Craig,
You know I’m a fan of yours but I’m not certain you are right about this one.

The Quilliam Foundation is a ‘Private Company Limited by Guarantee without share capital’ Company number : 06432342

I am not an expert in company law but does this not mean they are exempt from the filing of accounts? They filed an annual return 09.12.08. Company was incorporated 20.11.2007

-Control

Craig,

Nice to see you back.

I must admit that until today, I haven’t taken any of the flu scare stories too seriously. Both my kids have had all the usual vaccinations, including my daughter recently for HPV which is supposed to protect against cervical cancer, and my son for Yellow Fever before he went to South America.

I was aware several months ago of the incident where Baxter contaminated a flu vaccine in an incredibly dangerous way which would have caused a Deadly Pandemic except for a test that a Checkoslovakian lab techician ran on his own initiative. This was reported in the Toronto Sun but was not widely published anywhere else in the mainstream.

I thought all the flu scares that have been relentlessly promoted by the mainstream press, were simply to increase profits for pharmaceutical companies, but that there would be no great danger to the general public.

The ideas on numerous internet sites, about a planned program of depopulation by the World Health Organisation were simply too far fetched to be taken seriously.

Putting all the different strands together of all events concerning vaccinations and the various types of flu, both scientific and political is extremely difficult to get your head around – because there are so many.

The vast majority of people will think this just a wild conspiracy story, that could not possible be true – as did I until today.

The problem I have though is that – maybe because I was named after a Nun, I have maintained both a Fear and Respect of Nuns.

The Nun in the video “A Nun in the Field of Vaccines/Flu Tells the Truth!” scares the hell out of me. This isn’t easy to watch, as it goes on for 1 hour – and its in Spanish with English subtitles, and she doesn’t half go on….

However, the content and its implications should scare the shit out of you.

 

If it doesn’t you haven’t been paying attention.

Sure it sounds crazy that “they” really are trying to “solve” the overpopulation problem like – NOW – and kill Several Billion People over the Next Few Months – but this Girl Is Telling The Truth. This is Not out of Some Science Fiction Film – It is Real, Here and NOW

www.mrausa.net/showthread.php?t=1648

And what exactly is going on in the Ukraine?

www.theflucase.com

Tony

I dont believe a single word of The Official Line about the $ham War On Terror,Inc…

Just a military-media wetdream of insane faux-Christian NeoCons who just wanna war at any cost(and profit) at the expense of peoples with different coloured skins.

It’s all a HUGE lie.

So the W.H.O. is really engaged in a genocidal project to depopulate the world… now everything makes sense!

As daft conspiracy theories go that’s up there with ‘9/11 was an inside job using missiles and holographic planes’.

I supposed that’s the cost of sticking you neck out to tell the truth about real hidden injustices; pretty soon every loony conspiracy nut is trying to jump on the wagon.

George Monbiot argues quite convincingly that the ‘over population’ is misdiagnosed:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/

He also has some interesting things to say about the (so-call) ‘9/11 Truth Movement’:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/02/20/bayoneting-a-scarecrow/

Watch Jane Burgermeister. If she’s an actress, then she’s better than Jodie Foster.

youtube.com/watch?v=PelTWCUmTsU

Tony

The best site I know for informed and objective reporting of the flu/flu vaccine panic is Meryl Nass M.D. at http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/

@Paul
Not all conspiracy theories of 9/11 suggest ‘holographic planes’. For starters, the Kean Commission report doesn’t mention them anywhere, yet still manages to be least plausible of all the accounts. I think both you and Monbiot are indulging in what Orwell in 1984 called ‘crimestop’. I quote:

“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”

@Vronksy – sounds like a good definition of Iain Dale’s thought processes regarding Cameron’s cast iron promises.

Companies House says that the QF accounts are overdue, so they must be expecting them to be submitted:

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/e473a907f36923b62b946aa6bc8ba453/compdetails

If swine flu is an attempt to depopulate the world, it’s a bit of a dud. There is something really weird about the irrational scaremongering which talks up a huge variety of minimal threats – flu, SARS, the War on Terror etc. But that’s a different story.

Craig,

Until today I would have completely agreed with you. I read the thing about Baxter’s several months ago, and I thought yeh – so what. It only really started to register this morning – first from what the Nun said in Spanish – of which I watched nearly all of it – and then the interview with Jane Burgermeister – of which I have only seen about 30 minutes – because my wife is nagging me to finish off decorating because we have invited several friends round on Saturday – and well she’s a woman – and can’t stand the house looking a mess when people come round…

I’ve read so much stuff about what has been going on with regards to the Evil in the World, that I now do not discount it all – just the really crazy stuff for which I have no personal evidence – and yes I have seen a UFO pass over my house which seemed to crash about half a mile to the North, but I couldn’t be bothered to look to see if an Alien climbed out of the wreckage. If he knocked on my door, and said hello mate – and was looking a bit distressed an ET like, then of course I would invite him in…

Just watch Jane Burgermeister or whatever she is called. She reminds me of an Ex-Girlfriend of a Friend of mine – very intellectual, well educated, sweet, nice and honest. Of course she could be making it all up, but everything she said is well documented elsewhere – but not in the mainstream press. If it was bollocks, then it should have been covered by the MSM as an example of a totally nutty conspiracy theory to be laughed at – or whatever. But they won’t touch it with a bargepole.

And the economic wipeout has already happenned for Millions of People all over the World – By Accident or Design?

As for myself – well, I am totally amazed I myself am still alive and healthy. If this is just a load of bollocks then fair enough. And I do agree that exponential population growth is a very serious problem, I just don’t agree with the Mass Genocide of Billions as a sensible way to solve the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelTWCUmTsU

Love & Peace,

Tony

Paul at November 5, 2009 1:25 PM:

One of the many hallmarks of fallacious argument is to discredit valid concerns by trumpeting absurdities. Like you just did. One skirmish does not, however, win a war.

‘The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.’ — Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopher (1844 – 1900)

The Quilliam Foundation is likely to be an MI5 front company, you know. All these reformed Jihadists, they are as lunatic as they ever were – rather like the neocon ex-Trots in the USA or like, say John Reid, ex-Stalinist. Same mindset, different cause. From one extreme to another. Lord save us from these Tubisms!

And yet you set up a secular not-for-profit arts production company, and Companies House chase you down as though you were bloody Enron if you’re a day late because people pull funding out at the last minute! And you get fined the same, whether you’re a transnational billion-dollar operation or a tiny arts company. While these security state front companies set up by ex-religious psychotics get our dosh instead, no questions asked, just as they used to get it when they were Holy Warriors fighting ‘Communism’! Makes me mad, bad and dangerous to know! Any questions about Quilliam, direct ‘em to the Security Service in London.

Check out: www.pakistanifilmfest.com

The Quilliam Foundation don’t seem bothered with restoring the first mosque in England, opened on Christmas Day in 1889 at Brougham Terrace, Liverpool.

I agree with Suhayl Saadi. From what I’ve seen there is a vast national and international network of companies with evidence linking them to carousel fraud and yet these companies are protected by state agencies.

“The Quilliam Foundation don’t seem bothered with restoring the first mosque in England, opened on Christmas Day in 1889 at Brougham Terrace, Liverpool.”

Which is ironic, considering that QF is named after Abdullah Quilliam who set that mosque up in the first place! And Abdullah was an ‘Islamist’!

It used to be the case, I don’t know if it still is, that people who used a po box number had to register a fixed address behind it. This address is available for the public to scrutinize.

Craig, you could just as well have posted this topic under ‘ The Election ‘. Abscence of accounts is normal in Islam-ic organisations. This is because anybody who gets a footing in the Islam-ic world here in the UK is already buying and selling with the government. That is, selling Muslims and buying government authorisation.

This is the same as the Jack Straw syndrome in Bradford. But surely in that instance New Labour were buying Muslims and selling favours? Jack Straw was in fact selecting ‘moderate Muslims’ in exchange for favours. Muslims or Non-Muslims who criticised New Labour’s foreign policies were not given any favours as you saw. The lovely M.P for Salford stated that Muslims were not even allowed to think anti-government thoughts.

