Wardman Wire Magazine

If you are following your own technorati “Authority” score you may have noticed a decline in the last few days.

It’s that time - 6 months since the Usmanov imbroglio, and all the links are dropping out of the Technorati scores. I’m down by 50 in 4 days.

The Technorati rankings don’t matter a damn, but perhaps it is a reminder - 6 months later - that it is time to pick up the Freedom of Expressions cudgels once again.

The dodgy libel laws are still on the books, and Shillings Lawyers are still to be seen strutting about bullying people into self-censorship on the basis of untested and unproven allegations that material that happens to be disliked by rich clients is defamatory.

I haven’t forgotten; neither should any of us.

And I’m looking for more nominees for the Usmanov Schillings Duck-n-Cluck awards.

This morning a commenter called Thevets (thank-you Thevets - if you have a blog let me know for a credit) has drawn my attention to the fact that Schillings Lawyer’s, who acted for Alisher Usmanov in shutting down critical discussion without addressing the questions raised, have appended their name to a letter in the Guardian yesterday calling for attacks upon free expression in Pakistan to stop. The letter includes this paragraph:

Independent media and journalists have been the target of sweeping press censorship and attack. Peaceful and legitimate meetings held by civil society groups and activists seeking to resist these unconstitutional measures have been broken up by the police.

General Musharraf’s actions are arbitrary and unconstitutional. He has bypassed Pakistan’s own legal protections to ensure that no one is deprived of their right to life and protect its citizens’ human rights and fundamental freedoms. An independent legal profession and judiciary such as we have in the UK are vital in ensuring the accountability of the state. For example, when the UK government argued that it was acceptable to use evidence obtained through torture, lawyers able to operate independently and free from fear were able to challenge them in the courts.

I have 3 points to make here.

I was interviewed on the Matt Revell’s Political Radio programme last night.

The interview was about how the Society of Homeopathy had a post removed from the Quackometer blog rather than addressing the (very serious) questions raised, and the changes that we need in the way the libel laws work in this country.

We discussed what homeopathy is (effectively a Placebo effect - which can work, sometimes, for certain conditions), and talked through what has happened, and some of the questions raised.

Two new wannabe Usmanovs in a few days. Ye Gods.

First the Society of Homeopaths, and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

In the Britblog Review yesterday, I emphasized a case where the Society of Homeopaths has attthat Another day, and yet another of example of Usmanov-style censorship by exploiting the absurdities of the UK libel laws under which UK-based ISPs and webhosts can be held liable for third party content.

The back story is that there has been criticism of the effectiveness and approach of the Society of Homeopaths for some time, and the posting at the Quackometer was one of the more recent articles on ths subject.

This emphasizes once again the need for Reform of UK Law - such that the it is easier to debate matters rather than attempt to suppress debate by the back door. I said this:

The Society of Homeopaths is doing an Usmanov (and Schillings!) and attempting to shut down blogs as a way of shutting down criticism. They are about to get their fingers burnt. In this case it is not about shares in Arsenal, it is about - among other things - whether the Society of Homeopaths are going to take responsiblity for their members who have peddled homeopathy as a cure for malaria in Kenya. Go to this article for the update, then read the history and post your opinions on what the Society of Homeopaths did to Quackometer:

My web hosting company Netcetera have received a complaint from the legal representation of the Society of Homeopaths about this posting. On the request of my hosting company, I have taken down this post while I try to understand the concerns of the Society of Homeopaths.

The following was the article which has been removed: (text courtesy Ministry of Truth).

This is perhaps a possible new strategy for Alisher Usmanov.

Picked up from the estimable Spy blog a huge long title but I cannot do any better.

The Reynolds defence against libel is a way for a journalist targetted in a libel action to prove that they were diligent in writing the problematical article. It has a record of not being very effective, but the Spy blog has an analysis of this defence in the Alisher Usmanov / Schillings “Reputation Protection” operation: