Scrutable

Feeling too tired to write about this right now, but if you haven't seen the news about Sunak doing a favour to Prigozhin - who was sanctioned and notorious at the time - to help him evade sanctions to sue OSINT expert Eliot Higgins, then go see it.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:55 pm

Feeling too tired to write about this right now, but if you haven't seen the news about Sunak doing a favour to Prigozhin - who was sanctioned and notorious at the time - to help him evade sanctions to sue OSINT expert Eliot Higgins, then go see it.

Made it to the BBC radio news

Details in the Graun.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... journalist

Or in Private Eye a year ago. Still good to be reminded that UK lawyers are happy to take on SLAPPs, and UK courts are happy to hear them.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:55 pm

Feeling too tired to write about this right now, but if you haven't seen the news about Sunak doing a favour to Prigozhin - who was sanctioned and notorious at the time - to help him evade sanctions to sue OSINT expert Eliot Higgins, then go see it.

That's not doing hima a favour - that's merely granting him his due rights. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for dening someone legal representation to seek a remedy through the courts. That is the sort of disregard of human rights that oppressive regimes do.

There is a legitimate objections to him using libel law as a weapon, but the correct solution is to abolish libel as it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and serves no socially useful purpose.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:20 am

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:55 pm

Feeling too tired to write about this right now, but if you haven't seen the news about Sunak doing a favour to Prigozhin - who was sanctioned and notorious at the time - to help him evade sanctions to sue OSINT expert Eliot Higgins, then go see it.

That's not doing hima a favour - that's merely granting him his due rights. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for dening someone legal representation to seek a remedy through the courts. That is the sort of disregard of human rights that oppressive regimes do.

There is a legitimate objections to him using libel law as a weapon, but the correct solution is to abolish libel as it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and serves no socially useful purpose.

Prigozhin was a known murdering piece of crap at the time who was under sanctions and not resident in the UK, he had no automatic right to have his case heard. It was a case with no merit brought purely to intimidate an investigator and journalist.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:20 am

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:55 pm

Feeling too tired to write about this right now, but if you haven't seen the news about Sunak doing a favour to Prigozhin - who was sanctioned and notorious at the time - to help him evade sanctions to sue OSINT expert Eliot Higgins, then go see it.

That's not doing hima a favour - that's merely granting him his due rights. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for dening someone legal representation to seek a remedy through the courts. That is the sort of disregard of human rights that oppressive regimes do.

There is a legitimate objections to him using libel law as a weapon, but the correct solution is to abolish libel as it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and serves no socially useful purpose.

He was under serious sanctions for being the head of a murderous band of thugs at the time, and the treasury specifically helped him bypass those sanctions, that should have prevented him from launching that spurious lawsuit. The UK's approach to Prigozhin should be somewhere on the spectrum from containment to assassination, not helping him with court cases. The treasury had to bend the rules to allow him access to the UK justice system.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:52 am

He was under serious sanctions for being the head of a murderous band of thugs at the time, and the treasury specifically helped him bypass those sanctions, that should have prevented him from launching that spurious lawsuit.

Any sanctions which prevent access to the law are wrong and should be changed.

And it is a very dangerous position to say that because someone is a bad person their access to the law should be lessened.

The UK's approach to Prigozhin should be somewhere on the spectrum from containment to assassination, not helping him with court cases.

There's no contradiction is attempting all of those things.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:10 am

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:52 am

He was under serious sanctions for being the head of a murderous band of thugs at the time, and the treasury specifically helped him bypass those sanctions, that should have prevented him from launching that spurious lawsuit.

Any sanctions which prevent access to the law are wrong and should be changed.

And it is a very dangerous position to say that because someone is a bad person their access to the law should be lessened.

The UK's approach to Prigozhin should be somewhere on the spectrum from containment to assassination, not helping him with court cases.

There's no contradiction is attempting all of those things.

I disagree.

If he was in the UK, he should have due process. But do you really think that he should have been allowed to have his assets unfrozen in order to pursue a fricking libel case?

He is a sanctioned individual with no reputation to defame.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:10 am

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:52 am

He was under serious sanctions for being the head of a murderous band of thugs at the time, and the treasury specifically helped him bypass those sanctions, that should have prevented him from launching that spurious lawsuit.

Any sanctions which prevent access to the law are wrong and should be changed.

And it is a very dangerous position to say that because someone is a bad person their access to the law should be lessened.

It's f.cking libel case, and a completely b.llsh.t one at that, not criminal defence you utter plank.

If he has standing enough to chase people for libel in the UK, then his victims be able to chase him for damages and the state should be able to prosecute the a..eh.le for murder and terrorism.

bjn wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:00 pm

If he has standing enough to chase people for libel in the UK, then his victims be able to chase him for damages and the state should be able to prosecute the a..eh.le for murder and terrorism.

This.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 10:19 am

It's f.cking libel case, and a completely b.llsh.t one at that, not criminal defence you utter plank.

I already said that I was in favour of abolishing libel. And I said nothing to imply that a criminal case was involved.

But the principle is that the law must be equally available to everyone, good or bad. The law is only a crude approximation to justice, but restricting access of those you dislike make it worse, turning it into just another weapon.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:46 pm

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 10:19 am

It's f.cking libel case, and a completely b.llsh.t one at that, not criminal defence you utter plank.

I already said that I was in favour of abolishing libel. And I said nothing to imply that a criminal case wafs involved.