What we have witnessed with Karzai, is what actually happens with the Muslim leaders here in the UK. No questions asked, deals done and permission granted. Quid pro quo, let us know if anyone of your community is challenging UK policies abroad.

If Quilliam presented accounts, it would instantly be obvious that it was a govt. sponsored organisation. This is just New Labour Hazel Blears anti-Islam quim.

The way things are going…Bit by bit by bit.

“In October 2008, the European Commission proposed”…

http://tinyurl.com/ylb24ve

Thanks, Ruth, for your support. I also agree with your analysis on this, anon. It is the application of imperial policy in the domestic sphere. They seem quite happy with pantomime villians (in or out of Central Casting costume) and yes-men; most of these two groups are likely to be on the payroll, as was the case with a certain number of union officials, media industrial correspondents, etc. during the Cold War. I sometimes wonder just who, among those I know, are on the covert payroll. What those with hard state power attempt to avoid, above all, is the prospect of a lucid and coherent oppositional critique aligned with a popular front power-base. If one wishes to study the mechanisms of imperial power in the familiar modern setting, one could do worse than to study Northern Ireland. This applies as much, and especially, to alternative economic frameworks as to any other socio-political groupings.

you say failure to file accounts is illegal. http://www.duport.co.uk/credit-reports/order.php this site is companies house made easy. When you check The Quilliam Foundation you get two company numbers: No: 06432342 and No: UC6258807. Only the first appears on companies house, they do not show UC prefix numbers or even businesses that only have a UC number. UC either means unincorporated or under charter, I’m not sure which but UC companies do not need to file accounts. Councils, courts and police stations are all registered companies in this way and I have been looking into this for a while because it all sounds very shifty.More info on tpuc.org

Does anybody know the names of all the directors and secretaries?

Excellent stuff Craig.

Only the other day the BBC was reporting a non-story about a Scottish charity returning public money it hadn’t used – which was actually awfy honest of them, given most organisations, private or public, will find excuses to use up any budget still in credit before the end of the current financial year.

What made this a ‘news story’ was because it was the SNP-minority Scottish Government which was awarding the monies, and its recipient, a Scottish-Islamic charity -
Money returned by Islamic group
BBC Scotland
30 Oct 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8333137.stm
Unlike The Quilliam Foundation, which attacks British Muslims and gets its dosh from the British New Labour Government hence the lack of scrutiny or the slightest interest in its financial integrity.

“Public Money Goes AWOL”…

http://tinyurl.com/ygsr453

 

Some research on The Quilliam Foundation, from J7, here:
http://tinyurl.com/yjnklck

“UC either means unincorporated or under charter, I’m not sure which but UC companies do not need to file accounts. Councils, courts and police stations are all registered companies in this way and I have been looking into this for a while because it all sounds very shifty.”

If so, it means that QF has public status and is, in effect, part of the Home Office. If this is indeed the case, how about making a Freedom of Information request for QF’s accounts?

The Quilliam Foundation has threatened to sue for libel and claim that they have indeed filed accounts.

Hope you have your day in court, Craig!
It’ll be a wonderful place for you to say all those things that you want to say. :)

“The lawyer’s letter from Clarke Willmott insists that I pay damages to the directors personally, rather than to the Foundation”

Interesting indeed.

Ominous stuff Craig, please do keep us posted.

Are they going to sue the Company House website as well or just you. It may be tempting to give them the traditional Private Eye response refer them to Arkell v Pressdam 1971 case.

With thanks to Bat, it appears that Quilliam have in fact bust up with Douglas Murray and the Tory neo-cons.

The great litigious society, brought to you by the United States of America.

“If I (and the Company House website) am wrong in saying that Quilliam had not filed accounts, of course I apologise without any need for a lawyer.”

And that should be the end of it, surely.

Was going to say, I thought they had had a bust up with the Tories over the partisan flavour of the organisation.

Their are a lot of questions about this organisation and its leaders already in the public domain, much of it quite negative.

Additionally, the fact that this organisation is in receipt of public funds allows for greater scope to question its probity.

Wouldn’t worry about this attempt to silence criticism.

Hmm, I second John: the response given in “Arkell v. Pressdram” would be entirely appropriate.

Bless them. Aren’t they sensitive souls? Meanwhile the rich and powerful tend to reach for the solicitor’s number in the first instance, rather than argue their case in public, and it speaks volumes when they do so.

Sue, Grabbit and Run? With a nod to Bottom, I prefer “Shotgun, Bastard and Dribble”.

According to CH, Quilliam filed its accounts on 10/11/2009, six days after your post.

So there we have it. No case to answer I would have thought.

Damages paid to the directors and not to the foundation eh?…

Interesting indeed.

Still..Gove & Co might get a few nights in a 5 star hotel out of it…trebles all round!

I think Ed hussain needs to have a debate with Mpac or with you Craig on question time.

Are they scared about something ?

Thats why they using lawyers ?

Spending tax payers money on lawyers … gravy train stop wasting tax payers money ed.

You can’t secure the muslim Vote because no one classes you as muslim

Best thing to do is invoice Clarke Willmott £75.00, for your valuable time spent reading their letter.

If they don’t pay up within 30 days then sell their debt to Buchanan Clark & Wells for 75p, who’ll then proceed to torture them for eons with letters, phone calls and threats to send large men to visit their premises.

Do unto them, as….

I don’t believe late filing of accounts is illegal, just as it is not illegal to file late tax returns to HMRC. You just get a late filing penalty and then the bodies will take court action to claim the money. Lots of companies file late accounts – and are granted extensions – and I would bet few if any are arrested or get criminal records, unless they refuse to pay the penalties after a court ruling. Moreover, the Quilliam Foundation’s entry on Companies House states:

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2009 (FULL)
Next Accounts Due: 31/12/2010
Last Return Made Up To: 20/11/2008
Next Return Due: 18/12/2009

As such, I think it would be appropriate to withdraw the claim that they are not acting illegally, even though you can if you want argue they are acting improperly – which is not a litigious statement. If that is withdrawn, I think it would be very difficult for the Quilliam Foundation to pursue a libel suit or claim damages. Once a matter has been brought to your attention, if you make appropriate corrections and a retraction – even partial – I don’t think the lawyers would advise continuing action. All the crap about compensation, hit rates, etc, is just intended to frighten you. But a prompt response is essential if you are to mitigate yourself in court. If you can’t do it, then find someone who can edit your entry.

Daniel

I have amended to say they are now in compliance. But worth noting that they submitted their accounts AFTER I wrote the article saying that they had not.

Perhaps worth tweeting something like this: Craig Muyrray threatened with libel by Quilliam Foundation. See http://tiny.cc/rjvjA

Craig: Still, I don’t think you were on safe grounds. There are rules and there is the law. A company may break the rules and face a financial penalty for late accounts, but I do not think it technically means the firm is illegal. Best not to qualify your retraction by suggesting that your blog prompted them to submit their accounts.

I have a problem with the fact that QF went to the lawyers and running up a legal bill instead of approaching you and then demanding compensation. This could backfire on them if they pursue costs this after you have retracted the key part of their complaint. I don’t think a judge would look favourably on that. It is also unclear who the plaintiff is. The judge is acting on behalf of QF, so is it not the case that any compensation should be paid to QF rather than the directors individually? I’m not au fait with it, but it’s worthwhile getting legal advice (even informal) to find out whether QF is following normal procedure.

No doubt the lawyers and their clients are reading this. I would suggest to them that this is a fight that is really not worth pursuing since such action nearly always places the motives of the complainant under public scrutiny and gives publicity to the original remarks. If you stand up for your beliefs, be prepared for some hard knocks. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Just a point of clarification where I stand. As someone who has been involved for some years in human rights in the Middle East, I admire much of QF’s work on combating extremism and advancing a counter-argument to Islamism. I also laud its recent efforts in opposing the BNP’s hate propaganda against the British Muslim community. But I am disappointed that QF has decided to jump so quickly into taking libel action and a resolution without lawyers would ensure that I and many other supporters of QF’s objectives will continue to praise its work. However, seeking to suppress criticism using the legal sledgehammer of Britain’s libel laws is something that leaves a very nasty taste in my mouth, regardless of the strength of your argument.

As for Craig Murray, his insight into the nastiness of Uzbekistan’s fascist regime and Western de facto collusion in torture for the sake of the war on terror should remind everyone, including those in QF, that our enemy’s enemy is not our friend when they ritually contravene human rights law and the liberal and democratic ideals we are supposed to be upholding.

There are obvious points of contention, but both Craig Murray and the Quilliam Foundation base their arguments on values of liberal society. Why not seek common ground? Do both sides really see each other as the most odious examples of what they despise? I don’t think so. Craig Murray is not an Al-Qaeda supporter and the Quilliam Foundation are not right-wing reactionaries. Let’s get a grip here.

It’s not only me that feels this way. There’s a bit of a “Defend Craig Murray” campaign building at Harry’s Place: http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/11/12/defend-craig-murray/
Come on, Quilliam Foundation, just drop the threats and move on!

Daniel: “Best not to qualify your retraction by suggesting that your blog prompted them to submit their accounts”

What a fucking ridiculous suggestion.

 

“What a fucking ridiculous suggestion.”

Is it? Sure, you don’t have the stress and financial cost of going through court. But, for Craig’s sake, it is better to make a strategic retreat so that any subsequent legal action is rejected outright and he and his family do not suffer the consequences. A sign of maturity is to know where to strike a compromise without losing face. Craig simply stating that QF are not behaving illegally with regards to their accounts submission and QF leaving it at that is the best way forward for both sides. It’s not a fight worth fighting for either side. It’s simply not that important to gamble money on.

I suspect it is in the names of the directors personally, rather than the Foundation, because libel only applies to people not corporate bodies.

from websitelaw:

It is sometimes thought that you cannot libel a corporation. That is incorrect. A corporation has a reputation just like a natural person, and that reputation may be injured by a defamatory statement.

the hard core neo conservative ideologues are unhappy with qf for not delivering what they had hoped.

thats why douglas murray et al are now setting themselves against qf.

“I admire much of QF’s work on combating extremism and advancing a counter-argument to Islamism.”

they do no such thing they promote neo conservatism as an anti dote to islam.

i have no idea what islamism is just that it is generally a term used by neo conservative ideologues .

Shouldn’t this firm of solicitors be reported to the Law Society? Seems dodgey to me.

I agree completely with your comments on a number of prominent former Jihadis. They are, and have always been, opportunists. They may benefit from that particular kind of therapy known at ‘GKT’. Far superior to CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy), it is evidence-based and has been subjected to randomised, controlled, triple-blinded trials internationally. GKT. Glasgow Kiss Therapy. Sock it to ‘em! In court.

Craig.

Just a thought. I do not know how your blogging system handles date stamping. Does it date stamp an addition to a post by you at the time of the addition as it does for those of your readers or does it update the date stamp of the entire post. Libel lawyers are unscrupulous and dishonest and I would not trust one of them not to use any confusion that arose to bolster their argument that you you accused Quilliam of not submitting their return after they had in fact done so.

Do a test first by updating an unrelated post.

If the date stamps of original and addition are not different then make sure you have some hard copies of the original before you update it. Also explicitly include in your text the date of the original post and the date of the update.

I suggest you follow Glen Greenwald’s techniqe of giving each update a header “Update I”, “Update II” and so on and adding at the top of the original post a heading “Updates I & II below” as in this example http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/#story_full_0e4d6f6d38ef97bb531da3ef91396f73 .

Craig,

They’re as mad as a bunch of wet hens and I simply cannot understand why. If you check out other websites the QF and that daft lad Ed have been accused of all sorts over the years … so ’tis mighty strange they’ve got their dander up over this.
What it does ensure now, of course, is that every investigative journalist worth his and her salt will be pouring over their accounts with the finest of fine tooth combs … not that I’m suggesting anything untoward, of course.
But the QF’s reaction to your blog is mighty strange.

Craig, that seems ugly. I wish you all the best. To be honest, i only heard from far about the Quilliam Foundation (being in Germany and all), so if you can, please could you send me some information or a link about them? I would like to write about this in German, too.

Omar, check Wikipedia and Google, surely?

Meanwhile, I hope QF drop this silly nonsense, but if you get to court, you can reasonably be surprised by the tone of the letter:

“Why, Mister Jagger only phoned me the other day to say he was impressed with my blog – so much so that he would have liked to make a donation”.

Ha ha!

Interesting post here, on Ed Jagger

“Is Quilliam’s Head of Ops some kind of spook?

We know from the recent Panorama programme that some of the projects funded by the government’s Prevent programme are for the purpose of gathering intelligence on the Muslim community. And that some of the intelligence analysts were already in place.

My question is what role does Ed Jagger of the Quilliam Foundation have? As reported in the Times, QF is receiving over £1 million from the government. What are they expected to do in return?

“Ed Jagger is Head of Operations and graduated from Southampton University in 2002. For the next 6 years he pursued a military career, commissioning at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 2003. During his service he reached the rank of Captain and managed over 100 soldiers and officers. He was deployed operationally to the Middle East several times experiencing and observing the effects of Al Qaeda terror cells first hand whilst conducting counter terrorist operations. These experiences drive him in his role at the Quilliam Foundation.”

http://quilliamfoundation.org/people.html
http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=41125

Hope he worked better in the field than with his pisspoor effort to deceive you.

Where do they get these incompetents?

An obvious case yet again where openess and accountability of spooks and the resultant critical analysis might help in the old quality control.

God help us…

Ed Jagger…bloody spooks…

! I am not Ed Husain”..lol..These fuckers can never answer a straight question…their hubris and cult of self-mystique always gets the better of them.

Sshaken notsh shtirred Pusshy eh?…

They’re stuck in a Boy’s Own World of their own insanity and vanity.

Ed Jagger appears to be Quilliam’s resident soldier. Is he cut from the same jib as Rory Stewart by any chance ?
The rest of the ‘Directors’ appear to be sharp elbowed 20 somethings on the make.
Good luck to you- these sods need taking down a peg or two.

“sharp elbowed 20 somethings on the make…”

Classic.

Spot On Mark.

From Wiki
“On blogs and among many Muslims”, co-founder Ed Husain “has been condemned as a government stooge, an MI5 agent” and even an apostate from Islam.[24]

With the army training it seems exceedingly likely he is a stooge.

I say! Lying through one’s teeth over the phone. And a Sandhurst graduate too. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, what?

Ia he related to Mick or Jade?

Is he going to use Carter Fuck? See page 7 Private Eye 1249. First it was a ‘bent solicitor’ Mireskandari v the Mail. Now it’s Carter Fuck v Mireskandari for their unpaid bill. C-F feature in the two following items.

I don’t think that he was trying to get your details; it’s much more likely that he was trying to set you up by getting you to accept a large sum of money. After accepting the sum of money, the SFO would have started an investigation. This is a common action in my experince from the intelligence services.

Interesting point Ruth if so what are they frightened of?

Read this:

http://pulsemedia.org/2009/08/13/abusing-quilliams-name/

Serious cash and a well-funded office like Quilliam were probably the carrots for Ed Husain’s to spill a few beans about his former friends. The promise has been kept but that doesn’t mean that he is a reformed radical in the way that non-Muslims might hope.
All of Islam has been radicalised by the injustices of the West, as indeed South America has been radicalised against the USA. The jinn cannot easily be put back into the bottle, either for Ed Husain or for Muslims in general. Bush and Blair should have thought about that before.

Self-confessed Zio-b***hes Melanie Philips and Hazel Blears gave a little cover for this purposeless organisation by adding a little anti-Islam, sulphurous rhetoric at its launch. Ed Jagger is there to hold the tiller on the same hostile course. After its original purpose as a bribe, it has absolutely no useful function and it represents no danger at all, except like a drifting vessel in the busy North Sea shipping lanes, of getting in the way of much bigger craft like Craig, in their much more important campaigns.

anno, powerful Americans don’t think about things like that because – as is obvious from the way they speak and behave – they don’t consider that anybody else is as real as they are. Non-Americans don’t count. In that respect, Obama and Clinton are no different from Bush and Rice.

http://lawfulrebellion.org/

Don’t know if these guys could help..

