Monday, 2 July 2018

Guardian-Letter of Regret

So now we're at the stage where the article isn't available, it's proven to be fabricated and it's been removed from the archives. The disclosure of the fabricated information was to Sonia Poulton who then passed it on to the police who then passed it on to the CPS. They thought they could bolster the prosecution/police's case against me. Ooops.




"is not in any way usual business practice on the editorial side of GNM." I should hope not! 



Whilst any doubters are at it they may wish to contact the Ombudsman at the Observer, Stephen Pritchard. Ooops maybe not, he's the one who disclosed the information. 














Tuesday, 1 May 2018

A Crime is a crime is a crime even when the criminal is an institution

I've been taking advice from legal eagles.

1.The actions of the Readers Editor of the Observer have been found to have breached the Data Protection Act 1998. Despite an appeal by the Guardian, the ICO still ruled that they had breached the DPA 1998.

2. A document that Stephen Pritchard forwarded to a prosecution witness in my case had been contested and challenged for some 10 months prior to Pritchard sharing it. Ergo, he knew the contents had been challenged and part of that challenge was my assertion that it had been fabricated by someone. Why on God's earth would he share it knowing that I had claimed it was a fake. Why indeed? Maybe to pervert the course of justice? All the signs are there to suggest it was for exactly this reason.

3. Additionally, Pritchard's claim that the document was a legal affidavit fell on its face when it was compared to a bonafide legal affidavit. For example, any legal affidavit would probably have the date it was made on it somewhere. Not in this case, the document is undated. Not only that but throughout the pages, there are corrections and other scrawls that don't have any initials next to them. A real legal affidavit it is not.

4. Despite the offer of damages running into the thousands of pounds and a letter of regret the Guardian still refuse to disclose the origins of the document. They also refuse to acknowledge that the document is still out there and could be shared at any time to anyone. I have no way of knowing if it is already out there online.

5. Now, if you or I had behaved in such a manner, what do you think the consequences would be? If you or I had a tendency to pervert or had intended to knowingly pervert the course of public justice, do you think we would have been prosecuted? I think we would be facing a prison sentence should we be convicted. And rightly so.

6. Is there press immunity from prosecution? It would seem that thus far, justice has yet to be meted out to some who deserve it. Additionally, because the Guardian repeatedly refuse to accept what's staring them right in their faces and continue to act like an ostrich; Are they not as guilty as the man they employ and continue to support by denying me the right to clear my name? I doubt the readers would disagree with me.

7. As for any future legal action, I have been assured by the Guardian's lawyers that I will be liable for all their costs, interest included. But, only if I lose. Charles Prestwich Scott wouldn't recognise any of those involved in this saga as anyone who shares his values.

The values he described are: honesty; cleanness (today interpreted as integrity); courage; fairness; and a sense of duty to the reader and the community. From here


Judge for yourselves using the CPS guidance.
I'll update this entry as time passes.



Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences
The following factors will be relevant to all public justice offences when assessing the relative seriousness of the conduct and which offence, when there is an option, should be charged. Consider whether the conduct:


Perverting the Course of Justice

was spontaneous and unplanned or deliberate and elaborately planned;
was momentary and irresolute or prolonged and determined;
was motivated by misplaced loyalty to a relative/friend or was part of a concerted effort to avoid, pervert, or defeat justice;
was intended to result in trivial or 'serious harm' to the administration of justice;
actually resulted in trivial or 'serious harm' to the administration of justice.

Examples of 'serious harm' include conduct which:
enables a potential defendant in a serious case to evade arrest or commit further offences;
causes an accused to be granted bail when he might otherwise not have;
avoids a police investigation for disqualified driving or other serious offences;
misleads a court;
puts another person in real jeopardy of arrest/prosecution or results in the arrest/prosecution of another person;
avoids a mandatory penalty such as disqualification;
results in the police losing the opportunity to obtain important evidence in a case.

In cases of any seriousness, a prosecution will usually take place unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. Although there may be public interest factors against prosecution in a particular case, prosecutions for public justice offences should usually go ahead and those factors should be put to the court for consideration when sentence is being passed.

Perverting the Course of Justice
The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is committed when an accused:

does an act or series of acts;
which has or have a tendency to pervert; and
which is or are intended to pervert;
the course of public justice.
The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine.

The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or
investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
proceedings have started or are about to start.

Disclosure or Deceit?

