The long and short of the story as far as I can see is that a posting appeared on Labour Home by one of its members. This posting made reference to said woman, Johanna Kaschke, along with references to events in Germany which allegedly put her name alongside certain unsavory groups. If you really want more info, see here.
The reason I'm mentioning this now, and so long after the fact, is because I've just been reading Johanna Kaschke's blog and she's posted a rather odd comment about Hilton and those who have supported him with particular reference to Iain Dale. She's said,
Now all these big blokes support each other and I am a single woman, only 5 foot 2 tall and all those big strong men have to gang up on me. It's interesting.Alex Hilton it seems has emailed her about this comment and she decided to post his email in the comments. His email noted,
Due to the references to size and sex, I drew from this the inference that I might be violent to women or that I might gang up with other men in order to be violent towards women.Pretty reasonable really and I think he has a far point in that respect. After all why mention gender, size, physical strength and marital status, i.e. you live alone, if not to make some inference that you are somehow in fear of possible violence?
This is both personally distressing and it is a publication of an untrue inference that would damage my personal reputation. I would be grateful if you would edit this line in a manner so that no such inference can be reasonably drawn.
It might just be a slip on her part I guess, but from a legal point of view, given that she is in the process of litigation against Hilton, isn't it unwise to write things about the person you're suing? Would writing something that contains potentially damaging inferences not undermine her own case because it could be seen as evidence that the writ is vexatious?
I'm no lawyer, but it's interesting to watch the whole thing develop.
My guess is that this case will never get to court.
Some business tried to sue me personally and my business for saying that the MD was a useless, dishonest, lying twat. They enlisted Irwin Mitchell to issue countless letters. I then faxed IM four letters a day to help rack up said businesses legal bills. I then mentioned to IM that said that their client did not have any money. They asked for some money on account, and their client liquidated his business... Simple.
There's far too much recourse to threats of litigation in the blogosphere. there was the Neil Clark business and I myself have one particular prat threatening from time to time.
If she'd just gone slightly further and said 'big, strong, butch men', I imagine Iain might have been quite flattered. :-)
Big strong men?! She really needs to get out more.
What a ridiculous thing to say? Clearly as a single 5ft 5 woman I should have been terrified for my life hanging around with you and your blogger mates.
Should have headed the post, "Without Prejudice", methinks. Silly bint.
For Gawd's Sake have some people nothing else to do with their time.
The point is that Ms K is a litigant in person, and being on benefits, does not have to pay standard court fees to lodge documents. So she can lob as many writs at people as she damn well pleases. Madness.
Libel and slander are serious subjects, especially with the teenagers in high school who are picking up these habits and equating them to a cliff notes like paraphrase function.
Post a Comment