advertisement


The Good Law Project

ff1d1l said:
Can you maybe find and quote or link to something that supports your assertion?
Click to expand...

I have a Word document supplied by the Court, and a Google docs link that you won't be able to open. Nonetheless, I'm not entirely sure why it's up to me to provide you with the text of the thing that you and others have commented on so extensively; prima facie without actually having understood it. This follows a familiar PFM OT dynamic wherein a legal process and finding underdetermines the political hysteria that contributors would like to make of it.
 
Tim Jones said:
Not sure why it's up to me to provide you with the text of the thing that you and others have commented on so extensively; prima facie without actually having understood it. This follows a familiar PFM OT dynamic wherein a legal process and finding underdetermines the political hysteria that contributors would like to make of it.
Click to expand...
I put up a text which didn't support what you asserted. I couldn't find anything that did. I politely asked that you back up what you said with some evidence. If you can't be arsed, so be it.
Edit....you've edited. So I'll edit too, and say you could take a screenshot of the relevant bit, then post the link to the image.
I'll just observe that expecting participants on this thread to have somehow sourced and read this document before commenting seems an unnecessarily high bar you are imposing on debate. Personally I'm good with the BMJ.
 
Dave***t said:
Having started a salaried job after years of spotty, uncertain self employment, one of the things I want to do with the newly stable income is set up a couple of standing monthly donations.

One of them will be to the GLP, and this judgement both conveniently reminds me to set it up next week, and underlines why.
Click to expand...

Ditto!
 
ff1d1l said:
I put up a text which didn't support what you asserted. I couldn't find anything that did. I politely asked that you back up what you said with some evidence. If you can't be arsed, so be it.
Click to expand...

Well, nope. You pasted a BMJ story, which was factually not at all in contradiction with what I said, although that was your chosen interpretation. Yet another familiar PFM OT dynamic - and by way of reply, if you can't be arsed to actually read the thing that you are commenting on, so be it.
 
Tim Jones said:
Well, nope. You pasted a BMJ story, which was factually not at all in contradiction with what I said, although that was your chosen interpretation. Yet another familiar PFM OT dynamic - and by way of reply, if you can't be arsed to actually read the thing that you are commenting on, so be it.
Click to expand...
So put it up so we can all read it or STFU.
 
Latest email. The letters linked to are worth reading.



The law of libel has been reformed to make it harder for those who say they have been defamed to win in court. But the world the law envisages is not always the real world.

In the real world, the costs of defending libel proceedings are prohibitive for all except the wealthy. And the financial stress of defending a claim can be unbearable. The consequence is that the threat of defamation proceedings can be used to harass those who seek to speak truth to wealth and power. And they can be, and are, used to force the withdrawal – and sometimes the humiliating withdrawal – of statements which are true or at the very least a reasonable opinion.

Exacerbating this state of affairs – we think – is the routine practice of issuing threats of libel proceedings and stating those threats to be confidential and not for publication so that the world at large never knows you are threatening to sue your critics. We think that if you want to use libel law to silence criticism – be that criticism fair or unfair – you should know your actions will be public. Otherwise, you can avoid all costs attached to taking advantage of your wealth and power to silence criticism.

We are aware of responsible campaigning groups seeking to hold men to account for sexual misconduct who have felt obliged to withdraw campaigns under threat of being sued. We are aware of defamation proceedings threatened against newspapers seeking to protect trans rights. And I have been threatened with defamation proceedings by several hugely wealthy men on the right or far right of politics for speaking truth to power.

More recently, I have repeatedly been threatened with defamation proceedings by those who have won vast contracts through the Government’s VIP lane. I have received two such threats from Pestfix. And last month I received a threat from Andrew Mills, the former advisor to Liz Truss’ Board of Trade and the man behind the £252m deal won by Ayanda through the VIP lane. No proceedings have been issued but those cases have cost us, in aggregate, tens of thousands of pounds to resist.

Mr Mills’ threat was marked “Strictly Private and Confidential. Not for Publication or Dissemination” but I don’t think these threats to sue on matters of public interest should be made behind closed doors. So I am publishing his letter with my reply.

I want to be as clear as I can be that what I have to say about Andrew Mills’ letter, and his actions in instructing lawyers to write to me, are stated in my reply to that letter. It is for the court, should Mr Mills issue proceedings, and not me to decide whether his actions in issuing that threat were justified or not. Nothing here should be taken as a comment on his actions and sometimes the law says it is right to sue for defamation. However, my intention in publishing his letter together with my reply is to put what I think should be in the public domain in the public domain.

Going forward we at Good Law Project intend to be active in this space to try and protect those who speak truth to power. We will be organising an event for journalists and campaigners on how to defend themselves against the threat to accountability posed by the current state of defamation law.

Thank you,

Jolyon Maugham
Director of Good Law Project
 
ff1d1l said:
Latest email. The letters linked to are worth reading.



The law of libel has been reformed to make it harder for those who say they have been defamed to win in court. But the world the law envisages is not always the real world.