Absolutely scandalous! I never trusted this foundation and your post just confirmed my thoughts about them. Lies all around. The fact that this foundation is paid by taxpayers money is ridiculous.

Hi Craig,

I’ve written an article regarding all of this. The Quilliam Foundation to me is nothing more than a lucrative career for Islamists, not with my money!

From the way they are carrying one, one might be forgiven for mistaking this Quilliam Foundation as a bunch of money-grubbing con artists who are desperate to scare off anyone who might rumble their deception. Surely any institution that actually had integrity would not be so litigatous, anxious to protect the “good name” of directors nobody had ever heard of – and naturally, this “good name” needs protecting with money. Lots of money – the more of it, the better their name will surely be regarded.

It is quite amazing that instead of putting the record straight, informing someone putting out falsehoods of the truth and asking them to publish a correction, anyone of good conscience would go to the lawyers instead, and immediately start demanding “compensation”.

This very act brings the supposedly damaged party into disrepute. Not only do they appear afraid of any examination or discussion, they now expose themselves as petty money-grubbers. Even if their case is entirely valid, they – and their lawyers – have brought themselves into disrepute by these actions, far more so than the supposed original offender. Clearly they care nothing for their reputation, only for _personal_ enrichment. So what good name has actually been damaged, and by whom? They should look closer to home to answer than one.

“Non-Americans don’t count.”–anticant

Here’s a true story.

Friends of my brother were in the American mid-West. A barmaid asked them where they were from. One fellow replied, “We’re from Ireland”. She said, “Ireland? Where’s that?” So he said, “You know, beside England?” And she replied, “That’d be New England? Over by Maine?” And he said, “Noo … Look, if you go to New York, get on a plane, and travel east across the Atlantic, the first place you hit is Ireland”. And she replied (I won’t try to write the accent) “Oh, well … thing is, honey, if I can’t drive there, it don’t exist for me”.

——

“Why, Mister Jagger only phoned me the other day to say he was impressed with my blog – so much so that he would have liked to make a donation”.–Jon

Priceless. They’re acting like inept children. I hope they have the common sense to drop this before making worse fools of themselves. Because this thread is a riot!

I’m sure Ruth is right: it was a pathetic attempt at entrapment.

You have to wonder at the mindset of someone who tries such tactics, however ineptly. The best gloss I can put on it is that you have made them very panicky and this has clouded their judgment.

I suspect you are onto something here Craig and it’s nothing to do with their accounts. This organisation needs some serious scrutiny.

By their fruit shall you know them.
If it is Jager, Blears and New Labour, you will be hunted, McCarthy style for supporting Al-Qaida on your blog, which is totally untrue and easy to prove. But if it’s Husain and his paymasters in MI6, you’ll get sued for racism, loss of business at The Quilliam and whiplash for his grandmother who was also affected even though she lives in Bangladesh, which is also totally untrue. There is no question of defamation when you call a publicly funded body to question about its absence of accounts. Hopefully they will rapidly tell their solicitors to stop and nasty New Labour will silence them as a liability and embarrassment until the election like Hazel Blears.

Hullo Craig,

I know it must be distressing for you, but I’m bloody envious me. As a penniless single man without assets (apart from this laptop and a suitcase full of old t-shirts and Thai fisherman’s pants) I dream of having people getting het up and wanting to drag me into court.

I’ve never heard of the Quilliam foundation but I’ll bet my bottom dollar they’re a pack of bullshit MEMRI-style Zionist spooks and stooges. Hmm… anyone here familiar with Muslims Against Sharia? Ha ha ha ha, a bunch of foul-mouthed Jewish boys pretending to be self-hating Muslims. Simple fact is: anyone who can organise an effort to heap shit on Muslims or otherwise paint them in a bad light will be rolling in dough. Free money!

Anyway if these gits want to sue me they should pop into my place and I’m their man. How about this for an article title “The Muslims Who Hate Muslims Express – All Aboard the Gravy Train!”

I have been following the Quilliam Foundation’s site and their activities for years and you have got them entirely wrong. Several of the commenters who insult them admit to knowing nothing about them. I count them among the noblest people now living in Britain, which is precisely why they are disliked. (I am not an associate of theirs).

I disagree with the action they have taken against Craig & hope they let it drop. I can’t take the feigned phone call seriously. I have done it mtself.

Bloggers will be taking note of such apparently threatening bully-boy behaviour. What an over-reaction!
I’d like to see more accountability and transparency in this Quilliam Foundation.

Felix,

“I can’t take the feigned phone call seriously. I have done it mtself.”

Ahh yes, but your activities are probably not funded by the state. A state funded body should not be playing these kind of tricks.

If Felix really does live in Italy, it’s no wonder he has such a high opinion of QF. He doesn’t pay the taxes that contribute to the £85K per annum salaries wolfed down by individuals he calls ‘noble’.

Nobody

Foul-mouthed Jewish boys pretending to be self-hating Muslims. What do you mean exactly?

The term self-hating is usually used to mean someone who believes in the theory, for example, Marxism, but despairs at what is done of wrong in its name. The term mocks sincerity.

Bloggers are often foul-mouthed for rhetorical effect. I didn’t see Craig, in front of the JCHR, go beyond the tone of ‘Would you like another peanut, Sir?’

So you are attacking political lying.
Whether someone takes an interest in politics to profit themselves or to defend themselves from being conned, lying and rudeness are probably counter-productive. Calm and Honesty is a difficult path to follow.

Craig

They only keep mobile phone numbers on record for about a year. If you need to get a record of the phone call (who called who etc)for any future court case? you had better get the network to give you a letter saying that phone called you.

Also, don`t delete that call/number from your phone, it was a mobile number and will be stored on your phone?.

I was in a court case (as a witness) and that got the case stopped…glad to say.

The police didn`t want to trace the call but the defense made an order to find out and after that the police dropped the case.

Hullo Anno,

What do you mean, what do I mean? Isn’t that straightforward? Muslims Against Sharia is a bunch of foul-mouthed Jewish boys pretending to be self-hating Muslims.

You did notice the capitol letters in the name there, yes? They denote that it’s a proper noun, which is to say the title of a well funded, well organised lobbying group – reformislam.org. Go visit them and see if you can figure out who they are or where their money comes from. All I know of them is that upon being questioned they instantly resorted to calling everyone in sight ‘cunts’, ‘fat cunts’, and ‘fat lesbian cunts’. The world’s least likely earnest Muslims keen to reform Islam.

I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention but Craig has very nicely detailed his encounters with made-from-whole-cloth Muslim terrorism. Sure enough, Craig’s experiences are both a drop in the ocean and par for the course (if you’ll forgive the mixed metaphor). Nothing surprising there since that IS the campaign. We are all to hate Muslims whether they’re guilty of anything or not. And there’s tons of money to pay for it all too. All of the people who regularly lob in here to perpetually heap shit on Muslims- If you ain’t on the payroll you’re missing out on free money. You should give Mossad a call and tell them you’re keen to do your bit.

Otherwise it seems that the chap in question from Quilliam has swung from being pro-terrorist to being anti-terrorist. Well of course. In the current anti-Muslim campaign both are required – those we must hate and those telling us that we must hate them. I haven’t a shred of doubt that he’s as queer as a two-bob watch. And not in an amusing gay fashion neither.

Anyway, lovely talking to you. Enjoy the rest of whatever.

Thanks a lot for your interesting article. But I had difficulty navigating around your site because I kept getting 502 bad gateway error. Just thought to let you know.

in the news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8361440.stm

“It appears to me that, even for a libel lawyer, Clarke Willmott was acting with questionable ethics by writing to me saying that accounts had been filed, yet not disclosing that they were filed six days AFTER I published that they had not been filed”.

I quite agree with you. But you must admit that what he said was technically true! Isn’t the law wonderful…

As Robert Heinlein pointed out half a century ago, the most artistic form of lying is to tell the truth – but not all of it.

Nice one, I’ll be asking Santa for one of your books for Christmas as help towards the case and as a (probably fruitless) attempt to reduce my woeful ignorance about what’s really going on in the world.

If they do prosecute an action for libel having filed accounts six days after your blog post could you prosecute an action for harrassment?

