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
In Canada, it is not necessary to prove injury, to prove defamation through libel or slander (the very common “what a reasonable person would infer or derive…” argument). Further, through the practice of lawfare, suits seeking damages under $50,000 do not require discovery. Hence, a lawfare technique is make multiple actions agains groups of bloggers with the aim of bankrupting them or forcinf ideologic compliance through threat of financial ruin.
This is why it is so critically important for the blogosphere to fill the warchests of bloggers who have been unreasonably targeted. Big money is at stake for Big Green and Big Totalitarianism, so it takes a persistent, diligent effort to push the darkness back.
£75 From the Air Vent.
More is available if needed.
A very good point ChE – is this solely about libel, or police action, or both?
Perhaps Stephen Wilde could clarify?
It is about a very specific libel AND about collating the information required to ascertain whether the Police acted incorrectly in any way.
It is not about the science or about a wider political agenda but there may be some incidental relevance in those areas.
NO! This has carry over ramifications – as any other story in any other sector of society does – this may well be about libel. However, the libel happened because tallbloke was raided by police at the request of US Justice. Without this raid in and of itself – would the said libel have occurred? Therefore the story has grown larger than the incident itself and has now spread to various news sources exacerbating others such as Mike Mann also getting in on the act with similar comments – we’re commenting directly because of the police raid ourselves. And everything that happed spread from the raid itself.
LazyTeenager says:
December 17, 2011 at 4:02 pm
“There seems to be two issues that are being mixed up here.
1. Libel
2. Police investigation
This particular paragraph gives the impression that the libel gave rise to -suffered distress, inconvenience and damage to property-.
So what’s this damage to property arising from the libel? Or is it being accidentally or deliberately misleading?”
LazyTeennager,
Why don’t you ask the good Solicitor yourself? Perhaps you would learn something of real value…
Then Tim Ball is in the clear. No “reasonable person” would take his snark as anything but a joke. Only a thin-skinned joker can’t see that.
A small donation made.
Those who say that this is no reflection on the science are quite wrong. The science on CAGW is not based upon direct evidence, but on circumstantial evidence. That is by statistical measures. The projected public image is that there are an elite group who know the truth, and a huge jury of very clever people who have studied the evidence and agree with them 100%. We have a second tier blogger who has jumped to conclusions, and when told by others he is in the wrong, or OTT has dogmatically stuck to his position. It appears that a leading scientist has accepted the alleged libel, and gleefully broadcast it further.
The consensus is based upon credibility. The expert scientists know the unambiguous truth from their careful research. They have drawn their conclusions from the evidence of the real world, without exaggeration. They state that none of the essential truths that make up this corpus of knowledge has been undermined. Like with the Climategate emails, this further shows that such “scientists” jump to conclusions, then doggedly defend them. Their claimed infallibility is just a dogma with no substance in fact.
Donation sent with best wishes for the holiday season from a frozen Canuck.
I agree with those who say that the science and politics is relevant but that is not part of my brief. Others can pursue such aspects seperately.
Compensation for libel is based on the principle that a reputation is valuable and many people automatically assume ‘no smoke without fire’.
Thus the absence of a direct financial consequence of a libel is not important. Loss is assumed automatically and it just needs to be quantified. It is not good for people worldwide to be aware of one’s name and to be associating it with criminality.
“Ultimately, this has real implications about shutting you up too.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/its-not-just-tallbloke-whos-in-the-firing-line-you-are-too/
Pointman
Good luck Roger, and Mr Wilde. Fifty quid in the pot.
Added a token amount, wish it was more!
Re: “Thieves who broke into Unviersity of East Anglia computers in 2009, stealing thousands of private emails….”
Is it actually possible to steal emails in any legal sense?
My understanding of theft is that it is the removal of property without permission of the lawful owner, with the intent to permanently deprive the said lawful owner of it. Copying electronic data (or paper documents) does not fulfil that definition to my mind. Breach of copyright might be the closest to any real crime, but no one has made any such complaint that I am aware of.
Any UK legal types care to give a definitive answer?
You all need to clarify your thoughts here.
TB was raided by the police following an investigation they believe to be computer hacking. This raid has NOTHING to do with CRU they are simply the victims of the crime the police are investigating.
The veracity of the climate data is not under investigation and forms no part of the TB affair.
In the UK TB has to show no financial loss for being libeled but recent cases pronounced void have likened blog slanging matches to slander. which is different (more like a heated discussion in a bar).
http://www.simkins.co.uk/ebulletins/lerSlandernotLibel.aspx
After the sensational award issued to Max Mosley in his privacy claim against the News Of The World, the hearts of individual “bloggers” on the online financial discussion forum ADVFN may have been pounding as Eady J handed down judgment on whether a subsisting stay of proceedings should be lifted opening the door to a full scale libel suit against them. The stay was maintained, and the bloggers avoided payment of damages to the subject of what was found to be “mere vulgar abuse”. And, Eady J added, while not wishing to encourage “vulgar abuse”, it was not necessarily appropriate for it to be taking up the scarce resources of the civil courts.
Background
The High Court case was brought by Nigel Smith, also known by his online avatar “Anomalus”. Acting as the coordinator of an action group to recover shareholders investments from the alleged Langbar fraud, Smith had himself lambasted an individual known as “Wiganer” as a fraudster, and alleged that various others were falsely claiming compensation for the Langbar losses. These allegations prompted comments from other shareholders and contributors to the discussion board in support of those who had been “threatened and bullied” by Smith. Smith obtained Norwich Pharmacal orders that required ADVFN to disclose the IP addresses of those concerned. News of the legal proceedings spread across the ADVFN board triggering more (alleged) defamatory comment against Smith who – unemployed and thus unfettered by the requirement to pay court issue fees – issued 37 sets of proceedings!
