I’ve received this email from Roger Tattersall’s attorney (known as a solicitor in England) with the request that I post it. I’m happy to do so. Please see in the letter where the legal fund is being setup. – Anthony
To:
All those who feel offended and/or threatened by the actions taken against innocent climate enthusiast Roger Tattersall aka ‘Tallbloke’ as a result of the unsought anonymous drop of data from the person or persons known as ‘FOIA’.
That data is clearly in the public interest by virtue of having relevance to the wisdom of certain global policy decisions relating to energy use, energy supply and possibly global rationing of energy sources and the direct or indirect taxation of every individual on the planet for the foreseeable future.
Roger has been publicly libelled and abused across the world to the detriment of his reputation and has suffered distress, inconvenience and damage to property. The worst such offender appears to have been a contributor at ‘Scienceblogs’.
His privacy has been invaded and he and his family have been intimidated.
It is possible that treatment of that nature could be meted out to any persons expressing sceptical views about the so called climate consensus.
A clear signal needs to be sent out that such treatment is an abuse of process and a negation of free speech and democratic freedoms.
It is proposed to investigate all options open to Roger for the obtaining of suitable redress within the law. In the event that legal actions are considered appropriate it will be necessary to appoint suitably experienced Counsel to represent his interests and in this matter Roger’s interests coincide with those of all of who find themselves unable to feebly acquiesce in the pressure that is being applied to prevent them from exercising their hard won freedoms.
To that end, an appeal fund is being launched in order to finance the necessary steps. Contributions can be made via Roger’s Paypal account as displayed on his site (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/) and all funds received for that purpose are to be transferred to the Client Account of his solicitors Wilde & Company.
Any funds not eventually used for necessary legal expenses will be donated to a selection of climate sceptic organisations. Accounting procedures will be put in place in compliance with the requirements of the UK regulatory system governing the proper use of Client monies held by UK solicitors.
Stephen P R Wilde. LLB (Hons.), Solicitor.
Wilde & Co. Cheshire England
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh Harbinger, it’s beginning to worry you isn’t it, what with real progress achieved already, at minimal expense. It’s gonna be a tough Christmas and New Year if you keep that attitude – but I wish you good ones anyway, as the truth dawns on you and many others.
Poor Greg. That ominous flushing sound you get when people bale on you …
Pointman
There is a huge difference between reporting and repeating defamation. WUWT has reported the defamation & therefore cannot be prosecuted for it.
On the other hand, Michael Mann repeated the defamation!
DaveE.
planetsave are backing off? Just check their website:
http://planetsave.com/
From the front page:
‘by WWF Whilst efforts to reach a global consensus on combating climate change continue, the need for effective action at the regional and national level escalates. Such action can no longer wait for global agreement. If people, economic growth, and nature are to coexist in harmony, we must act fast to ensure ecological resilience’
and
The Protester — Person of the Year
December 19, 2011 By 350.org Leave a Comment
white house protests shot
by May Boeve You know that activism has struck a chord with the public when TIME magazine picks it up. The TIME year-end feature story is always a strong conversation piece, and what a delight to learn that Bill McKibben has been named on the list of “People who mattered” in 2011, and that “the […]
Share
APP is Clearing Tropical Forests Designated as Tiger Sanctuaries, Despite What It Says
December 19, 2011 By Zachary Shahan Leave a Comment
A recent report exposed that Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) was greenwashing its clear cutting of tropical forests that act as tiger sanctuaries. It denied that was the case, but more evidence has popped up. “A document released today by WWF and partners confirms that a supplier to paper giant Asia Pulp and Paper […]
Share
Climate Change May Cause Large Ecosystem Changes, NASA Reports
December 19, 2011 By Zachary Shahan 2 Comments
“By 2100, global climate change will modify plant communities covering almost half of Earth’s land surface and will drive the conversion of nearly 40 percent of land-based ecosystems from one major ecological community type – such as forest, grassland or tundra – toward another, according to a new NASA and university computer modeling study,” […]
Share
Department of Energy Helps 600,000 Homes Get Weatherized, 3 Months Early
December 19, 2011 By Zachary Shahan Leave a Comment
home weatherization
Here’s a good news story — the Department of Energy (DOE) announced last week that it had reached a national target of getting 600,000 U.S. homes weatherized (including over 125,000 multi-family homes, like apartment buildings)… and the target was reached 3 months early! “The Department reached this major milestone as part of its efforts […]
Share
Cost of Electronics Going Up Due to Extreme Weather
December 19, 2011 By Zachary Shahan Leave a Comment
“If a new PC or hard drive is on your holiday wish list, you may be in for a rude surprise: supplies are running low and prices have skyrocketed, all because of an extreme weather event that took place halfway around the world,” Andrew Freedman of Climate Central notes. “
—————————————————————–
So, he seems like a nice guy. His interpersonal skills notwithstanding, he is in charge of a load of superstitious nonsense and has suddenly felt the cold draught of reality up the back of his spine. His website highlights every variant of the mendacious, fearmongering, boondoggling, hypocritical, irrelevant and scientifically illiterate aspect of the AGW scam.