Well if it isn’t for the filing of its accounts, then I can only assume the Quilliam Foundation are upset that you called them a “government “War on Terror” neo-con propaganda vehicle”.

I’d be intrigued to find out what part of this is allegedly libellous, really intrigued, not because there’s a question of veracity attached to this description, but because it’s pretty difficult to establish what part of this should be deemed offensive.

One other thing, is Quilliam free to devote resources, provided in significant part by the government, to fighting a libel action against a blogger?

“One other thing, is Quilliam free to devote resources, provided in significant part by the government, to fighting a libel action against a blogger?”

qf a proxy org on behalf of the govt who are meant to deliver what other ‘muslim’ orgs could not and did not because government couldnt face upto the truth of their foreign policy igniting a radicalisation just as the intel agencies had warned in the first place?

I marvel at your readiness to brave this country’s libel laws. I imagine that other ‘potentates’ have backed off you because they had too much to lose by having their affairs dragged through the public eye. The same could happen here, if the disclosures in court convinced the right people that no more taxpayers’ money should be given to the Q foundation.

I admire your courage,but do you have a right to legal aid or something like that,if this goes to trial?You really don’t want to play the martyr role here,I gather.

Ed Jagger should have bought Craig’s books when he had the chance.

If he had read them he would know that Craig is not the sort of man who will roll over when threatened.

Quilliam’s behaviour has removed any doubt about the claims against them. This isn’t the way an honest organisation, let alone a charity, responds to things.

IMHO, Quilliam are being very stupid.

If they had any sense, they’d ignore what was written here. There is still an attitude abroad (seen on Sky, in regard to the Damian McBride affair) that blogs are some ‘backroom activity’ undertaken by people who can in no way be compared to “serious journalists” (!). Many people who don’t use the net other than for email, who are not bloggers, and who are unaware of major stories that have been broken by bloggers, can be very dismissive of them. I know many such people of my own generation.

By drawing attention to what Craig said, and by taking this to court where Craig can have his say again, they are guaranteed to get publicity – which may not be too good for them. They should let sleeping dogs lie (so to speak.) Instead of which they’ve already made the situation worse for themselves, with their stupid phonecall.

I too was wondering about legal aid.

“They are going to find that in court we are going to discuss their salaries, pensions, expenses and emoluments in very great detail indeed.”

Ha ha ha! These guys are so thick and they are going to get so slaughtered in a cross-examination by Craig, you could almost feel sorry for them. It’s like Norman Wisdom climbing into the ring with Joe Louis or something.

Without a doubt their paymasters at MI5 will shortly be telling them they can’t go through with this.
I have

An excellent opportunity to overturn this rock and see what lies beneath. I too agree that taxpayer’s money should not be used to fund a New Lab/neo-con propaganda vehicle either.

I’ll boot this one over to Private Eye. It’s likely they’ve seen it, but will make sure. Hopefully the QF will receive telephone calls from Eye diggers asap ;-)

For newcomers to this type of development, it’s called the Streisand effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Incidentally – although it’s probably already been thought of – I’d suggest various people (not just Craig) getting in their FoIA requests now regarding the QF, so that the information is ready and published should this come to court.

“It appears to me that, even for a libel lawyer, Clarke Willmott was acting with questionable ethics by writing to me saying that accounts had been filed, yet not disclosing that they were filed six days AFTER I published that they had not been filed.”

What do you expect from people who make a living out of the misery of unemployment and sickness/bereavement.

“From our base in Taunton we provide support across the UK with debt collection issues. We can work for a specific region or deal with all your national collection issues.”

“Debts are collected effectively, but without the aggressive techniques used elsewhere which can damage a client’s reputation.”…

http://tinyurl.com/ylxcmum

I wonder if Clarke Willmott have ever employed the services of these low lifes…

December 21, 2008

“The government has been accused of trampling on individual liberties by proposing wide-ranging new powers for bailiffs to break into homes and to use “reasonable force” against householders who try to protect their valuables.”

“Under the regulations, bailiffs for private firms would for the first time be given permission to restrain or pin down householders. They would also be able to force their way into homes to seize property to pay off debts, such as unpaid credit card bills and loans.”…

tinyurl.com/7ljtb9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Exactly. Trafigura/The Guardian/Twitter being an excellent example!

http://tinyurl.com/yg4q76c

@Stephen

I see Craig is already referenced on the Wikipedia page on the ‘Streisand effect’. If Quilliam try hard enough they can get him referenced twice.

Hint to Clarke Willmott : You really should educate your client about the Streisand effect.

Maybe we could help Craig by all buying a copy of his book online and sending to the lawyer chappy…. as a present :)

“Had you noticed that your clients filed their accounts six days AFTER I had posted my article saying that they had not filed their accounts?”

His clients probably omitted to tell him that trifling detail.

The European Declaration of Human Rights sect 10 guarantees “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority”

As a fakecharity I guess they are a public authority. Since the factual point they are disputing is that have filed accounts but that they hadn’t at the time you said they hadn’t they seem to have no case. That didn’t help over the LM trial (where LM mag had alleged that ITN had faked their “concentration camp” video & the judge said that the fact that they had “doesn’t matter”) but at that time the declaration wasn’t part of UK law.

It is always disgraceful that people use public money to keep things from the public.

By comparison note Ed Hussain’s hate filled attack on Melanie Philips calli8ng her “demented” for her pro-Jewish views (& the subsequent even more blatant attacks on her the Guardian hosted online).

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5492961/ed-husain-and-me.thtml

Is that Quilliam organisation in any way related to this person who tells lies for spooks?

Hassan Butt

“The Muslim activist Faisal Haque has asked why Butt has not been arrested and suggested that Butt “may have been working for the security service”.[14] Butt has denied these charges saying he would inform the police if he would be aware of an impending terror attack, but that he was not an informer.[1]

In May 2008, Channel 4 News in the UK reported that Greater Manchester Police had released transcripts from their interviews with Hassan Butt. In the extracts he said he had fabricated many of his previous claims, that he had never met Osama bin Laden and that he had stabbed himself in the arm rather than being attacked by extremists as he had previously claimed.[4]“

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=1578617152

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Butt

Craig

Clarke Wilmott seem rather dismissive of your questions to them, but at the very least I think you’re entitled to a response from Clarke Willmott as to whether or not they were party to Mr Jagger’s attempt to obtain your bank details by deception.

Was he acting upon their advice or was he acting on his own initiative?

Toodlepip…

Christ! This whole thing is sordidly pathetic. This isn’t the way a healthy civilization expends its time and energy – surely?

Much of this is a form of intimidation, which should never be allowed to come to court, but then so much depends on the judge envolved, as it always does, no? One thing is the ‘law’ another is ‘justice’ and how it’s pushed and shoved in the legal system.

Putting, effectively, this bogus foundation on trial itself, may be more difficult than it seems, once again it’s up to the judge.

writerman

“Christ! This whole thing is sordidly pathetic. This isn’t the way a healthy civilization expends its time and energy – surely?”
You can blame Peter Carter Ruck for that

“The Carter-Ruck chill

by David Hooper

The man who created the modern libel industry was a dedicated liar and a reactionary with a lust for cash”

David Hooper is a media lawyer and was a partner of Peter Carter-Ruck

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/dec/23/pressandpublishing.comment

Given the sinister uses to which this body of law has been put, you’d have to question why no government has ever addressed the issue.

11/11/09

Dear Mr Murray

Thank you very much indeed for pointing out on your blog (05/11/09) that we had omitted to file accounts with Companies House.

Your remarks served as a timely reminder of our oversight and you will I’m sure be pleased to learn that we have today rectified the matter.

If you could perhaps spare a moment to amend the content of your article accordingly we would be most grateful.

With thanks and best wishes

The Quilliam Foundation

(Has this e-mail not arrived yet? Perhaps it’s caught in cyberspace and will show up soon).

Craig,

Good luck in your latest battle.

I nonetheless wonder whether there is not a space in the middle somewhere between ‘preparing and filing accounts in accordance with the law’ (their point) and the details appearing on the Companies House website for our edification (yours)?

