Total Visits

Friday, 13 July 2012

UKIP Trolling?

On Tuesday I was in the splendid Victorian Gothic surrounds of Court 14 in the Royal Courts of Justice at the Strand before Mr Justice Tugendhat, who is a highly respected ornament to the Judicial Bench of England and Wales.

The occasion arose out of the activities of one of UKIP’s ‘keyboard warriors’, Mr Stuart Parr of Brookside (sic), Telford, Shropshire, who wrote some months ago that the English Democrats were “Not left, not right, JUST RACIST”, This is of course simply a lie.

I asked Mr Parr to apologise and to withdraw the remark, but he refused to do so.

One of the interesting elements in this attack by Mr Parr, in his role as "Bloggers for UKIP", was that it took place very shortly after I had told Nigel Farrage that I was not interested in joining UKIP. Also at that time Mr Farrage was involved personally in trying to recruit other English Democrats to UKIP. Draw your own conclusions!

Mr Parr had regularly criticised me in past blogs and therefore in effect identified me, which raised the possibility that, by doing so, he had taken the case outside of the rule that political parties cannot sue however outrageous and untruthful any remark may be in which they are attacked.

Interestingly, and usefully for the future, the Judge has ruled that, if Mr Parr had mentioned me by name in the defamatory remarks, then I would be clearly within my rights to sue. As he had not specifically mentioned me I therefore had to go through various legal technical pleading “hoops” to bring my case. As I was only suggesting that Mr Parr should pay £500 by way of a token to a charity of my choice, I naturally had not been prepared to spend the thousands of pounds on the case that would have been required to get libel barristers involved.

In the circumstances the case will not be going forward but I make no apology for firing a warning shot across the bows of Mr Parr and indeed any of the other enemies of English nationalism who might be prepared to adopt gutter tactics to attack us.

As the old saying goes it is not the dog in the fight but the fight in the dog that counts and there is plenty of fight left in this old dog!

As it was, I rather enjoyed my outing, which may get reported in the press as there was a journalist present.

Below is my witness statement that was submitted in this case.

1st
Claimant
R C W Tilbrook
6.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CASE NO. H12D00280
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
CENTRAL REGISTRY
BETWEEN
ROBIN CHARLES WILLIAM TILBROOK
Claimant
- and -
STUART PARR
Defendant
__________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT
___________________________

I, Robin Charles William Tilbrook, of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP, will says as follows:-

1. I am the Claimant in this case and I am also the sole Principal of Tilbrook’s Solicitors. I am also a past President of the Mid-Essex Law Society.

2. It is obviously professionally important to me to maintain my good name, as I would naturally wish to do so, as I would suspect would any honourable person. In any case I do bitterly resent any allegation that I am a racist.

3. I am also the Chairman and one of the founder members of the English Democrats Party, which is a party whose primary purpose is to campaign for a Parliament, First Minister and Government for England with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones within a federal UK. The Party is expressly open to peoples of all background, ethnicity, etc., who share our aims and, indeed, we have stood quite a few candidates who are not ethnically English, not only people of Scottish, Welsh and Irish extraction, but also Jewish, Sikh and Kashmiri and Muslim.

4. I mention about the English Democrats Party because we are an avowedly non-racist Party. I appreciate that I could not bring this claim on behalf of the Party. Although any accusation that the Party is racist would be very unfair and untruthful, I do appreciate that the courts have, perhaps wisely, excluded this, given the potential scope for litigation. Our country now unfortunately has an unpleasant, untruthful and amoral political culture, in which all too many political opponents have no scruple or compunction about lying about parties and individuals that they oppose.

5. I have not met the Defendant very often. He was a fellow member of the Campaign for an English Parliament. I now think I may have fallen into the trap of taking him at face value and assuming that his motives were honourable. It now appears in fact that his involvement with the Campaign for an English Parliament was mostly focussed on undermining them and preventing them from making any progress and also for reasons of personal profit. In any event, to my knowledge, he appeared, until recently, to be someone who was a sincere, patriotic Englishman, despite the incongruity and inconsistency of him being an activist for the United Kingdom Independence Party (“UKIP”).

