(3) The purposes are— (4) In this section— James Jewish control of the media is preventing an open discussion of the Holocaust, prominent Hollywood director Oliver Stone told the Sunday Times, adding that the U.S. Jewish lobby was controlling Washington's foreign policy for years.In the Sunday interview, Stone reportedly said U.S. public opinion was focused on the Holocaust as a result of the "Jewish domination of the media," adding that an upcoming film of him aims to put Adolf Hitler and Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin "in context." "There's a major lobby in the United States," Stone said, adding that "they are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington." The famed Hollywood director of such films as Platoon and JFK, also said that while "Hitler was a Frankenstein, " there was also a "Dr Frankenstein. " "German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support," Stone told the Sunday Times, adding that "Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed]." Stone's comments to the Sunday times echo pervious remarks by the Hollywood director, regarding what he conceives as the distorted view of figures such as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin in U.S. media. Earlier this year, Stone, speaking at the at the Television Critics Association' s semi-annual press tour in Pasadena said that "Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it's been used cheaply." "He's the product of a series of actions. It's cause and effect ... People in America don't know the connection between World War I and World War II, Stone said adding that through his documentary work he has been able to "walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes to understand their point of view." "We're going to educate our minds and liberalize them and broaden them. We want to move beyond opinions ... Go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM. Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated, " Stone said.View profile More options 1 Aug, 18:40 Haim Saban to CBS: Cancel Oliver Stone's Showtime Series
Bush Aide Fires Back at Critics On Justification for War in Iraq
Telegraph
Jeremy Clarkson joins burka debate
Jeremy Clarkson has provoked a flurry of complaints after telling Top Gear viewers he saw a woman wearing a G-string and stockings beneath her burka.
Telegraph
Oxford University lecturer 'discriminated against' after converting to Christianity
A lecturer at Oxford University’s centre for Jewish studies claims colleagues discriminated against her after she converted to Christianity.
Telegraph
Man arrested for 'insulting Lebanese president on Facebook'
A Lebanese national has been arrested for allegedly insulting the republic's president, Michel Sleiman, on Facebook.
Tchenguiz brothers lose papers battle in divorce dispute
Property tycoons Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz failed in a Court of Appeal battle to use information about the financial affairs of their sister's husband at her divorce hearing.
Telegraph
Dr Daniel Ubani: German Locum doctor in new legal 'gag' row
A German locum doctor, Dr Daniel Ubani, who killed a pensioner with a massive dose of painkillers has taken legal action to “gag” his victim’s family from talking to the British media, they claimed.
Monday, 2 August 2010
Google unveils government software
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Google Inc released a special version of its Web-based productivity
software designed to meet stringent US government security requirements,
as the Internet search giant seeks to outmanoeuvre rivals in the race to
provide federal and state agencies with new technology.
Google said yesterday it was the first company to offer email,
calendaring and other "cloud-based" software products with a special
government certification vouching Google's systems and practices meet
hundreds of federally-mandated security controls.
The new version of Google Apps comes as the company continues to work
with Los Angeles officials to address security concerns relating to an
existing contract to provide city employees with Web-based software.
Google said it was working with the city of to address its evolving
security and functionality requirements.
Google said on Monday it achieved certification under the Federal
Information Security Management Act on Thursday. The certification means
Google can handle government information deemed sensitive, but not
classified, according to Google.
In addition to the FISMA requirements, Google said the special
government-version of the software will store all email and calendar
information on servers hosted within the continental United States. And
the servers hosting government data will be physically segregated from
servers used for corporate customers.
Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said at a news conference on Monday the
certification will give government agencies the green light that they
need to adopt Google's online software.
"We have a hot product, what we're doing is knocking down barriers to
adoption," said Schmidt, noting demand among government agencies for
Google's cloud-based software is "enormous."
Roughly one dozen federal agencies are already testing Google's new
government-grade version of the software, Google said, and the company
expects the product to appeal to state and local governments as well.
Google's new Apps for Government will offer the same catalog of Web-
based products that Google has offered to corporate customers for
several years and will be priced the same way: $50 (£32) per user per
year.
Microsoft has recently begun offering Web-based versions of its popular
Office software, which is widely used by corporations and government
agencies. Microsoft could not immediately be reached for comment.
Google missed its June 30 deadline to provide its Apps software to
certain employees working for the city of Los Angeles amid security
concerns by the city's police department.
Google representatives said on Monday the company has already provided
the software to roughly 11,000 Los Angeles employees and was working
with the city to address concerns affecting the 13,000 public safety
officials not currently using the software.
Google generates 97 per cent of its nearly $24 billion (£15.5 billion)
in annual revenue from advertising. The company has said in the past its
Apps business generates "hundreds of millions" of dollars in annual
revenue and is profitable.
unveils-government- software- 2036484.html
Newsgroups: scot.politics, uk.politics. misc
From: James Hammerton
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:40:29 +0100
Local: Sun 1 Aug 2010 18:40
Subject: Is Scotland about to make it an offence to ask someone for a shag?
From the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, section 7
"(1) If a person (“A”), intentionally and for a purpose mentioned in
subsection (3), sends, by whatever means, a sexual written communication
to or directs, by whatever means, a sexual verbal communication at,
another person (“B”)—
(a) without B consenting to its being so sent or directed, and
(b) without any reasonable belief that B consents to its being so sent
or directed,
then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of communicating
indecently.
(2) If, in circumstances other than are as mentioned in subsection (1),
a person (“A”), intentionally and for a purpose mentioned in subsection
(3), causes another person (“B”) to see or hear, by whatever means, a
sexual written communication or sexual verbal communication—
(a) without B consenting to seeing or as the case may be hearing it, and
(b) without any reasonable belief that B consents to seeing or as the
case may be hearing it,
then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of causing a
person to see or hear an indecent communication.
(a) obtaining sexual gratification,
(b) humiliating, distressing or alarming B.
* “written communication” means a communication in whatever written
form, and without prejudice to that generality includes a communication
which comprises writings of a person other than A (as for example a
passage in a book or magazine), and
* “verbal communication” means a communication in whatever verbal
form, and without prejudice to that generality includes—
(a) a communication which comprises sounds of sexual activity
(whether actual or simulated), and
(b) a communication by means of sign language."
This law is intended to come into effect in the Autumn
Offences committed under section 7(1) or 7(2) are punishable by upto 10
years in prison:
So, once this law is in force, it seems that if you ask someone, in
Scotland if they want to have sex, without first establishing that they
consent to receiving a sexual communication or without reasonable belief
that they consent to such communication, then you commit an offence.
Will it be considered to be a "reasonable belief" that because B was in
a bar/club where lots of chatting up goes on that B consented to be
asked if they fancied a shag?
Will "do you want to back to my place tonight?" or "do you want to come
in for some coffee?" be considered a sexual communication in the context
of chatting someone up?
Will people get prosecuted for telling a sexual joke to someone they
were chatting up?
Will someone in England, in a skype call to someone in Scotland, be open
to prosecution if they ask the person in Scotland for sex (without first
establishing consent to sexual communication) ?
--
James Hammerton,
Referring to the alleged influence of the powerful Jewish lobby on U.S. foreign policy, Stone said that Israel had distorted "United States foreign policy for years," adding he felt U.S. policy toward Iran was "horrible."
"Iran isn't necessarily the good guy," Stone said, insisting that Americans did not "know the full story."
Oscar-winning Hollywood director Oliver Stone has provoked universal revulsion with his nakedly anti-Semitic comments-minimizing Hitler's focus on murdering Jews and slamming alleged destructive Jewish "domination" of media and US Foreign Policy. These remarks should surprise no one who's followed Stone's long-standing hatred of Israel and, more blatantly, America. In 1987, he told an interviewer that U.S....
Ron's note to Oliver Stone: What did you apologize for? For saying someone suffered more than the Jews?
"This weekend he amped it up a notch. The controversial director complained to theLondon’s Sunday Times of "Jewish domination of the media” and claimed that Hitler did more damage to Russia than he did to the Jews. "Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 million [killed]." Almost 24 million Russians killed; See, http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ World_War_ II_casualties
And, if there is anyone with any doubt to the claim that Jews dominate the U.S. media, kindly and promptly direct them to this Straight Talk top-notch documentary, to remove all doubt:
Pro-Israeli Bias in the U.S. Media: http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=lNG1dskvVnc
And another thing: Do Jews dominate U.S. foreign policy? Perhaps you should ask Stephen Hadley, former National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, then George W. Bush. Stephen "I Forgot" Hadley is the guy who (ignored CIA warnings) and inserted the infamously false sixteen words into Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, claiming Saddam was trying to procure yellow-cake uranium from Niger. (which proved to be untrue) In fact, prior to the speech, the CIA warned Hadley NOT to use those very words Hadley wrote into Bush's 2003 SOTU speech.