Thus if the Foundation had some issue which meant that it negotiated with Companies House in an amicable spirit over some technicalities, the papers would have been filed ‘according to law’ but not yet visible online?
The reply from their lawyer is carefully worded in that general direction. Could this factual point or something like it be a big loser for you?

The salaries of the Foundation are trivial compared to all sorts of other luxuriant public sector deals – check out the Guardian Jobs pages.

Charles

Craig,

Good luck in your latest battle.

I nonetheless wonder whether there is not a space in the middle somewhere between ‘preparing and filing accounts in accordance with the law’ (their point) and the details appearing on the Companies House website for our edification (yours)?

Thus if the Foundation had some issue which meant that it negotiated with Companies House in an amicable spirit over some technicalities, the papers would have been filed ‘according to law’ but not yet visible online?
The reply from their lawyer is carefully worded in that general direction. Could this factual point or something like it be a big loser for you?

The salaries of the Foundation are trivial compared to all sorts of other luxuriant public sector deals – check out the Guardian Jobs pages.

Charles

“The salaries of the Foundation are trivial compared to all sorts of other luxuriant public sector deals – check out the Guardian Jobs pages.”

Charles

The salaries of the public sector deals are trivial compared to all sorts of other luxuriant deals in the private sector. As we have found out after the tories privtised utilities etc. All to our cost as we now know.

From the Morning Star re another libel litigant manqué , Tim Spicer and Boateng, who secured himself the sinecure of High Commissioner to South Africa.

‘One more post-Blair career needs mentioning. Paul Boateng became an MP thanks to the left and, while he has consistently shuffled to the right since his election in 1987, he has now taken a giant leap.

The former Cabinet minister is now a director of private military firm Aegis. This company, which sends armed guards to Iraq and Afghanistan – for a price – is run by Tim Spicer, whose gun-for-hire behaviour caused a near-coup in Papua New Guinea and severe embarrassment to the Labour Party in the arms-to-Africa affair.

Boateng sits on the Aegis board alongside right-wing Tory Nicholas Soames. Aegis made much of Boateng’s African experience – he did a stint as the British high commissioner in South Africa.

Aegis has trouble winning contracts in Africa because of a general suspicion of soldiers for hire on the continent. Coincidentally, commissioner Boateng lobbied the South African government to water down its strict anti-mercenary laws.

So it looks like Aegis is paying Boateng to make private military work respectable in Africa.’
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/83154

Another Quilliam staffer -like Ed Jagger with an ‘interesting’ background – is James Brandon.

Brandon managed to get himself kidnapped in Iraq where he was working as a ‘journalist’.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3562034.stm

‘Little is known of his career before he went to the Middle East but Mr Brandon, 23, is believed to have started out in journalism in Yemen, shortly after leaving university.’

As you do…

Brandon was in the CSC with Douglas Murray before joining Quilliam.

“The salaries of the Foundation are trivial compared to all sorts of other luxuriant public sector deals – check out the Guardian Jobs pages.”

But the Quilliam Foundation are not public sector, so your comparison does not stand.
They are a private company consuming vast amounts of public money, so their salaries are not trivial.
It’s well within the public interest to see where taxpayer money is being spent.

Good luck. With any luck Quilliam will be so put off at the thought of all their use of taxpayers’ money being thoroughly scrutinised in court, and reported in the media about as favourably as the expenses of MPs in general, that they will consider taking on Craig Murray to be not worth the candle.

Well said, Craig. It’s disgusting that they are now planning to waste a huge amount of tax payers’ money victimising you over this – an act which in itself only serves to support your argument about Quillam’s lack of moral judgement. Only at times like this do I wish I were a lawyer, because I would take up your case, pro bono.

Well put Craig. Their letter does sound a if they are simply bluffing to try and get a result without going to court.

Their move..

Craig,

My Girlfriend Said To Me

Go and Fuck Them

I Wrote This On Alternet ( A US Website ) This Morning Before I Took My Wife To Yoga – But After We Had Sex…
“The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money.”
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Nov 13, 2009 3:31 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Except of course for the real implications, this article is one of the funniest things I have read on Alternet.

It’s nearly as good as Monty Python.

The US Army should go the Roman route, and start off Real Gladitorial Productions in the largest arenas across the Planet with 100,000 live audiences attending the events and 2 Billion across the World watching on High Definition TV…

Just get all the politicians and bankers – playing against each other with a selection of weapons. Shooting the audience is of course against the rules – but an odd RPG might go astray – but that minor risk just adds to the fun and excitement. What’s a bit of collateral damage to worry about with all the blood and guts of politicians and bankers flying everywhere?

It would solve a lot of problems and provide high quality entertainment.

Tony

Previously Clarke Willmott claimed that Mr Jagger contacted you with information regarding the status of their accounts, as regards a filing with Companies House. This by way of a corrective on Quilliam’s part, and aggravation on your part if ignored.

Are Clarke Willmott holding to this claim, and if not why not?

Your account of the conversation with Mr Jagger was one in which you claim he sought to deceive you as to his person and purpose and with a view to obtaining private financial information from you.

You are entitled to know what Clarke Wilmott’s current position on this discrepency is, and indeed that of their client. It’s quite important.

It’s possible that Mr Jagger’s contact with you was ill-advised, but the subsequent explanation by Clarke Willmott will in law aggravate the libel they’re claiming against you. Obviously there will be a record of Mr Jagger’s call, so a need to explain any ill-advised call.

Alternatively you’re not telling the truth about the nature of Mr Jagger’s phone call, but then why did you phone him back.

You’ll have recorded one or other of these conversations I assume.

That Guardian article on the industry that is current UK libel law is quite good.

It’s become a money making and/or bullying of fair comment enterprise.

As you know there’s quite a lot of concern about it at the moment, in Parliament.

It’s interesting that lawyers are now seeking secretive injunctions rather than corrections. They’re doing this because they can’t bully the blogosphere as easily as they’ve managed with the dead wood press.

All it ever should have been about is the correction of errors of fact, and if they’re not corrected then you have recourse to satisfaction at law.

How did it ever become the bullying and money making exercise it is today?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/dec/23/pressandpublishing.comment

It’s about time a few of these vexatious solicitors found themselves facing financial and indeed custodial penalty for their excesses.

Excellent response Craig – very eloquent. I wouldn’t trust the judgement of anyone who went from supporting Islamic extremists to supporting the “war on terror” either – very like John Reid and Jack Straw going from Stalinism to New Labour – or Bolton as other posters mentioned already.

I don’t know much about libel laws, except that the UK’s are much too generous to anyone claiming libel.

“You’ll have recorded one or other of these conversations I assume.”

On the off chance that Craig Murray`s phone conversations may be recorded by some government organisation?. Would the court be able to order the recordings be known to them?. This can now I believe be done in secret session?.

This is getting very funny. There’s no way MI5 are going to let their own guy Jagger get hauled through the courts after his embarrassing rumbled ruse.

What’s the betting nothing is heard from Clarke Wotsits for quite some time?

Meanwhile, please can someone tell me – are libel cases still held in front of a jury of 12 good folk and true? And do they get to set the damages as well, or is that the judge’s job?

Whoever composed this latest effort must be on work experience.

“the clear and express meaning of these words …(your words, Craig…)to the ordinary reader of them is that Mr Husain is a man without principle, whereas the contrary is the truth”

Precisely what principle is it that Mr Husain can be said to sustain in his transition from Islamist extremism to pecuniary advantage in British government funding?

You ought to be demanding an apology from these people and a suitable sum for the distress they’ve caused.

In this case the lawyers too are liable. They’re a party to, rather than merely the intermediary that many people might think.

I suspect the whole thing is to shut Craig up. His blog must be a real concern to MI5 and MI6 as many sensitive matters are posted in his articles and raised in comments.
Craig’s blog has many, many readers probably all over the world and Craig is very well respected. A real threat to the government.
If the Quilliam Foundation is a cover for the intelligence services, then the judge will most surely be instructed to make a decision against Craig.
If that happens I suggest we start raising money not just to help Craig but to support our right to discuss matters relating to the way we’re governed.
I also suggest we ask the Muslim community for help too.

