“Johann, get out of my office. You’re weak. I don’t like weakness and you’re fired!”
by Will, 31 July 2007
So why did he threaten legal action? Would Hari have a case against HP Sauce? Is resort to legal methods because DT said he has a reputation for making things up? (Standard rough and tumble of politics in my view). Could it possibly be the case that Hari does indeed make things up and is a shoddy hack and a fraud? Or is the problem one where Hari takes offense at being called a tabloid journalist?
There is always a “fair comment” and “public interest” defence and I doubt that Dave T was any more aggressive than Kamm. Defamation is usually resorted to by (fat) rich people seeking to frighten less rich people, who have some discernible assets but not enough cash to mount a defence, so are forced to retract. Err just like happened here.
Hari follows in a long line of similar litigants - Maxwell, Fayed, Galloway etc. (good company for him these days).
To win — I think Hari would have to prove that the post was designed to “damage reputation with your peers” - can’t see him doing that. It’s already common knowledge that he’s a self-righteous, two-faced weasel anyway — neither interesting nor trustworthy.
When all’s said and done David T has made Hari look like a proper twat — so win win situation I reckon.
What a load of self indulgent crap.
A twisty little git. Cohen says ‘nowhere in my book did I say “x, y, z”‘ and Hari’s response is ‘I know from private conversations etc’ and then doesn’t refute an accusation of distortion — he confirms it by perpetrating a new distortion of a different book.
Getting back to Hari’s original Dissent review — There is also the matter of a level of carelessness about History — History isn’t something to inform opinion in Hari’s hands; it’s a club to beat square pegs into round holes.
*This post is dedicated to Chris Bertram’s Mini-Me (I don’t like to disappoint anyone).
Blogdom will not be free till the last smug Guardianista is strangled with the mouse-lead of the last bullshitting academic - or something like that.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 15:57
Linking to HP Sauce, Will? Shurely Shome Mishtake.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 15:57
Linking to HP Sauce, Will? Shurely Shome Mishtake.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 15:59
I’m amazed at the number of blog-column inches devoted to rebutting this chap Hari. Does he deserve them? I think I once read an article by Hari (or at least the first few paragraphs), but cannot for the life of me remember what it was about.
â¨â¨Now I see this coked-up youth pop up regularly on TV arts talk shows, and he irritates me intensely. There emanates from his mouth a never-ending stream of sounds that vaguely resemble English speech, but I haven’t the foggiest what the boy is saying. Hari is like a younger, gobbier version of Fiona Fox.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 15:59
I’m amazed at the number of blog-column inches devoted to rebutting this chap Hari. Does he deserve them? I think I once read an article by Hari (or at least the first few paragraphs), but cannot for the life of me remember what it was about.
â¨â¨Now I see this coked-up youth pop up regularly on TV arts talk shows, and he irritates me intensely. There emanates from his mouth a never-ending stream of sounds that vaguely resemble English speech, but I haven’t the foggiest what the boy is saying. Hari is like a younger, gobbier version of Fiona Fox.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 16:04
“Linking to HP Sauce, Will? Shurely Shome Mishtake.”
When needs must…
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 16:04
“Linking to HP Sauce, Will? Shurely Shome Mishtake.”
When needs must…
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 16:41
I imagine Hari to be like those vaguely lefty post grads of my era who treated with disdain those of us who did politics rather than engaging in their higher minded, and not ideologically tainted, dissection of the great issues of the day. That said when it came to a genuine political scrap, say over the Falklands or the miners strike, they soon enough lacked the ability (and courage) to carry a consistent position.
I have no doubt David T would have given him full right of reply, would that not have saved the Telegraph from GG?
Toughen up son* and argue what you believe - if of course that is what these opinions are rather than base journo posturing. In any event, and to put it into the language of the Oxbridge JCR, the threat of litigation, against a site which did your career no harm at all, is the last refuge of an (ungrateful) scoundrel. Shame on you.
*The use of “son” by an older Northern bloke is a deliberate attempt to be patronising.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 16:41
I imagine Hari to be like those vaguely lefty post grads of my era who treated with disdain those of us who did politics rather than engaging in their higher minded, and not ideologically tainted, dissection of the great issues of the day. That said when it came to a genuine political scrap, say over the Falklands or the miners strike, they soon enough lacked the ability (and courage) to carry a consistent position.
I have no doubt David T would have given him full right of reply, would that not have saved the Telegraph from GG?
Toughen up son* and argue what you believe - if of course that is what these opinions are rather than base journo posturing. In any event, and to put it into the language of the Oxbridge JCR, the threat of litigation, against a site which did your career no harm at all, is the last refuge of an (ungrateful) scoundrel. Shame on you.