In the real world, the costs of defending libel proceedings are prohibitive for all except the wealthy. And the financial stress of defending a claim can be unbearable. The consequence is that the threat of defamation proceedings can be used to harass those who seek to speak truth to wealth and power. And they can be, and are, used to force the withdrawal – and sometimes the humiliating withdrawal – of statements which are true or at the very least a reasonable opinion.

Exacerbating this state of affairs – we think – is the routine practice of issuing threats of libel proceedings and stating those threats to be confidential and not for publication so that the world at large never knows you are threatening to sue your critics. We think that if you want to use libel law to silence criticism – be that criticism fair or unfair – you should know your actions will be public. Otherwise, you can avoid all costs attached to taking advantage of your wealth and power to silence criticism.

We are aware of responsible campaigning groups seeking to hold men to account for sexual misconduct who have felt obliged to withdraw campaigns under threat of being sued. We are aware of defamation proceedings threatened against newspapers seeking to protect trans rights. And I have been threatened with defamation proceedings by several hugely wealthy men on the right or far right of politics for speaking truth to power.

More recently, I have repeatedly been threatened with defamation proceedings by those who have won vast contracts through the Government’s VIP lane. I have received two such threats from Pestfix. And last month I received a threat from Andrew Mills, the former advisor to Liz Truss’ Board of Trade and the man behind the £252m deal won by Ayanda through the VIP lane. No proceedings have been issued but those cases have cost us, in aggregate, tens of thousands of pounds to resist.

Mr Mills’ threat was marked “Strictly Private and Confidential. Not for Publication or Dissemination” but I don’t think these threats to sue on matters of public interest should be made behind closed doors. So I am publishing his letter with my reply.

I want to be as clear as I can be that what I have to say about Andrew Mills’ letter, and his actions in instructing lawyers to write to me, are stated in my reply to that letter. It is for the court, should Mr Mills issue proceedings, and not me to decide whether his actions in issuing that threat were justified or not. Nothing here should be taken as a comment on his actions and sometimes the law says it is right to sue for defamation. However, my intention in publishing his letter together with my reply is to put what I think should be in the public domain in the public domain.

Going forward we at Good Law Project intend to be active in this space to try and protect those who speak truth to power. We will be organising an event for journalists and campaigners on how to defend themselves against the threat to accountability posed by the current state of defamation law.

Thank you,

Jolyon Maugham
Director of Good Law Project
Click to expand...
Good. That letter from the other fella's solicitor is piss-weak and is clearly an attempt to bully the Good Law Project into silence. Maugham is quite right to tell him where to stick it.
 
Tim Jones said:
Well, nope. You pasted a BMJ story, which was factually not at all in contradiction with what I said, although that was your chosen interpretation. Yet another familiar PFM OT dynamic - and by way of reply, if you can't be arsed to actually read the thing that you are commenting on, so be it.
Click to expand...
Is it this one? Good Law Project Ltd & Ors, R. ( On Application of) v Secretary of State for Health And Social Care [2021] EWHC 346 (Admin) (18 February 2021) (bailii.org)
 
ff1d1l said:
Latest email. The letters linked to are worth reading.



The law of libel has been reformed to make it harder for those who say they have been defamed to win in court. But the world the law envisages is not always the real world.

In the real world, the costs of defending libel proceedings are prohibitive for all except the wealthy. And the financial stress of defending a claim can be unbearable. The consequence is that the threat of defamation proceedings can be used to harass those who seek to speak truth to wealth and power. And they can be, and are, used to force the withdrawal – and sometimes the humiliating withdrawal – of statements which are true or at the very least a reasonable opinion.

Exacerbating this state of affairs – we think – is the routine practice of issuing threats of libel proceedings and stating those threats to be confidential and not for publication so that the world at large never knows you are threatening to sue your critics. We think that if you want to use libel law to silence criticism – be that criticism fair or unfair – you should know your actions will be public. Otherwise, you can avoid all costs attached to taking advantage of your wealth and power to silence criticism.

We are aware of responsible campaigning groups seeking to hold men to account for sexual misconduct who have felt obliged to withdraw campaigns under threat of being sued. We are aware of defamation proceedings threatened against newspapers seeking to protect trans rights. And I have been threatened with defamation proceedings by several hugely wealthy men on the right or far right of politics for speaking truth to power.

More recently, I have repeatedly been threatened with defamation proceedings by those who have won vast contracts through the Government’s VIP lane. I have received two such threats from Pestfix. And last month I received a threat from Andrew Mills, the former advisor to Liz Truss’ Board of Trade and the man behind the £252m deal won by Ayanda through the VIP lane. No proceedings have been issued but those cases have cost us, in aggregate, tens of thousands of pounds to resist.

Mr Mills’ threat was marked “Strictly Private and Confidential. Not for Publication or Dissemination” but I don’t think these threats to sue on matters of public interest should be made behind closed doors. So I am publishing his letter with my reply.

