Alex Hilton vs. Johanna Kaschke

Posted by Tim Ireland at 3 December 2008

Category: UK Libel Law

This entry was posted on
Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008
at
10:46 am and is filed
under UK Libel Law.

David Semple – Bloggers against libel: help Alex Hilton

No.

David T – Defend Alex “Recess Monkey” Hilton

No.

Iain Dale – “Some people may think I have lost my marbles when they read this post…”

No!

Alex Hilton – HELP! Please read

(reads)

Erm… no.

More details below the fold for those who need them:

[ —————— FOLD —————— ]


In order of priority (as I see it)….Is Johanna Kaschke attacking a service provider or using other methods to deny Alex Hilton his day in court?No.-Is Johanna Kaschke throwing lawyers at Alex Hilton, or otherwise using an economic advantage (or other position of power) to silence him?No.-Is Johanna Kaschke engaging in purely punitive action against Alex Hilton?A lot depends on what was published (and possibly why) before it was withdrawn. Without knowing more, I can’t be sure. I’m forced to use my judgement on this front (lest I “annoy the court”), and it’s my considered opinion that Alex Hilton is a largely unprincipled tosser who appears quite willing to publish mud that sticks without due care and attention (see exhibits 1 and 2).So my educated guess is…No.-In defending Alex Hilton, am I defending a fearless champion of truth?No.Alex Hilton is in this difficulty because he published a report on what might kindly be referred to as a folly of youth. He is also fond of blogging about the BNP. Yet at the time Paul Staines (aka ‘Guido Fawkes’) was throwing legal threats and bogus retractions around over bloggers reporting on Staines, the BNP and what might kindly be referred to as a folly of youth, Alex was terribly quiet about it all. In short, I detect a lack of consistency that would – if I were making this judgement on the value of the voice alone – make we wonder if chipping into this defence fund were a sound investment in these financially awkward times.-Am I inclined to do anything for Alex out of gratitude alone?No.a) Alex Hilton is not on the Usmanov list.b) There was a later instance of Paul Staines throwing a lawyer at me over my statement of fact regarding Paul Staines, his thievery, and the involvement of MessageSpace.At the time, Alex had this to say:

“This article is the first time I have heard of Guido suing Tim. What for? I don’t know and can’t really be bothered to look into it. If Tim’s done something wrong, then there are consequences. If not, he has nothing to worry about.” – (source)

Note: I ask this question because some bloggers may think that support on such matters isn’t a matter of principle, but simple tit-for-what-might-be-tat action. I look forward to it being presented by someone, somewhere as the entirety of my objection. And even if I were inclined to do anything for Alex out of gratitude alone, I would probably choose the principle over any feelings of gratitude. Of course, there’s no knowing for sure right now, because Alex has not put me in that situation or anywhere near it. But this comes pretty damn close considering Alex Hilton’s role in the ‘gay=paedo’ matter.Note also that I am making my position on this absolutely clear instead of keeping terribly quiet about it and/or pretending to be really quite busy looking at the lint in my belly-button. Like Paul Staines is at the moment.-As far as David Osler goes, we have this from that blogger:

“I can confirm that I am a defendant in a separate action brought by the same litigant… It’s not time to launch a ‘Free the Osler One’ campaign just yet. I am mounting a defence of justification and fair comment, and like Alex, I am confident of victory.” (source)

Compare this reaction to Alex Hilton’s; ‘Recess Monkey’ is in a very similar position and actually begging his ‘comrades’ for money to fund lawyers, when Johanna Kaschke is, as I understand it, operating without the benefit of professional representation.








5 Comments

  1. Unity says

    In mitigation, Tim, this is a situation that wouldn’t exist without the abysmal Brunswick ruling in which Alex is being sued over an article Dave wrote in which he had no part, which does cast the action into the realms of being vexatious/punitive, especially when Dave did give the woman a full right of reply.

  2. Manic says

    Speaking as a local flood warden, I do see your point, but mitigation has its limits.

  3. Manic says

    And if I *were* to go to bat for Hilton purely on the basis that he would make a good poster child for a Brunswick-focused campaign, (a) I wouldn’t do that, and (b) he wouldn’t be that.

  4. Bartholomew says

    I am intrigued that once again we're all tiptoeing around what we can and can't say about this case, despite details being easily found on-line. I've gone into a bit more detail here about this here.:http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/inter…I wonder if Kaschke has followed the Pre-action Protocol for Defamation?

  5. John Gray says

    Hi TimAlex is the innocent party in all this. I posted the original story. By all means she could sue me (she is) but if she was to win against Labourhome then I cannot see how any blogs can allow unmoderated posts or comments. Even if you moderate beforehand (as I do on my site) you could face utterly spurious legal action. Check out http://grayee.blogspot.com/2008/12/being-sued-for

  • External Channels

  • Page 3 Politics

    Page 3: a short history

  • Main

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Twitter

  • The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

    The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

  • Badges + Buttons

    religion