When confronted by reporters as to why Hadley put those 16 words in the speech anyway, Hadley replied:
"I forgot."
Bush aide admits he was warned on uranium
By Marian Wilkinson
United States Correspondent
Washington
July 24 2003
A top White House official has admitted that he was warned in two
written memos and a phone call by the CIA director that intelligence on
Iraq seeking uranium in Africa was faulty.
But Stephen Hadley, the White House's Deputy National Security Adviser,
said he did not remove the claim from President George Bush's State of
the Union speech in January.
Bristling from fresh assaults on its justification for war, the White House dispatched national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley to the briefing room to issue a rebuttal to "the notion that somehow the administration manipulated prewar intelligence about Iraq."
EXCLUSIVE
Update at 10:30 pm:
A furious Haim Saban has mounted a campaign to get Showtime to cancel its planned airing of Oliver Stone’s 10-part series, "A Secret History of America," in the wake of anti-Jewish remarks by the outspoken director.
The billionaire and outspoken media mogul told TheWrap he had contacted CBS chief Leslie Moonves to urge him to do so.
He said that WME chairman Ari Emanuel had also called CBS privately to urge the series be pulled.
Stone has previously said the 10-part "Secret History" series would put Hitler and Stalin "in context," and offer an alternative crash course to the "grossly inadequate history" taught by American schools and proffered by mass media.
CBS, Moonves and Emanuel did not respond to an email seeking comment.
Saban also said he had called CAA partner Bryan Lourd, Stone’s agent, to follow the example of Emanuel, who recently dropped Mel Gibson in the wake of the actor’s latest racist tirade.
Saban said he considers Stone to be "clearly an anti-Semite and an anti-American. "
Stone's apology “is transparently fake,” Saban said in an interview with TheWrap. “He has been consistent in his anti-American and anti-Semitic remarks. I respect his First Amendment rights. I hope he respects mine.”
EARLIER:
Israeli-American billionaire and media mogul Haim Saban isn’t buying Oliver Stone’s apology.
In venting his outrage, Saban has become the first big Hollywood name to publicly criticize Stone for his controversial remarks about the Holocaust.
“This guy should be helped in joining Mel Gibson into the land of retirement, where he can preach his anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism in the wilderness where he belongs,” Saban told TheWrap in an email.
Stone kicked off a media firestorm over the weekend for telling a reporter from London’s Sunday Times that Adolf Hitler, the subject of his upcoming documentary, did more damage to Russia than he did to the Jews. He also stated that the U.S.'s support for Israel is the result of Jewish domination of the media.
Stone apologized Monday afternoon saying his comments were “clumsy” and that contrary to his earlier remarks, Jews didn’t control the media or any industry for that matter.
That wasn't good enough for Saban.
“His love of [Venezuelan president Hugo] Chavez has always bothered me, but here he went too far, and his apology is sooooo transparently fake,” Saban wrote. “He should be embarrassed by it, and has certainly done nothing to calm my outrage at this guy’s positions.”
Saban, a major stakeholder in Univision and chairman of Saban Capital Group, said he is spreading the word among his Hollywood friends to avoid working with Stone.
“Anyone who works with this guy, should be ashamed of him/herself, and shouldn’t share that fact with their neighbors, or kids for that matter,” Saban said.
It's not certain that his appeal will reach sympathetic ears, as others in the movie business seem more willing to move on following Stone’s mea culpa.
The episode, which was broadcast on Sunday night and featured guest appearances from Hollywood stars Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, was watched by more than six million people.
Clarkson, along with co-presenters Richard Hammond and James May, had been discussing how drivers are distracted by female pedestrians.
“But we were talking about this the other day and we think the most dangerous time to drive a car is round about now. Sunny skies, light breezes, girls wearing short skirts, because the thing is, you can't not look. You can't physically not look."
Hammond then said: “You can physically not use your mobile phone and it's easy not to drive home when you've had 18 pints of lager. But when you're driving along and a girl walks past, you have to look.
"Actually, do you not think that here, there is actually a case for the burka? Because then the problem would go away.”