Imagine discovering that a National Newspaper had supplied an un-dated, fabricated/conflated confidential and contested affidavit to try and assist with having me locked up. The very same affidavit that was put forward as an excuse for publishing that I was a gang rapist and abuser of children. There's no date, there's no official legal recognition and it has a dodgy signature.
Then try to imagine an e-mail which confirmed the sharing of such an affidavit by the reader's editor of the newspaper was deleted from the unused material supplied by the prosecution/police to the defence side in a criminal case. Could happen, could it? Watch this space

Oops, nearly forgot. Then try also to imagine that the Information Commissioners Office found that the paper had breached at least three of the Data Protection Act's regulations by sharing the affidavit.



Quantum

Traditionally, awards in data protection cases have been low: before 2014 the greatest award for distress in an English reported case was £750 with a nominal £1 being awarded for financial loss (Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance4). Contrast this with awards in privacy cases, such as in the leading case of Gulati & Ors v MGN Limited5 (confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Representative Claimants v MGN Limited6), where the court awarded various celebrities who were victims of phone hacking between £72,500 and £260,250 to compensate for the distress they had suffered.

The issue for defendant solicitors, where a claimant solicitor conflates claims for misuse of private information and breach of data protection obligations, is reconciling the level of awards for distress in the leading privacy cases with awards for distress in DPA cases.
from here
Data Protection Act Breaches

Thursday, 29 March 2018

Observer Article Removal.


I'll just leave this here shall I, fatty? I'm just popping to the loo.
For those that don't know, Fat Al continuously relies on an article which was removed from the Observer archives. He thinks by tweeting it repeatedly that it will return to the public arena and all of a sudden people will believe he is the best campaigner in his batshit mental world. He normally tweets it when I've published something about him or his fat arsed mates. He left the UK under a cloud of darkness involving a thirteen-year-old and a bag of chips apparently. Far be it for me to speculate about the truth behind the lurid allegations this twitter account has made public. The real batshit crazy nutter-bus passengers have as much idea about the truth behind the allegations as I do. But who cares about the truth anyway? 

The hard truth is that most of the time, newspapers will reject your request to have an article unpublished. News organizations’ primary responsibility is to report objectively, not to protect your online reputation, and they themselves may face criticism if they unpublish materials too readily. A search of the Observers archives will evidence no sign of the article that was removed as a "gesture of goodwill" by the editor. I'm very grateful for the gesture but argue that the creation of the article is FFF- fabricated and or fake and or and false and or all three)

Removing content from external sites is notoriously problematic. Getting a newspaper to remove defamatory information is possible (though not easy), and when that information is deleted, Google will automatically stop showing it in search results. Newspapers are an important historical resource, and they’re proud of this fact. They’re generally quite hostile (as opposed to "gestures of goodwill") to the idea of deleting or removing published articles.

Typically, when information published is factual news, the most important factor in determining whether removal is possible is who the webmaster or news organization that published the content. In most circumstances, the only way to get factual news stories removed is to contact the organization or webmaster that published or is hosting the content. Whether a particular organization will remove an article will depend heavily on the internal policies of that particular organization and how convincing your reasons are (such as having evidence which proves the news article is FFF) for having the content removed.

You only have one shot to get it right and to remove news articles from the internet. Most news organizations are initially not very receptive to removing, editing, altering, or correcting content. However, if you take the correct approach and are able to make a persuasive case as to why your particular request should be granted many webmasters will be happy to comply, as it will be the right thing to do.

While the best case scenario for a party harmed by a defamatory news article is complete removal of the article from the internet, media companies may offer some other options. For instance, if the harmed party can obtain a judgment that states a story is false and defamatory, some media companies may be willing to request that it be de-indexed from search engines (e.g. Google). 

Moreover, media outlets may offer to correct or update a story if the requesting party provides proof of an inaccuracy or a new development. I'm working on this. The biggest new development so far is the emergence of an affidavit that isn't an affidavit by any description. Firstly, it's un-dated. Secondly, it's not signed by those who would have signed it as a legal affidavit i.e. solicitor, lawyer, paralegal or anyone who knows how to write their name. Thirdly, I'd never had sight of it until January 2016. Fourthly, any examination of it would show some very odd marks and scribbles, unsigned corrections are evident throughout the document.


Make your case, and make it well. There’s usually no legal reason to get an item taken down, so you’ll only succeed if you ask respectfully and eloquently. If they do remove the item, they’ll be doing it as a favor to you. Or as in my case "a gesture of goodwill".