6. I gradually became aware over the course of several years that the Defendant appeared on the internet masquerading under several different names and in most guises claiming to be a sincere English nationalist but claiming that the English Democrats were simply the wrong type of English Nationalist and therefore should not be supported. He was also unusually keen to highlight any mistakes that had been made. As time has gone on I have appreciated more and more that in fact these attacks were part of a sustained campaign by the Defendant and several other UKIP activists that he is working with. I know this has been described as a UKIP “Black Ops Team” of internet trolls.

7. On various occasions the Defendant has criticised me on his blog and highlighted my role as Chairman/Leader of the English Democrats Party. It follows that any attacks on the Party by the Defendant are inevitably closely entwined with attacks on persons, such as myself, that he has clearly identified as being the decision makers within the Party.

8. Although most of his attacks on me have been incorrect and misguided, I have become increasingly conscious that he has been attempting to smear my personal reputation and I consider that he has done so in this case. He has also done so from the ignoble motive of seeking to obtain improper advantage for his Party. To me the allegation that the English Democrats (and therefore myself) are “just racist” is simply one too many dishonest smears by this Defendant.

9. I accordingly wrote to him seeking a retraction/apology/and offer of amends. Far from retracting the comment, or in any way being conciliatory, the Defendant published the correspondence and commented upon it seeking to smear my reputation further. The Defendant made no attempt to claim in his further comments that I was not one of his intended victims.

10. So far as I can see, the Defendant’s case and Application rests upon pure technicalities, rather than any attempt to deal with the claim justly, either within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Rules or at all. In open correspondence I have made it clear that I restrict my claim to £500 which of course would usually be well below the Small Claims limit; albeit as a libel claim the rules require it to be conducted in the High Court. In the circumstances I do not consider this Application to be either well-founded or proportionate.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts in this Witness Statement are true.

Signed………………………………….. Dated …………………….
Robin Charles William Tilbrook

16 comments:

  1. Defamation on the Internet is a criminal offence under Section 127(2) of the Communications Act 2003, so any "lies" published online are prosecutable by the police in theory, or a private prosecution in practice - Suing for libel in the High Court is too expensive by comparison. Other options include the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, for which a civil injunction can be easily brought in the County Court under Section 3.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Jonathan. Food for thought!

      Delete
  2. The court report for the day to give some balance http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=49654&c=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes indeed 'anonymous' we should always strive for balance.
      I was just going to post that link up myself when I saw that you had written the above.
      A pity UKIP don't feel the same?

      Delete
  3. I realise that I have to be very careful how I word this but I am getting so very weary of the fact that Europeans and only Europeans have been manipulated into becoming totally obsessed with the idea that racialisation, to prefer living with one's own race with one's own culture and historic identity in one's own homeland is unacceptable and evil even though previous generations would have accepted, as other races in Asia and Africa are still allowed to do, that it is perfectly natural and that we are genetically programmed so to do as nature wishes the individual races to survive and not be bred out, for whatever reason. The reason that China and Japan are so successful is that they have retained their homogeneity. People actually prefer living with their own kind and research has shown that when over 10% of another race move into a previously racially pure area then the host race begins to move out so that over time they are replaced. Nobody ever accuses the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians or the Africans of racism because they do not wish to surrender their racial homogeneity. As Europe and North America begin to fragment along racial lines, Europeans will never again be the united force to lead world development and progress they once were, this is assuming that they do not ultimately become extinct anyhow. The Chinese know this and because they rely on our inventiveness probably worry about it. If the Chinese choose to think they are superior to all other races then that is fine by me. If Africans and Indians will not allow other races to settle in their continents then that is fine by me as that is how nature intended it. Those behind trying to alter human nature are of two groups, the international socialists who believe the impossible should happen and the international globalizing capitalists who wish to destroy homogeneous European nations so as to facilitate their creation of a globalized plutocracy of the few and to bring into Europe the cheapest labour they can find in the third world so as to enrich themselves. Europeans are now trapped like rabbits in the headlights of an oncoming car. They are frozen in fear of the fact that their homelands are being surrendered to non-Europeans but equally frozen in the fear of being called by Leon Trotsky's Marxist invention of racism which, quite rightly he knew would destroy them. The Chinese must think we are totally insane except for the fact that they will be the ultimate winners as Europeans are fatally wounded and go down. After the John Terry business the cry is still "kick racism out of football". Perhaps they never will even if they try for a thousand years. That's just how it is. You will never stop war and you will never extinguish the preferance of racial groups for their own kind. Please can Europeans finally acknowledge that this is the case before they are overwhelmed and go down and the rest of the world with them. Like Enoch Powell I have been called a deep thinker but perhaps I do not think deeply but just think unlike most Europeans now who live by sound bites or are easily felled by Marxist smear campaigns and intimidation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your obsession with UKIP is becoming unhealthy, Robin. The real enemy are the Lib-Lab-Con who got us in to the mess we are in now and created the unfair devolution situation that your party campaigns against. It is much harder to pursue them through the courts on matters such as this so you go for the smaller fish who are less able to defend themselves instead. Not an endearing trait. Anonymous (AKA Cliff Dixon)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cliff, Judging by your huge efforts to attack us it is you and UKIP who are obsessed! But then you would be knowing that when we get sufficiently organised and have sufficient funding we will eclipse UKIP