Now he comes holding out a (no doubt ‘organic’) olive branch, while noting that ‘there wasn’t much interest in the story anyway’, but he’s had a Road to Damascus thing. None of the many exposures of shonky data or attempts to stifle dissent made a difference, but now that legal action is in the offing, mea culpa (but not mea maxima culpa)!
Interesting. Your stone may have started the avalanche, TB. Expect more apologies from people whose legal advisers have told them that it is a wise pre-emptive tactic.
I don’t accept Zach’s beliefs but it was no part of my brief to challenge them.
He has done the right thing by Roger.
It’s highly likely that Mr Laden’s remarks are libellous. In addition, although he has been seen to modify his wording of the first paragraph as noted by many above, the second equally grave section remains at this moment unchanged and therefore it would appear that Mr Laden stands by them to equal damage to Roger Tattersall’s reputation (“So, apparently it is OK for Tattersall and this band of thieves to unilaterally play vigilante and break into your computer or mine, or accuse climate scientists of absurd conspiracies, to be dishonest in their discussion of well established data with the intent of misleading the public, or to bully anyone who disagrees with them, but when authorities investigating a crime, with proper search warrant, show up to investigate misdeeds, suddenly he’s an “Englishman” in his “Castle.” I don’t know whether to laugh of to go medieval on him”.)
It is important to be clear about what is written, and not to conflate them. The writer specifies two targets: “Tattersall” and “this band of thieves”. The text does not accuse him of being a thief; it accuses him of being alongside, in cohorts with or equivalent to thieves in all of the actions listed.
OK; so Mr Laden does not actually accuse Mr Tattersall of being a thief. However, many (but not all) of the actions listed are crimes (breaking into someone’s computer is a crime but accusing them of an absurd conspiracy is ‘only’ a tort) and to accuse somebody of a crime is definitely libellous without reasonable grounds for doing so. Reasonable grounds could be that, let’s say I were on CCTV committing an obvious crime and that were broadcast on national news and somebody then accused me of being a criminal, I would have no grounds to sue for libel. That abstract case is totally different from Mr Tattersall’s though.
The question is, of course, as discussed above, whether or not to pursue this. I would say yes, for the following reasons.
There’s probably not much to be gained by going after Laden financially, as he may not have much in the way of wealth anyway, and the UK does not have the same concept of “punitive damages” as in the US.
However, if Laden, faced with the potential of losing a civil case, is left with no option but to carry an apology as a banner headline on his site for, let’s say, a year, that could be enough, perhaps, I’d suggest, to right the wrong and to deter others from behaving in such a cavalier fashion.
Ultimately, if there can be no financial redress because the libelous party has insufficient resources (and it would be mighty hard to say that Tattersall had suffered material losses as a result of this incident: in fact, Laden’s lawyers could probably try to claim the reverse), then the best that could be hoped for from an action as being discussed here would be to right the wrong and to deter others from behaving in such a cavalier fashion.
Stephen: fair enough. Let me have a go. A key belief of Zachary Shahan’s that I’d like to dissect and eliminate, for the sake of everybody that holds it, often wholly uncritically, is:
What this needs is forensic questioning along the lines of:
1. What is the sum total of the misinformation believed, according to Shahan, by sceptics?
2. Which parts originate from nefarious people in the fossil fuel industry or those working for them?
3. Can he prove this origination and fossil fuel funding in each case?
4. What’s the final proportion of our beliefs that can reasonably be characterised this way?
I think this area is behind much of the talk of criminality so I don’t think it’s irrelevant to the psychology of the situation and it may yet crop up in the legalities.
“he may not have much in the way of wealth anyway, and the UK does not have the same concept of “punitive damages” as in the US.”