Clarkson replied: “No, no, no. Honestly, the burka doesn't work. I was in a cab in Piccadilly the other day when a woman in a full burka crossing the road in front of me tripped over the pavement, went head over heels and up it came, red g-string and stockings. I promise that happened. The taxi driver will back me up on that.”
By Monday morning, seven viewers had already contacted the BBC to complain. Several viewers posted messages criticising the comments on Twitter, including Lily Allen, the singer, who called his remarks “distasteful”.
Another viewer wrote: “Clarkson is too old for mini skirt jokes - burka story obscene - horrid.”
Clarkson’s comments came after both France and Belgium announced earlier this month that they are introducing bans on veils.
Immigration Minister Damian Green has said a ban here would be “rather un-British” despite a declaration from fellow Tory Philip Hollobone that he would refuse to meet constituents wearing a veil.
It is not the first time Clarkson has made controversial comments. Last year he was condemned by the Royal National Institute of Blind People after he called Gordon Brown, calling him a “one-eyed Scottish idiot”.
Faeeza Vaid, coordinator at the organisation, said: “The debate surrounding the burka is a serious issue which shouldn't be publicly joked about. Rather than joking about it, we should be having serious dialogue.”
Dr Tali Argov says she was overlooked for promotion, stripped of her privileges and cold-shouldered at social gatherings.
She says staff wanted to vet her lectures to make sure that, as a Christian, she would not criticise Israel.
“It is my belief that, following firstly the conversion of my husband and then the conversion of myself, the treatment which I received as an employee of the Respondents was very different and a number of incidents occurred which led me to believe that I was being discriminated against,” Dr Argov told Reading Employment Tribunal hearing this week.
Dr Argov told the hearing, where she is claiming unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, that she and her husband, Eran, were raised in the Jewish faith and lived in Israel until he was offered a place at Brasenose College, Oxford, to write a doctoral thesis.
They moved to England in 1996 and in 2000 Dr Argov, then studying for a PhD at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was offered the full-time post of Lector of Modern Hebrew at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew & Jewish Studies. The centre is independent but its students are part of the traditional Oxford college system.
Dr Argov said she was welcomed and appreciated but the “honeymoon” ended after her husband was baptised into the Church of England in 2005, after which time “all those kind, heart-warming gestures disappeared overnight” and she was “considered guilty by association”.
Dr Argov also converted from Judaism to Anglicanism in January 2008, having become “actively engaged” with St Mary Magdalene church in the centre of Oxford, but did not dare tell her parents until after the event.
“It is very rare for an Israeli Jew to convert to Christianity and I was aware that not only would this be frowned upon but many Jews would believe I was a traitor who had betrayed the faith.”
Dr Argov said her conversion was “not met with much understanding” in the Jewish community, and that groups of colleagues started “looking at me strangely” and would fall silent when she approached.
She told the five-day hearing on Monday that she applied for a lectureship post but was told by a Fellow at the Centre: “Don’t bother – you will be kicked on your teeth.” The post allegedly went to a less well-qualified candidate.
Dr Argov said she was later “humiliated” when she was the only full-time member of staff left out of a photo shoot for a “glossy promotional brochure”.
Later she was old she could no longer use her office, had her pigeonhole for letters removed and was given a lesser title on her university ID card, meaning that she lost her email account and library admittance although these were later reinstated.
Dr Argov claimed she was “sidelined” by not being invited to a fundraising event in London, and although she and her husband were allowed to attend, they were “made to feel extremely uncomfortable”.
She said was greeted with a “limp handshake” from Peter Oppenheimer, then the Centre’s President, who then “appeared to sneer in our direction”, while other Fellows “would walk past us as if we were not there”.
In 2008, Dr Argov says she was told her lectures had to be vetted in advance, which she called “a professional slur and an attempt to suppress my academic freedom”.
“My concern was that members of the [Hebrew and Jewish Studies] Unit wished to vet my courses in order to ensure that, having converted to Christianity, I would not make any criticism of Israel or its political or cultural agenda.”
In October that year she says she was told she was going to be paid on an hourly basis because of financial problems, but refused and was later made redundant although extra staff were still being recruited.
The hearing continues.
Dr David Ariel, President of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, said in a statement: "It is the Centre's policy not to comment on ongoing matters that are currently before an employment tribunal.