      Delete
  5. Isn't Mr Tugendhat the judge who was involved in doling out all those ridiculous gagging injunctions for footballers and actors who had been caught with their pants down?

    It might be better to challenge being called a racist by a legal system that pursues these accusation against white people. There are countless cases, old and new on the internet with non whites racially abusing us and they recive no 'justice'. However Emma West and others like her have been jailed for their indiscretions. The control of language and its manipulation have resulted in the perception that merely having white skin means that one is 'racist' and therefore all society's ills can be laid at our door without question.

    Racism, as defined by our media and establishment today is entirely political and phliosophical concept that should be callenged rather than accepted as truth. It is a perverted and dangerous bludgeon.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'Interestingly, and usefully for the future, the Judge has ruled that, if Mr Parr had mentioned me by name in the defamatory remarks, then I would be clearly within my rights to sue'

    He didn't, so you never had a case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Parr did do so in other postings. This adds a couple of extra hoops to go through and put him close to the borderline.
      Don't get too cocky though "Anonymous" (aka Cliff Dixon) we English usually lose the first few battles but that doesn't stop us winning the war!

      Delete
  7. thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr Justice Tugendhat!, you jest of course, that is a Wogs Name and NOT an English Native one! tel Him to Fuck off back from whence He came Fucking Foreigner! I would Have, you as an Englishman have a RIGHT to be Judjed by YOUR Peers, a Foreigner can NEVER be your Peer it is as simple as that to a Born Indigenous Englishman!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't agree anonymous and no 'french' please

      Delete
  9. did you realise that if a Eastern European Driving Licence holder gets Flashed for Speeding they do NOT get Points Endorsed on their Licence, they only need to pay the Fine. The reason for this is the fact that DVLA, as they did not issue the Licence in the first place have no Authority to place Points on the Licence, furthermore the Licence holder is under no obligation to replace their Licence till they reach the age of 70 Years and here's me thinking that NO ONE was supposed to be above the Law and that not only did the Law have to treat everyone Equally it also had to be SEEN to do so!.
    Hardly Equality is it?, more like "ENGLISH" Apartheid if you ask me!.
    I have raised this issue with my MP Geoffrey Robinson aver 12 Months ago, He did reply saying He would look into this but so far has not replied.
    I am seeking an end to this blatent Injustice and Compensation and removal of Points for ALL UK Licence holders since this became an issue!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Having read all of the above, I, as a first-timer here, question your motives. Do you wish to ensure that Britain is kept the most fair, compassionate and forward thinking or fragment it in such a way that it is seen as nothing but a monsterous relic?

    Specially taking into account that Britain has had a lot of help to have the 'Great' title added to it name from those very people you are wanting to put out. Would it not be better to try and promote English culture alongside other cultures? And yes, the most important of all that we all are ruled by one law of land and not the fragmented law as it stands at moment. So, anybody coming into this country would come under the law while they are living or visiting. Let us put 'Great' back into Britain again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There never has been and never will be one "British" 'Law of the Land'. The is Scots law, Northern Irish law and English & Welsh law.
      I am not campaigning to break up the UK state but if I am forced to choose then I choose my nation - English and Proud!

      Delete