Husain has not so far sued Douglas Murray. Nor has he sued Melanie Phillips, who has drawn repeated attention to his evasions and increasingly erratic pronouncements on the Israel-Palestine question. Husain is, however, notoriously thin-skinned, some would say highly-strung. Phillips’ comments led him to write that her “zealotry and ignorance frighten me. How did we produce a public commentator filled with such anger, venom and hatred?” He also described her as a conspiracy theorist and a ranter. The article produced a thread of (even by CiF standards) remarkable venom, during which a moderator – now revealed to be Alan Rusbridger’s daughter – likened the Spectator columnist to “that character in Little Britain who is violently sick every time she hears the words ‘black or gay.’ Except for Melanie, the word would be ‘Muslim.’” Phillips might have sued Husain herself, I suppose – instead she did the journalistically proper thing and fired back a blistering response.

http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/11/quilliam-v-craig-murray-another.html

“This isn’t new, though it is set out with great clarity. Nor will anyone who has followed, for example, the progress of Simon Singh’s battle with the British Chiropractic Association or the Trafigura case be surprised to learn that claimants (who may not need the money) see libel suits as a method for intimidating and silencing critics. Egged on by lawyers, such claimants (am I alone, btw, in still mourning the inexplicable removal of that fine old word “plaintiff” from English legal procedure?) “use libel actions… not to vindicate their reputation but to harass, embarrass and chill their critics and to develop for themselves a reputation for taking libel action whenever criticised – a reputation that will deter would-be critics, whose newspapers and NGO’s do not have the money to fund expensive libel defences.” As Simon Singh has rightly said (and he should know), the law is such that the only sensible thing to do when faced with a libel writ is to back down and apologise”.
“…the really fascinating part of the document comes in its dissection of the small, indeed incestuous, world of English libel practice. The dominant position occupied by the solicitors’ firm Carter-Ruck is notorious. Less well known is the fact that two sets of barristers’ chambers – 5 Raymond Buildings and 1 Brick Court – between them account for the vast majority of libel work. And they also supply the judges. Rather as old footballers become coaches, successful libel lawyers find themselves elevated to the bench, where they have free rein to maintain and enforce the very laws that made them rich, and which are still enriching their old friends and colleagues who stand before them. There are four of them at present, two from each set. It’s all very cosy. The other week in The Times Janice Turner made an interesting comparison between Somali pirates and City bankers. Perhaps libel lawyers and judges might be compared to Afghan warlords or Mafiosi”.

One case where an appeal did succeed, Jameel v Dow Jones, “exposed how libel judges from libel chambers had been sabotaging the Reynolds public interest defence since 1998″.

http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/11/small-scary-world-of-english-libel.html

I don’t envy you Craig being sued by those deemed to be of good character because they have cash. However Quilliam Foundation runs the risk of doing the same damage to itself that the McDonalds achieved by winning the McLibel trial.

I regret that I don’t like eating McCholestoral food so I cannot boycott McDonalds as I would like to do in retaliation for McLibel..

In this case Quilliam is using the libel laws exactly as the laws were designed to be used, to prevent criticism of the gentry, who were deemed to be of impeccable character regardless of their actions.

Shakespeare should not have written “Let’s kill all the lawyers” instead it should have been “Let’s kill all the libel lawyers”.

It is my opinion that the hurtfullness of criticism increases with the truth of that criticism. The libel laws exist to prevent people from saying that rich crooks are in fact crooked.

Craig, this is slightly off-topic, but I think you were very unwise to state that your wife and young child will be home alone, indicating approximate dates, and including your home address.

–paul

Not so much stating it to Michael Clarke perhaps but putting it on the internet. I would “redact” those words above, if I were in your shoes, Craig. (Better safe than sorry?)

Craig, I salute your courage! However, I agree with Paul Russell, you have to be very careful about giving out your home address and details of when your family will be alone on a public website. That really worried me. You ought perhaps to have redacted that bit of the letter from the post, as there are a lot of lone nutters and evil people around, and not just UK and Uzbek government goons who would already know all that information, on the web. I’m sure all will be well, but I’d maybe strongly suggest that you consider removing your UK address and the reference to them being alone over certain dates from the posting, if you can. Just a suggestion, as always made in good faith.

Ruth, the QF is revealed by its own actions. They don’t seem very professional as liars, do they? I mean, the average actor could’ve done a far better job than the individual who allegedly telephoned Craig Murray! And using your own mobile to make a ‘phone call like that? Any idiot would’ve known to have used a ‘disposable’ one, or a public ‘phone-box.

Melanie Phillips is an propaganda extremist and regarding the Levant, Colonial Fundamentalist of whom Joseph Goebbels would’ve been proud. She, too switched from Extreme Left to Extreme Right in the blink of an eyelid. She was as totalitarian in her outlook when she worked for The Guardian as she is now. She and the Jihadi Recants deserve one another! Douglas Murray is a vitriolic neocon theorist. A very dangerous individual. Both of these are aligned, it seems to me, with the US military machine and the overarching imperial strategy instrumentalising that machine for resource and geographical control vis a vis China and Russia. I’m not sure why they’ve come into conflict with the QF, when they all seem to work for the hard state. However, it’s important to understand that there are differences within the ruling cadres of the empire and that a good publis spat is no bad thing as it creates the illusion that the QF is a genuinely independent body. Furthermore, these two individuals really are very fractious and extreme in their views and are unlikely to agree with anyone unless they’re in favour of lobbing missiles at all perceived opponents (and especially Muslims) at the drop of a hat. They’re like the woman I met once on a train who, when asked whether she thought the elction of Ricahrd Nixon (this was early 1969) was a good thing, replied, “I don’t think he’s hard enough”. Well, how many millions of Cambodians, Vietnamese and Chilenas would disagree?

Paul -

Thanks – don’t worry they are being looked after. I always give my address freely and in public, as a matter of principle.

I too wasworried about your revealing openess. I think the best we can all do now is to dig and publicise what the QF is really about.
Publicising their work and what they do in secret, imho, is the best way of diverting this action, should it proceed.
It might have been a shot across the bow so to speak, an indication that you have hit the right note somewhere.

I am offering my services as personal protection, should you need it. No doubt you know better younger and fitter aspirants, but I can cook Plov now…..
heads up, if the QF is not bluffing, like others said before, there are hundreds of us who can inform thousands in a matter of minutes about their tax dependencies and utterly secret undertakings.
If the QF is a cover for one of the MI’s it will become public knowledge, who knows what the allies will make of some of the double dealings that seem to be going on, but they will also find out.
Sadly, the harrassment and distructive nature of this action would keep you from vital business in hand, making it necessarry to recoup your losses, a fact these tax taking lounge lizards better take into consideration.
my best to you all, good luck and keep us all informed.
WQe will inform the rest of the world.
As for any possible trial, insist on total openess, after all the QF’s mutuality and aims say that they have nothing to hide, everything’s legit, so there is nothing to keep secret really.

My bet is they will try their utmost to keep any trial out of the limelight, because they are intrionsically dodgy.

One would think that at some point a sense of self-preservation would kick in and they`d realise that it aint worth the candle. Pushing ahead with legal action would almost certainly result in QF being publically roasted alive. Mmmm, toasty!

What a bunch of lowlifes using tax payers money to silence opposing views.

Good on you Mr murray you are in the right and hopefully this situation will expose these appalling leeches even more for what they are money grabbing opportunists!

For every neo liberal/conservative tosspot pontifications of ;“extremism” , “Islam-ism”, “Mid-east”, and finally anti of all those as a worth while preoccupation, ought to be enough grounds for ringing alarm bells.

For, these cretins devoid of any logic truly remain reliant on sophistry, sound bites, and nonsensical chants, and gosh darn isn’t the western model so perfect? Fact that these cretins and their predecessors have been singing from the same hymn sheet ever since 1946 , and given their crowning achievement of “creative Destruction” in 2009 ought to be giving rise to a paradigm shift; show me the proof wankers!
Therefore these sharp operatives swinging the lead and finding all manner of pecuniary sponsorships from the current bunch of expense scrounging malingers in governance, in an attempt to fool the people with the notions of corrective measures are being put in place. Hence to find QF yet another neo liberal/conservative construct in the way of “we feel your pain” shit, as well as keeping some turncoat bastards who were up until yesterday in the ranks of the “dissidents” today turned gatekeepers and beefeaters!