"The Centre is committed to a policy of respect for the religious affiliations, beliefs and choices of all its employees, instructional staff, and students."
Ahmad Shuman was detained shortly after he arrived in Beirut's international airport on a flight from Kiev.
According to prosecutors, Mr Shuman committed "libel, slander and defamation" when he and three friends set up a page on the social networking website to criticise President Sleiman.
The four men created a page on the website that carried the title "We don't want a hypocrite as president".
The page has been taken down, but a cached version carried a lengthy essay criticising Mr Sleiman's performance as commander-in- chief of the armed forces.
It also attacked the "vagueness" of his political position, claiming that he had tried to be both pro-American and pro-Syrian at the same time, and that he had ruled out peace with Israel while also backing negotiations with the Jewish state.
The four men called the president "the worst kind of failure" and wrote disparaging comments elsewhere on the website.
"You're like a snake; all you do is from under the table," read one.
"You're not worth my foot," another.
There were also claims of sectarianism that will be viewed seriously by prosecutors in a country still scarred by years of civil war.
Mr Shuman's colleagues, Naim Hanna, Antoine Ramia and Shebel Qasab, all in their twenties, were arrested and charged with the same offences last month.
The Lebanese justice ministry defended itself from accusations of over-reaction, saying: "Media freedom in Lebanon and any civilised country reaches its limits when the content is pure slander and aimed at undermining the head of state."
It is the first time in Lebanon that such charges have been brought against individuals for comments they made on the internet, a fact that has prompted strong criticism from human rights groups.
"These charges undermine Lebanon's reputation as the country with the greatest tolerance for free expression in the Arab World," Nadim Khoury, the Beirut director for Human Rights Watch, was quoted as saying in The Daily Star, a leading Lebanese newspaper.
"Using criminal laws to censor Lebanese citizens is an embarrassing step in the wrong direction for the government."
President Sleiman has remained silent on the subject, but a message posted on his Facebook page justified the arrests, saying that the four men had crossed the line.
"The president is a keen champion of freedom of expression but even so you must punish those whose offensive language goes beyond all norms of reality," the message read. "Is this freedom of expression or freedom of humiliation. "
The message drew several hundred messages of support from some of the president's 60,000 Facebook "fans". Unsurprisingly perhaps, none dared to differ except in the mildest of terms.
The four men face up to two years in prison if convicted.
Law student dubbed 'paedophile' by former friend who posted child porn
on his Facebook page wins £10,000 libel damages
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 5:35 PM on 27th July 2010
Raymond Bryce outside the High Court today. Jeremiah Barber posted
images of child porn on Mr Bryce's Facebook page and wrote 'you like
kids and you are gay'
Raymond Bryce outside the High Court. Jeremiah Barber posted images of
child porn on Mr Bryce's Facebook page and wrote 'you like kids and you
are gay'
A law student left fearing reprisals after he was falsely branded a
paedophile on Facebook has won a £10,000 libel damages payout at the
High Court.
Chef Jeremiah Barber, 24, posted images of child porn on the Facebook
page of student, Raymond Bryce.
He added the message: 'Ray, you like kids and you are gay so I bet you
love this picture, Ha ha.'
Barber, who had fallen out with Mr Bryce over an £80 debt, removed the
post, made on 23 November 2008, within 24 hours.
But he later pleaded guilty to making and distributing an indecent image
of a child at Stafford Crown Court and was ordered to carry out 150
hours unpaid work and handed a £1,200 costs bill.
Now judge Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at London's High Court, has
awarded Mr Bryce £10,000 in libel damages for the stress he endured,
including anxiety that hundreds of people in his local area may have
seen the post.
Mr Bryce, 24, who lives with his parents in Stone, Staffordshire,
suffers from high functioning Asperger's Syndrome, but has secured a
place on a full time degree course studying law at Stafford University.
The dispute between him and Barber, from Stafford, arose after Mr Bryce
lent his former friend £80 and he failed to pay it back, said the judge.
Mr Bryce's efforts to secure repayment included obtaining a County Court
order.
Judgement was entered for Mr Bryce in the libel case in November last
year but he had to return to the High Court for an assesment of his
damages.
In the witness box, Mr Bryce said: 'Jeremy Barber put a defamatory blog
on Facebook and made me appear to be a paedophile with homosexual
tendencies, neither of which is true. He did so with intention and
malice.