The ScienceBlog site is also at risk as the publisher and has plenty of resources. Currently the US jurisdiction is being favoured.
Hopefully it can be resolved amicably.
A Christmas present from me. I used to work for Halliburton: I guess that this is as close to funding by Big Oil as any sceptic blogger is going to get.
There are, and the evidence is abundant, that nefarious people exist in schools, churches, corporations, governments, law firms, NGOs, and on and on. Despite this evidence I find most people in these listed groups that I have met personally to be darned good folks. Absent any evidence however, Shahan sees nefarious goings-on among those who work in industries he personally disapproves of, or among people who disagree with him in matters of politics–it is a pervasive viewpoint of all people who are hyperactive in politics.
I added my $50 USD. I hope your Japanese supporters send more than 50 Yen. 🙂
A small contribution from Bay Colony as well 🙂
John Billings says:
December 19, 2011 at 3:32 pm
I think we are on the same page here. But I think Laden has done more than you suggest. Laden wrote:
“So, apparently it is OK for Tattersall and this band of thieves to unilaterally play vigilante and break into your computer or mine,” He has made no distinction between Tattersal or the band of thieves breaking into computers. He claims a criminal act by a band of conspirators which includes Tattersall. Also the general tone of the article must be taken into account. The article is about about the “stolen” (his words not mine) CRU emails. There is no doubt in my mind that Tattersall has been libelled and I think a reasonable person would conclude that Laden has tried to link him to the “theft” (again his concept not mine). I think a reasonable person would conclude that Laden has called Tattersall “the thief” not just “a thief”.
jjthoms~ Fair enough.
But mann is Far worse for other reasons 😀
Job done.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBksHaTQCbU
Pointman
Wow. Are you sure you want blog hosts to be responsible for potentially libelous statements from commentators? As though half the comments on WUWT aren’t libelous, every day? And what is with all these posts from a “lawyer,” who acknowledges that he’s not pro-bono but wants to be paid, soliciting for work? Eww…
REPLY: Well, no matter what you think, Greg Laden has caved. Looks like we’ve passed “peak whining” – Anthony
petergleick says: December 20, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Jeez, do you ALWAYS comment without reading first?
Paul Coppin: The preservation order serves notice that there is, or may be, an intention to serve the respondent with an order or subpoena. Having been served with the notice to preserve under 2703 (f) (which uses the words “shall”), the respondent then holds a liability before the court if they have not complied with the presevervation order, the remedy for which will be at the discretion of the court, upon hearing the evidence of failure to preserve. She used the word “request”, because that’s what the statute outlines. Don’t seek to represent yourself in court, you won’t likely fair well.
Though you may be correct, I’m skeptical. On what do you base the claim that “the remedy for which will be at the discretion of the court, upon hearing the evidence of failure to preserve”? That would be true if it were a court order, but it isn’t. As far as I can determine, section 2703(f) provides no criminal penalties or administrative fines for disobedience. I think it’s more likely that someone receiving the request must comply in order to avoid possibly facing obstruction of justice charges should a warrant or subpoena later be issued for the material.
I’m totally broke – in fact, it’s going to be a very thin Christmas at my house. I, too, am disabled, Tallbloke, so I understand the lack of freedom that imposes. The only way I can contribute is to post a note on my weblog (Old Patriot’s Pen) where my dozen or so loyal readers can access it. I hope you succeed. I’m personally tired of being treated as someone with dementia for questioning sloppy science, sloppy reporting, and the overweening arrogance of the “climate science” crowd.
$25 forthcoming immediately.
Another $25 (or more) coming when I see the pieces on the board moving.
Might I ask that the remainder of the donations, if there are any afterwards, be given to a trustworthy and reliable keeper as a permanent legal fund to fight these in the future? Would be nice to say “Okay, we already have $25,000 left over from the last libel case to put toward the next one.”
We could probably find good attorneys all over the world willing to assist pro bono, and a $10,000 ‘bonus’ from the climate realist legal fund might coax more attorneys out of their shell.
I know this Tallbloke one is first here, I’m just thinking its a great idea to have a legal fund behind us and how we can make it a permanent fixture.
Jono said “Could we use the words “climate Realist” instead of “Climate sceptic” with this action (possible action) we have a chance to imprint a new `title` on the MSM”
Nice thought but there is no way the lame stream media will do anything that doesn’t help the climate scammers. They are almost exclusively in the tank for “The Cause” and (truth be damned) will never miss an opportunity paint opposition in the worst possible light.