Ex-terrorist Kaschke loses libel action against Osler
This makes her a sour kraut!
Law report here.
UPDATE:
Received this email at 14.58.
"Dear Sir
would you please be kind enough to immediately remove the sentence as in your blog named above. I have never been a terrorist and I think you will find that you cannot sustain such an allegation.
With thanks in advance.
Johanna Kaschke".
And here is my response sent at 15.09...
Dear Madam
Thank you for your enquiry in relation to my blog post concerning yourself.
I note your denial.
However, I intend to stick by my guns. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.
You do not have the right not to be offended. And, I have the right to freedom of speech.
Yours sincerely
John Hirst aka Jailhouselawyer
Comment: I think she is a cyber-stalker, nay, a cyber-terrorist!
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
10 comments:
She fills me with terror.
Accusing someone who has:
a) Never been been convicted of any politically motivated crime
b) Was financially compensated for the time she spent detained by the West German State
c) And who's only subversive act over thirty years ago was to help organise a benefit to fund legal advice for some of those accused in the "Rote Armee Fraktion" affair.
of being an ex-terrorist is a very high risk strategy. Even when Osler, Gray et al were initially trying to smear her following her departure from the Tower Hamlets Labour Party (to join Respect) they had the sense to put their insinuations in some sort of context.
In what way is your intervention any more than bullying abuse?
JHL, you have totally misunderstood the judgement.
Do please look at Jack of Kent's blog, where the judgement is and the meaning of it.
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/
It does not mean you can make things up without evidence.
David Osler never said Ms Kaschke was a terrorist and clearly stated she was wrongly arrested. Why make up stuff?
This is not helpful to the campaign to repeal the libel laws .
This was an important judgement and you have misread it .
I have followed your blog for some time, and I enjoy your writing.
But this is very disappointing.
There is no substance to any allegation of terrorism.
PWE134: Thank you for your comment. I sail close to the wind. What intervention? As for bullying abuse, that is what Kalashnikov does when she threatens libel to fund her political activities.
Anonymous: I have not totally misunderstood the judgment, I leave that kind of thing to the likes of Charles Falconer! I have read Jack of Kent's blog on this subject. I don't make things up. I did not say that David Osler said Ms Kaschkepoint was a terrorist. My blog post will not hinder any campaign to repeal the libel laws. It was an important judgment, and like I have said, I did not misread it.
Jack of Kent: I am sorry that you found my post disappointing. There is no substance to any allegations of terrorism for the majority of those who found themselves locked up in Gitmo. Apparently, being innocent is no longer enough in this world. However, Kaschkenuts is not exactly innocent. Funding political activity from libel suits...
Dear Sir,
I am David Osler's lawyer.
Ms K was never a terrorist. She was arrested during a period of national hysteria but never convicted of any crime. She was in fact released without charge and compensated for wrongful imprisonment. Mr Osler did no more than to repeat this. He fully accepts that Ms K was innocent of any crime. He made this clear to Eady J.
Ms K's claim against Mr Osler was misguided because of the article he actually wrote. This does not mean that she would be misguided in bringing a claim against any person who said she actually had been a terrorist.
All Eady J did was find that she had been arrested on suspicion of involvement with terrorism, but released and compensated. I do believe that you have misread the judgment and would appreciate it if you would correct it.
Please feel free to contact me at work if you would like to discuss this in any more detail.
Robert Dougans: You may be who you say you are and what you are. If genuine, I am touched by the sympathy expressed by the victor for the vanquished. Even if more than a little surprised at coming to her defence now.
Had she won the case, my headline would have read "Ex-terrorist wins libel action against Osler". If she does decide to bring a libel action against me, I wish her the best of luck. If she won, and was awarded damages they would be nominal. As she knows, there are advantages to being a "man of straw"!
As I said earlier in the comments, I have not misread the judgment, I leave that to the likes of Charles Falconer. This is not about the judgment. This is about her conduct. In particular, the blog post about using the libel laws to fund her political activity.
I don't see the need to correct my blog post.
I have served time with so-called terrorists like the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, and Maguire 7, and saw their pain and suffering at the hands of the Establishment.
I have also been mis-labelled as a psychopath, in spite of my clean bill of mental health in that respect, and the documentation to prove it, I still read blog comments referring to me as a psychopath.
Thanks for the offer to discuss this in more detail, however, I don't really have the time what with helping students with their dissertations for their masters, etc.
I was never a terrorist nor was I ever a freedom fighter, nor do I fund political activity with the libel suite.
"in the 1970s Ms Kaschke ‘played a minor role in organising a benefit concert in aid of “Red Help”, which provided legal assistance to left-wing radicals in Germany at that time’".
Is that the best you can come up with Jailhouse lawyer, did you get soft in jail or something. To cushy prisons these days, definitely
Post a Comment