Then to find a blog somehow has been making liable against these free-loading self-appointed “experts” on Islam and Islamism wreaks of an attempt to coerce to silence all the politicly concerned citizenry of this country.
Therefore the following;

Dear acting solicitors;

Mr. Hussain the self elected representative of the UK Muslims, whose singular expertise are derived from his membership in Hizb ut tahrier an entity from without UK, which apparently has had a branch in UK so we are told. Along with his circumcision denoting his affiliation with Islam of some sorts, is an absolute rat’s knacker (an unholy alliance of a Gobshite, a Turncoat, and Whore’s Moat) and a wanker of gross magnitude. These later conclusions have been arrived at at least by three million Muslims, and many millions of none Muslims resident in UK, yours truly included among these before we ever stumbled upon Mr. Murry’s blog.
Therefore your assertion of the good name of the directors smacks of lawyering about with a view to funnel the much needed tax funds at the disposal of QF to your own pockets. Therefore if you wish you may call me to the court too, because I have a few questions to ask Mr. Hussain et al which are considered really libellous outside any courts.

Don’t let them get to you mentally. That’s massive. Considering what you went through with the ‘Incredibly Brave Spook Twat Squad’ (swoon :-0) i’m sure a few letters from the likes of Quilliam et al won’t worry you too much, especially if they don’t have much merit. I haven’t researched all this a great deal, but this bunch may well be Common Purpose. Overpaid; taxpayer funded; online bullies; serving no meaningful function; little intelligence etc.. It all certainly fits the bill. Meet them in the street and shout ‘Boo’ and they would undoubtedly scurry off like scared stoats. And as for ringing you under the guise of donations, well, money is all they understand of course! Enough said…

Looks as though Clarke Willmott are quite proud of how they develop the “assets” of their clients, and indeed themselves.

“…the genuine difference we make is in the way that we use our contacts and connections to look for opportunities for our clients to develop their business or their assets. As a result, we’ve more than doubled in size and turnover in the past four years.”

http://cwip.info/

 

Craig, there is an inconsistency in your letter to Clarke. In para 5 you say “I also insist that you tell me whether you had advance knowledge of the plan for Mr Ed Jagger to telephone
me falsely pretending to wish to be able to make a donation”, yet in your final para you say “I have nothing more to say to you and will enter no further correspondence with you, nor read any further correspondence by you”.

This doesn’t particularly damage your case, except that it gives Clarke good reason not to answer your rather important demand. The broader point however is that it suggests you dashed
off your letter in some haste and without reflection, which is inadvisable when dealing with
legal scumbags like this. I strongly recommend that from now on you sleep on, then review in the cold light of day, any further correspondence with these characters.

Your three-week sojourn in Ghana may be rather timely for all parties. In particular it will give the obviously panicked QF breathing space to reflect on the wisdom of their actions. The
business regarding their accounts is effectively sorted. Your original comments were fair and reasonable given the information available in the public domain at the time. You could not
reasonably be expected to be privy to confidential arrangements agreed between QF and CH.

Clarke’s suggestion that “the points in issue are not whether the accounts were lodged before or after your libellous publication” is obviously nonsense because as soon as the accounts were filed you acted in good faith and amended your remarks just as they had requested.

The remaining issue therefore is the other stuff: your comments about Husain’s remarkable and “socio-pathic” vaulting between extremes and the associated careerist money-grubbing. As you point out these charges have been made elsewhere and seem fair comment on the basis of the historical facts. The QF, dependent as it is on Labout patronage, may, in its own financial
interest if nothing else, have second thoughts about the wisdom of embarking on a public libel action of this nature at around the time that Labour is most likely going to be voted out of office. The Tories may take a dimmer view of this grubby little organisation when it comes to renewing contracts. Then what would the QF do?

This may be useful:

“A few facts which might be of interest to Craig Murray and to Clarke Willmott LLP”

http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2009/11/few-facts-which-might-be-of-interest-to.html

Hi All,

Just downloaded their accounts from companies house, very intriguing reading. Particular highlights :-

a. They have 8 Staff, paid a total of £422,500. I wonder what they actually do for that money, and what value the taxpayer gets for that money.

b. They received Grants and Donations of £879,245.

c. The two directors (Ed and Majid ) received salary / wages / other emoluments of £132,528. Not bad for a start up organisation!!

d. They somehow managed to spend nearly a million pounds, an incredible feat considering all they have done is write some reports and articles.

e. To find all the above out, they had to pay an auditor £8,000. Lucky people, you get all this information for free!!

WS and take care

Umar

Dear Craig

I am publishing your letter on my blog.

Well said on put up or shut up.

Exactly what I told the University of Glasgow lawyers when they threatened me as having libelled a liar, bully and thief in the University employment.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Craig if this goes to court you will expose this useless organization for what it is.

This organization plays no productive use other than waste public money on sending out emails containing rehashed soundbites for a cost of £1 million. I am sure anyone can conclude this is poor value for money in anybodies book!

Taking you to court with our public money is nothing short of taking the piss!

Craig – Ruth may be right in her comment that your “blog must be a real concern to MI5 and MI6″. I would suggest that one of their tactics may be to tie your time up dealing with smaller issues that aren’t of much importance to them; so that you have less time to delve into issues that really do concern them. For example, publishing some of my comments will not have endeared you to MI5/6 and writing articles headlined “Another Old Etonian Wanker Calls Me a Liar” will have deeply offended MI5/6’s masters in the establishment.

I can tell from the favorable commentary on prominent American blogs, that your recent trip to the US was a great success. They will also be concerned about that. Roderick Russell

Craig,

Your home looks really nice on Streetview. My Mum used to live close by in 1920. I took her around all the places she lived as a Child when she was about 80 years old…

Here’s some photos of my home town

It’s gone really upmarket since Norman Tebbit told me to get on my bike…The rest of the UK soon to follow this wonderful progression from poverty to wealth – with everyone living contented lives in happinness and peace…

Strangely enough Oldham is the only place where I have driven a brand new car out of the showroom – Morris Marina 1.8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ar1MJJUwGQ

Tony

From Snowmail:

Mention the word libel and you might think of celebrities suing tabloid newspapers over scandalous allegations.

But a coalition of journalists, human rights lawyers and freedom of information campaigners are saying the English libel laws must be changed because they are stifling free speech.

In one particular aspect of the problem doctors and scientists are being threatened with crippling legal action if they speak about adverse findings from their research.

And English laws are attracting rich foreign businesses that see our courts as a good way to see off their detractors – even if neither party is based in this country.

We have a rare interview with one of the senior lawyers at Carter-Ruck, who recently caused much controversy with the Trafigura super-injunction that nearly saw the media banned from reporting a parliamentary question.

CHANNEL 4 NEWS – 7.30pm tonight

**Re: Charles at November 14, 2009 2:44 PM** 5 posts up

I think this sweeps away any possibility of libel regards the filing of company accounts. It demonstrates that QF reacted to Craig’s 5 November blog article, by procuring a time extension. At the time of the article their accounts were OVERDUE. A question to ask: did they incur a penalty for lateness? And if not, how so? Watch carefully now for a nominal fine to appear on the company’s record.

Is there anything else left to defend?

The interesting thing about these parasites – these leeches – growing fatter and fatter geeding on us hosts – is that we tolerate them just as an annoyance most of the time…

What they don’t seem to realise, in their happy frenzy of feeding on taxpayers money – is the nature of the beast they are feeding on…

Sure they think we are all sheep, and will continue to take their blood sucking…

But some of us Sheep are Really Sharks compiling a database – about them – and there is a limit to the amount of blood sucking we will take. You Really Do Not Want Us To Turn Nasty.

Tony

I clearly don’t understand libel law.
I always thought that if it walked like a duck and quacked like a duck, then it was a duck. It would appear that libel lawyers also require that the matter of the bill be taken into account.

Hey Craig, did you have that Anjem Choudury in the back of yer cab recently? You’ve got loads in common.

Good luck, Craig. I know many thousands of people are behind you, all of whom regard the Q Foundation as utterly vile.