'When I viewed the pictures I was shocked because they were repulsive
and disgusting and in no way reflected my attitude to life.
* * * * * * * * *
LIBEL AND FACEBOOK
This libel case comes two years after a company boss was awarded £22,000
in damages over fake entries also posted on Facebook in what was thought
to be the first successful defamation case involving the website.
Grant Raphael, a cameraman, set up a false profile of Matthew Firscht,
then 38, which wrongly said he was signed up to gay groups and had lied
to avoid paying loans.
The pair had gone to school together in Brighton and worked together in
a TV production company before falling out in 2000.
Jeremy Clarke-Williams, a partner specialising in defamation law at
London law firm Russell, Jones, and Walker, said: 'Users of Facebook and
other social networking sites can be just as much subject to the laws of
libel as other media outlets if the information, as in this case, is
published online to third parties to view.'
* * * * * * * * *
'I asked for an apology which I have not to this date received. The
whole thing has been distressing, not only for myself but for my family'
he added.
Mr Bryce said there had been 11 links to the post, two comments from
viewers, and more than 800 people would have been able to view the
material.
Diana Bryce, Mr Bryce's mother, also took to the witness box to tell the
judge how the whole family had been put in fear.
'Not more than three streets away from where we live, in a family that
we knew, just because the dad looked a bit weird, he was accused of
being a paedophile. The family was threatened and there was an arson
attack and they all had to be rehoused.'
'When Raymond told me about what had happened I was really upset. He
couldn't go into town because you didn't know who had been looking at
Facebook. It was a vile thing to do, for him and for all our family.
This is what you don't want for your son or any of your children.'
'He is very easy to send up and he's been the butt of their jokes for
years. He was very easy to ridicule and bully, being autistic, and he's
had it all his life,' she added.
'It was a horrible and really stressful time for all of us. It wouldn't
be nice for any family, not knowing how many people have read it and
what people are thinking'.
'Some people just think there's no smoke without fire,' Mrs Bryce
concluded.
Mr Justice Tugendhat said: 'This was not only defamatory, but a
defamation which goes to a central aspect of Mr Bryce's private life as
well as his public reputation.
'This post was deeply offensive to him, but also a cause for alarm. He
could not go out in public because he feared he would be a victim of
violence, which is not infrequently the result for those accused of
paedophilia. '
'It is well known that people accused of being pedophiles may be
subjected to serious violence, even when there is no basis for the
accusation.'
'I can infer that the number of people who saw this Facebook page would
have been in the hundreds. This post was clearly a malicious act and
the defendant has done nothing to express any regret.'
'Damages in libel actions are awarded as compensation, not as
punishment, to vindicate reputation, to compensate for harm to that
reputation and as compensation for injury to feelings.'
'I asses the damages in this case at £10,000,' the judge concluded, also
imposing an injunction banning Barber from repeating the libel.
Barber was neither present, nor represented, during the hearing.
libel-Law-student- dubbed-paedophil e-wins-10- 000-libel-
damages.html# ixzz0uun5H8wy
Thursday 29 July 2010 |
They must now comply with High Court order to hand back the documents copied from a computer to Vivian Imerman.
Mr Imerman's lawyers claimed it was a ''ground-breaking' ' decision that will revolutionise disclosure in documents in family law cases.
He said: ''It follows that nothing in the so-called Hildebrand rules can be relied upon in justification of or as providing a defence to conduct which would otherwise be criminal or actionable ...''
Divorce lawyers said this will mean that in future any attempt by one side in a divorce case to take documents without permission will result in heavy costs orders or criminal proceedings.
Desmond Browne QC, representing the brothers, had told a panel of three appeal judges at a hearing in May that Mr Imerman's right to confidentiality had to be weighed against his wife Elizabeth's right to a fair trial.
Robert Tchenguiz says he downloaded the information from a computer at offices he invited Mr Imerman to share after the businessman claimed he had no money and his wife would get nothing in the forthcoming divorce.
The brother said he was concerned to protect his sister's interests and feared Mr Imerman would try to hide his assets from his wife, who petitioned for divorce in December 2008.
Mr Imerman, who married in 2001, shared the Mayfair offices and computer with the brothers from 2002 until February last year when he and his staff were evicted.