The stuff of libel proceedings?
The Judge took a dim view of Smith throughout, at one point commenting that “many would be surprised to see any of this made the stuff of libel proceedings – the object of which is to restore reputation”.
For legal observers more interesting perhaps than whether Smith had a reputation to protect, was the Judge’s ruling on the nature of discussion boards. Of comments made on a discussion board, Eady J observed that they were read by relatively few people, who share an interest in the subject matter; like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar); and were often uninhibited, casual and ill thought-out.
The Judge also noted that the participants often used pseudonyms or “avatars”, and that this was likely to be a “disinhibiting factor”. The register of these kinds of forums was characterised by witty retort and as such the Judge acknowledged that “give and take” was expected of participants.
Thus the Judge considered that in the context of defamation law, postings and communications of this kind are more “akin to slanders”. The distinction between the two causes of action is important because slander is only actionable if the claimant can prove special (monetary) damage caused by the imputation – however injurious to reputation, however malicious the motive of the defendant.
In any event, in the context of this case, the comments if not vulgar abuse – (“My wipers scraped better things from my car windscreen”, for instance); were arguably protected by defences of qualified privilege as the contributors were mainly shareholders in Langbar and therefore had legitimate interest in the subject matter of the discussion board. One of the defendants, a litigant in person, defended his remark that Smith was a “destructive twerp” as fair comment. On that basis the Judge came to the conclusion that to lift the stays would be “totally without merit”.
Conclusions
Eady J was careful to confine his ruling to the facts, saying that he would not suggest for a moment that “’blogging’ cannot ever form the basis of a legitimate libel claim”. Despite this, the effect of his ruling is that defamation committed on an internet bulletin board is more likely to amount to slander, a cause of action more difficult to prove than libel.
Case citation: Smith v ADVFN & Others [2008] All ER (D) 335 (Jul)
At one point Smith was represented by one of the foremost defamation barristers Aiden Eardley whilst the defendants defended themselves without representation – and still he lost!
Aiming your funds at the police is similarly difficult. Do you really think the police would raid a citizen without the correct paperwork in place. Do you think that a District Judge would risk giving the paperwork to go-ahead with a raid without sufficient evidence?
Remember the internet is a strange place that people call others frauds (a legal term) and others criminals(a legal term) and no cases are brought.
AND to cap it all a number of posters have re-posted on this very blog the comment that Laden made, that caused all the ruckus. Hence the case now has to be brought against Watts (he vets ALL posts) and the posters themselves!!!!!!
Now sort all that out!!!!
Can anyone direct me to a copy of the original of the post in question just to back up my fundraising post. I read the original but would like a copy to exhibit.
MikeH, December 18, 2011 at 8:46 am wonders:
“ If it is proven that they are using private e-mails for public funded work, I wonder if that would open up Pandora’s box and allow review of their private accounts? “
This article may help:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16189461
“ It doesn’t matter whether your words are scribbled on removable sticky notes or chiselled into tablets of stone; it’s equally irrelevant whether your thoughts are conveyed by text message or carrier pigeon. “
Since no proof of any hacking into the uea’s system been disclosed by the plod, we can only presume that the info was leaked by someone with access or was left in some vulnerable area to be swept up by Doris the cleaning lady et al.
No theft, just a leak. Like it even matters.
Thats a fact given what we know and warmers hate facts…it tends to disrupt their belief system.
Facts are to warmers as Kryptonite is to sooperman. 🙂
jjthoms says:
December 18, 2011 at 12:31 pm
“AND to cap it all a number of posters have re-posted on this very blog the comment that Laden made, that caused all the ruckus. Hence the case now has to be brought against Watts (he vets ALL posts) and the posters themselves!!!!!!”
==========
Utter nonsense.
Yet, the attempt to intimidate has been noted.
@ur momisugly Pointman
Thanks for the link to your article. This is, indeed, about far more than just libel.
Posts that criticise a libelous post do not themselves give rise to a cause of action.
In fact, the more the initial libel is disseminated the bigger the potential value of the claim.
It is not akin to heated discussion between bloggers on the same site. In this case an independent site where he does not participate mounted an attack on Tallbloke which appears to have been either intended to harm or was careless as to whether harm would be caused.
It is about as open and shut as I have ever seen.
The Police get paperwork wrong all the time. The other problem the Police have is that as yet I see no evidence that the grounds for the issue of the warrant could ever have been reasonable.
All comments I might make here are in general terms only and should not be taken as a complete or accurate indication of the lines of approach that would be taken if this matter reaches trial.
My donation is contingent upon including Michael Mann in the action! (Not really! but please do.) Go get them. We cannot let the bastards win.
Please. Spray your half-chewed cookies in a different direction.
“The other problem the Police have is that as yet I see no evidence that the grounds for the issue of the warrant could ever have been reasonable.”
Surely, this is not a problem for the police, who were only doing their duty; rather a question of the motives and integrity of the parties who applied for a warrant, and the judge who signed it?
Tallbloke to take to torts
I would be happy to share the content on my (non-english) fb-site, but few would read it. The English used is too complicated. The ones who would read it are the ones who already know what it is all about.
Take to torts? Tallbloke?