But the principle is that the law must be equally available to everyone, good or bad. The law is only a crude approximation to justice, but restricting access of those you dislike make it worse, turning it into just another weapon.

Everyone?

Everyone who is in reach of the law, maybe.

Prigozhin is not. He has no valid interests in the UK. His assets are rightly frozen.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:46 pm

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 10:19 am

It's f.cking libel case, and a completely b.llsh.t one at that, not criminal defence you utter plank.

I already said that I was in favour of abolishing libel. And I said nothing to imply that a criminal case was involved.

<Snip>

Abolishing? What about situations where people are defamed, say by someone like Alex Jones?

Or a local newspaper owner takes against someone and maliciously spreads a falsehood (or hears a falsehood, believes it and spreads it)?

jimbob wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:10 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:46 pm

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 10:19 am

It's f.cking libel case, and a completely b.llsh.t one at that, not criminal defence you utter plank.

I already said that I was in favour of abolishing libel. And I said nothing to imply that a criminal case wafs involved.

But the principle is that the law must be equally available to everyone, good or bad. The law is only a crude approximation to justice, but restricting access of those you dislike make it worse, turning it into just another weapon.

Everyone?

Everyone who is in reach of the law, maybe.

Prigozhin is not. He has no valid interests in the UK. His assets are rightly frozen.

The answer to whether or not Prigozhin the butcher should have had access to the British legal system to use as a weapon is there in the story itself - sanctions would have prevented it, but for the bending of the rules. Therefore, it is clear he should not have had such access.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:57 am

jimbob wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:10 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:46 pm

I already said that I was in favour of abolishing libel. And I said nothing to imply that a criminal case wafs involved.

But the principle is that the law must be equally available to everyone, good or bad. The law is only a crude approximation to justice, but restricting access of those you dislike make it worse, turning it into just another weapon.

Everyone?

Everyone who is in reach of the law, maybe.

Prigozhin is not. He has no valid interests in the UK. His assets are rightly frozen.

The answer to whether or not Prigozhin the butcher should have had access to the British legal system to use as a weapon is there in the story itself - sanctions would have prevented it, but for the bending of the rules. Therefore, it is clear he should not have had such access.

Exactly.

I struggle to think of a situation where someone who has had their assets frozen should be able to get a proportion unfrozen to pay for private access to the law as opposed to what a citizen with no assets could access.

Let alone in this case.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:23 am

The Mirror (it's an exclusive) reports that the Tory treasurer is profiting from supplying Russian industry

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... =operanews

The Tories’ top treasurer has been raking it in from a firm still dealing with warmonger Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Billionaire Mohamed Mansour co-owns UK-based Unatrac and a subsidiary supplying machinery to Russia’s oil and gas industry. Unatrac has donated £600,000 to the Conservatives and Mr Mansour is said to have pledged £2million to the Tories himself.

I don't want to sound like a shill for Private Eye, but that "exclusive" was lifted straight from last week's issue.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:10 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:46 pm

I already said that I was in favour of abolishing libel. And I said nothing to imply that a criminal case wafs involved.

But the principle is that the law must be equally available to everyone, good or bad. The law is only a crude approximation to justice, but restricting access of those you dislike make it worse, turning it into just another weapon.

Everyone?

Everyone who is in reach of the law, maybe.

Prigozhin is not. He has no valid interests in the UK. His assets are rightly frozen.

If a statement is published about someone in England, then that person is entitled under libel law to take action in teh English courts. If you don;t like that, then you should support abolishing libel.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:57 am

The answer to whether or not Prigozhin the butcher should have had access to the British legal system to use as a weapon is there in the story itself - sanctions would have prevented it, but for the bending of the rules. Therefore, it is clear he should not have had such access.

So when Putin freezes the assets of an opponent and then exploits their inability to pay for lawyers, you'll be cheering him on too?

jimbob wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:14 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:46 pm

I already said that I was in favour of abolishing libel.

Abolishing? What about situations where people are defamed, say by someone like Alex Jones?

Those cases are very much the exception. Libel almost exclusively protects the rich and powerful, and does so with little regard for the truth. Have you already forgotten Simon Singh and the BCA?

Or see this case: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/ ... el-jackson where huge costs were incurred succesfully defending a libel case. Most people when faced with a libel case do not have the resources to defend, which is why it is so useful to suppress the truth.

Or a local newspaper owner takes against someone and maliciously spreads a falsehood (or hears a falsehood, believes it and spreads it)?

The readers need to be less credulous. And I suspect they would be. People are fairly good at noticing that a story is coming from only one source.

I predict a thread split is close...

New thread, split from The Invasion of Ukraine.

Current UK libel laws suck, they allow the rich to censor people they don’t like. This is not good. Some libel laws are required however, imagine what New Corp would get up to without any libel laws.

Regardless, mass murderers not resident in the UK who are under sanction should not have access to our courts unless they are being tried for crimes against humanity.

bjn wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:49 pm

Current UK libel laws suck, they allow the rich to censor people they don’t like. This is not good. Some libel laws are required however, imagine what New Corp would get up to without any libel laws.

Regardless, mass murderers not resident in the UK who are under sanction should not have access to our courts unless they are being tried for crimes against humanity.

They should have access, but they shouldn't be allowed to use sanctioned assets to pay for access.

Pretty simple position really. If your assets are sanctioned, you can't use them. If you've been wronged so badly, someone will take the case no win, no fee.