He successfully claimed at a hearing in July last year that the brothers, two IT staff and a solicitor had no right to retain or use the material which was downloaded without his knowledge.
The High Court judge, Mr Justice Eady, said the amount of material accessed was vast - the brothers say 250,000 pages and Mr Imerman 2.5 million.
He granted the orders, by way of a summary judgment, for the material to be returned and not disclosed to anyone else.
Mr Browne told the appeal judges there was also the brothers' defence that Mr Imerman had "unclean hands" in an alleged fraud and this could not be resolved without a full trial or the issues.
Mr Imerman was said to have admitted "wiping out his money" with divorce in mind, said Mr Browne.
Robert Tchenguiz claimed he had helped Mr Imerman make large amounts of money and had every reason to believe that his personal wealth was around £350 million.
The 67 year-old has allegedly issued the legal “censorship” threat against the two sons of David Gray, 70, who died after being given 10 times the normal dose of diamorphine.
The Nigerian-born doctor gave Mr Gray, of Manea, Cambs, the fatal dose on his first shift in 2008 providing GP out of hours cover in Britain. He claimed he was tired and unfamiliar with the drug, which is seldom used in Germany.
He was later found guilty of killing Mr Gray through negligence and has been struck off in Britain but is free to work in Germany.
But on Wednesday night Mr Gray's sons, Stuart, 50, and Rory, 45, claimed his lawyers had served them with legal papers after they recently travelled to Germany to confront him.
They told The Daily Telegraph that the “European enforceable injunction”, being sought at a court in Kempten, in the country's south, specifically targetted the UK and if obtained would be enforceable in Britain.
It remains unclear, however, how such an order would affect Britain’s media.
He has also sought an injunction that would "impose a restriction" that would force them to pay 250,000 euros if they ventured within 200 metres of Dr Ubani.
The brothers, whose father was suffering from kidney stones, criticised the move as a crude attempt to “gag” and “censor” their family as well as being an “attack on British freedom”.
"I find to difficult to comprehend why the German legal system would decide to hold a hearing looking at censoring me from putting the true facts regarding Ubani into the public domain,” said Stuart Gray, also a GP, from Kidderminster, Worcs.
"To be seriously considering banning me from discussion with the British media – in Britain – I treat as an attack on British freedom of speech by Germany.
"However, despite German pressure we are committed to being allowed freedom of speech in this country and will do whatever we can in our power to safeguard that precious right, irrespective of the financial or personal costs."
His brother, a mission control engineer at the European Space Agency near Frankfurt, added that the threat was “vulgar”.
“Ubani is attempting to censor what we say, not only to the German, but also to the British media,” he said from Germany.
“To be now considering censoring what we say to the British press, and attempting to prevent us from disseminating factual information, is an attack on the basic principles of democratic society.
“I am astonished that a German court is allowed, or even being requested, to censor the British media.”
He added: “He has requested that the court order a European enforceable injunction, specifically stating that the purpose of that would be to ensure that the injunction also applies in Great Britain.
“Ubani's lawyer has asked for the court injunction against Stuart and me, and requested that the court also impose a restriction ordering that we must pay 250,000 euros if we venture within 200 metres of Dr Ubani.”
Dr Ubani has already used a legal team in Germany to gag the local media about six malpractice lawsuits filed against him, three of which he has settled and three of which are still pending.
Earlier this month an investigation by the health care watchdog into Take Care Now, the GP out-of-hours company that employed Dr Ubani, accused it of cutting corners in pursuit of profit.
The Care Quality Commission report found it put finance before clinical care and included a list of failures by the company which was "heavily reliant" on overseas doctors flying in from Europe to work out-of-hours shifts.
The company, run by five GPs and two non-GPs, ignored several warnings about the use of diamorphine and the potential for patients to die in the months, it found.
The Daily Telegraph recently disclosed that two of its bosses, Dr Graeme Kelvin and Dr David Egan have gone on to other jobs running similar patient services for the NHS.
The General Medical Council has called for new laws to allow doctors from within the European Union to be tested on their clinical skills and language abilities in the same way as doctors from the rest of the world.
Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, has pledged urgent reform of GP out of hours services and wants family doctors to have more responsibility for their patients outside of working hours, after this was removed in the new contract introduced in 2004.
Neither Dr Ubani's nor his solicitors were available for comment.
A hearing is due later next month.
Posts