I want to be as clear as I can be that what I have to say about Andrew Mills’ letter, and his actions in instructing lawyers to write to me, are stated in my reply to that letter. It is for the court, should Mr Mills issue proceedings, and not me to decide whether his actions in issuing that threat were justified or not. Nothing here should be taken as a comment on his actions and sometimes the law says it is right to sue for defamation. However, my intention in publishing his letter together with my reply is to put what I think should be in the public domain in the public domain.

Going forward we at Good Law Project intend to be active in this space to try and protect those who speak truth to power. We will be organising an event for journalists and campaigners on how to defend themselves against the threat to accountability posed by the current state of defamation law.

Thank you,

Jolyon Maugham
Director of Good Law Project
Click to expand...

Excellent.

Bindmans LLP are a Heavyweight outfit.

They performed very well for a party along side their appeal and my defence in a major possession action claim in the "Court of Appeal" back in 2001, challenging the "Accelerated Possession Procedure" rules bought by my landlord and others that took five years to resolve. :)

I hope all goes well for Jo's defence.
 
Brian said:
What kind of person batters a defenceless animal to death with a baseball bat?
Click to expand...
What's a Briton doing with a baseball bat in the first place? Was it bought as a weapon? I prefer the British pick axe handle myself.
 
Another update from The Good Law Project:

“3 days after the High Court ruled Government had acted unlawfully by failing to publish Covid contracts, Boris Johnson stood up in the House of Commons and reassured MPs and the public that all Covid-related contracts were “on the record”. However, the final Order handed down by the Judge today shows that what the Prime Minister told the House was not true.

The Judge confirmed:

“The Defendant has published 608 out of 708 relevant contracts for supplies and services relating to COVID-19 awarded on or before 7 October 2020. In some or all of these cases, the Defendant acted unlawfully by failing to publish the contracts within the period set out in the Crown Commercial Service’s Publication of Central Government Tenders and Contracts: Central Government Transparency Guidance Note (November 2017).”

Remarkably, the Judge’s Order is based on Government’s own figures – so at the same time as Johnson was falsely reassuring MPs, Government lawyers were preparing a statement contradicting him – revealing 100 contracts and dozens of Contract Award Notices were missing from the public record. You can read the final Court Order here and consequential judgment in full here.

Over the course of our judicial review, Government made no less than four attempts to provide an accurate witness statement setting out the number of contracts and Contract Award Notices that had been published late – and they kept getting it wrong. As late as the hearing itself, they said they had published 28% of Contract Award Notices within the 30 day legal limit.

But when asked by the Judge to follow up with evidence of the figures so he could make his final Order, it transpired that Government had actually only published 3% of CANs in the legal timeframe.

Government has not only misled Parliament and placed inaccurate information before the Court, it has misled the country.

Unless contract details are published they cannot be properly scrutinised – there’s no way of knowing where taxpayers’ money is going and why. Billions have been spent with those linked to the Conservative Party and vast sums wasted on PPE that isn’t fit for purpose.

We have a Government, and a Prime Minister, contemptuous of transparency and apparently allergic to accountability. The very least that the public deserves now is the truth.

Thank you,

Jolyon Maugham
Director of Good Law Project”
 
Another update:

“Other than at a General Election – an event occurring at five-yearly intervals that hands unconstrained power to a Party that wins a majority – a citizen has but one way of registering dissent at what is done in their name: the right to protest. Yesterday the Government announced its intention to legislate that right out of meaningful existence.

The legislative proposal comes in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021. It grapples with everything from road traffic offences to confected culture war issues like the protection of war memorials. But it also contains provisions that should concern each and every one of us.

Silencing dissent

High-profile protests around Brexit, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the climate crisis have been thorns in the Government’s side over the last couple of years. By and large, these protests have been peaceful and have acted as effective ways for people to express their dissatisfaction with the Government.

However, the Home Secretary, in particular, doesn’t seem to like dissenting voices – nor does she want to engage with the root causes of these protests, preferring instead to brand protesters “so-called eco-crusaders turned criminals” and to accuse them of “hooliganism and thuggery”.

The Government’s proposed solution? To clamp down hard on the right to protest. The Bill as it stands would give sweeping new powers to the police to restrict peaceful protests – including by giving them the powers to set conditions on the duration of protests, set maximum noise levels, and put restrictions on where protests can take place. As it seems to us, the very purpose of the right to protest is to enable people to register their profound unhappiness or strength of feeling in a way which compels the State to respond. To legislate so that right cannot have any impact is to legislate it out of meaningful existence.

The disproportionate measures proposed in the Bill also risk undermining the freedom of assembly and association protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.

It should worry us all that the Government has chosen to attack our rights. We want to fully understand the human rights implications of this Bill, and have instructed an experienced QC and junior barrister from Matrix Chambers to provide us with written advice on this.

Thank you,

Jolyon Maugham
Director of Good Law Project”
_______________________________________


I have spent the past five or more years arguing that as soon as the Tories and their popularist right-wing backers dragged us out of the legal protections and accountability of the EU we can expect to see some very sweeping authoritarianism. Well here it is. We absolutely need to fight this. Without credible political opposition or a functioning democracy we only have the courts at our disposal, so please support and help fund the Good Law Project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top