafigura scandal, following legal threats from the company and its controversial lawyers, Carter-Ruck.
Previously, other media outlets including the Times and the Independent, had withdrawn stories about the case, amid concerns that the UK press is choosing to engage in self-censorship, rather than risk a confrontation with such a powerful company in the UK’s archaic and one-sided libel courts.
The BBC is a dominant player within the UK media, and its independence – supposedly guaranteed by the millions it receives from licence-payers each year – is vital both to its public service function and its global reputation.
Freedom of speech means very little without an effective and independent media – if it’s true that the BBC’s independence can so easily be compromised by legal threats, then this sets a very dangerous precedent for the future.
The mainstream UK media has so far assiduously avoided reporting on the BBC’s climbdown. Yet it’s an issue that raises serious questions about the state of press freedom in Britain, at a time of unprecedented attacks on the media.
To help subvert this latest attempt to muzzle the press, please embed this video on your blog, and link to this PDF of the original story.
Searing attack on Blair from Ken Macdonald, former Director of Public Prosecutions
I saw Ken Macdonald speak at the launch of the Libel Reform report and he was pretty impressive – but this piece is outstanding. Extraordinary that this should come from the man who headed up the Crown Prosecution Service during the last few years of the Blair government:
From The Times:
It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner George Bush and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn’t want, and on a basis that it’s increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible…
Washington turned his head and he couldn’t resist the stage or the glamour that it gave him. In this sense he was weak and, as we can see, he remains so. Since those sorry days we have frequently heard him repeating the self-regarding mantra that “hand on heart, I only did what I thought was right”. But this is a narcissist’s defence and self-belief is no answer to misjudgment: it is certainly no answer to death…
Craig Murray claims victory over the Quilliam Foundation and Clarke Wilmott after libel threats come to nothing
From Craig Murray:
On arrival back in London I found that I had no court papers delivered from the Qulliam Foundation. So they join pathetic worms Jack Straw, Tim Spicer and Alisher Usmanov in the list of those who set lawyers on me to try to bully away the truth, but lacked the guts to go to court (though of course Usmanov has no lack of gut).
The Quilliam Foundation are a private company funded by taxpayer’s money. Every penny they chose to waste on making expensive legal threats was money that could have been spent on the NHS or our ailing economy. See here for more background on the case.