*The use of “son” by an older Northern bloke is a deliberate attempt to be patronising.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 17:23
Wethinks he doth protest too much:
http://www.brandens.net/files/Sounds/FX/Animals/9_44.WAV
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 17:23
Wethinks he doth protest too much:
http://www.brandens.net/files/Sounds/FX/Animals/9_44.WAV
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 18:43
Don’t really want to wade through the details of this dispute but I have to say, it grates to be told by someone who obviously didn’t do much thinking before he gave his support for the invasion of Iraq to ‘reflect’ or even ‘recant’ now, as if we all took the shallow utilitarian line he did. The cheek of the boy! Why should we do this when some of us reckon we did a fair bit of reflecting before we supported the war - and supported it, moreover, for rather different reasons?
I mean, have you seen this “I wus wrong, it was all about oil after all” shit he’s been coming out with recently? We could make the point that some of us had read “The Hardy Boys Discover Capitalism” before we went to university but here’s another, which is the lack of any explanation from a self-confessed utilitarian as to why this matters, since they should be concerned with outcomes rather than motives.
He may have used a short-term utilitarian abacus combined with a preposterous confidence in his own ability to predict the future to support a short war against Saddam Hussein but this is his problem, as his columns on the subject clearly demonstrate. Some of us didn’t do this in the first place and so do not appreciate having our position interpreted by him. Because he does it so badly, apart from anything else.
While he’s in the mood for self-examination and confession, he might want to consider this: since human beings demonstrably can’t predict the future and since anyone with even a smattering of historical knowledge knows wars have uncertain outcomes, why did he ever think the self-confidence he displayed could be justified? I’d have more respect for him and his ‘recantation’ if he resolved therein to have a little more humility in the future - but nothing he’s written thus far shows any sign of this.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 18:43
Don’t really want to wade through the details of this dispute but I have to say, it grates to be told by someone who obviously didn’t do much thinking before he gave his support for the invasion of Iraq to ‘reflect’ or even ‘recant’ now, as if we all took the shallow utilitarian line he did. The cheek of the boy! Why should we do this when some of us reckon we did a fair bit of reflecting before we supported the war - and supported it, moreover, for rather different reasons?
I mean, have you seen this “I wus wrong, it was all about oil after all” shit he’s been coming out with recently? We could make the point that some of us had read “The Hardy Boys Discover Capitalism” before we went to university but here’s another, which is the lack of any explanation from a self-confessed utilitarian as to why this matters, since they should be concerned with outcomes rather than motives.
He may have used a short-term utilitarian abacus combined with a preposterous confidence in his own ability to predict the future to support a short war against Saddam Hussein but this is his problem, as his columns on the subject clearly demonstrate. Some of us didn’t do this in the first place and so do not appreciate having our position interpreted by him. Because he does it so badly, apart from anything else.
While he’s in the mood for self-examination and confession, he might want to consider this: since human beings demonstrably can’t predict the future and since anyone with even a smattering of historical knowledge knows wars have uncertain outcomes, why did he ever think the self-confidence he displayed could be justified? I’d have more respect for him and his ‘recantation’ if he resolved therein to have a little more humility in the future - but nothing he’s written thus far shows any sign of this.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 19:50
Today’s HP post, in which David T explains why he took down yesterday’s post following threats from m’learned friends, has also been deleted. Or at least the main entry has gone.
And in another HP thread in which commenters have asked what’s going on, David requests that “people please not discuss the events of the last 48 hours.”
If David T is sued for libel, I have promised him a donation to his defence fund. I swear this on my NUJ card.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 19:50
Today’s HP post, in which David T explains why he took down yesterday’s post following threats from m’learned friends, has also been deleted. Or at least the main entry has gone.
And in another HP thread in which commenters have asked what’s going on, David requests that “people please not discuss the events of the last 48 hours.”
If David T is sued for libel, I have promised him a donation to his defence fund. I swear this on my NUJ card.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 20:13
Do UK libel laws apply to a blog which is published in America?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 20:13
Do UK libel laws apply to a blog which is published in America?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 20:15
Is calling someone a kebab snorting stinky cock libellous?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 20:15
Is calling someone a kebab snorting stinky cock libellous?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 20:47
I can’t believe Harry’s Place seems to have shat its collective pants at the threat of libel action from a wanker like Hari. So much for standing firm in support of your values…
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 20:47
I can’t believe Harry’s Place seems to have shat its collective pants at the threat of libel action from a wanker like Hari. So much for standing firm in support of your values…
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 20:49
Do UK libel laws apply to a blog which is published in America?
No, but English libel laws are such that a litigant with corporate backing does not have to win the case in order to ruin the defendant. David T is a lawyer of modest means, and understands the dangers involved.
I now know a little more of the detail of the case, but cannot divulge the information here. On grounds of public interest I would hope to persuade David T to say more. We shall see.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 20:49
Do UK libel laws apply to a blog which is published in America?
No, but English libel laws are such that a litigant with corporate backing does not have to win the case in order to ruin the defendant. David T is a lawyer of modest means, and understands the dangers involved.
I now know a little more of the detail of the case, but cannot divulge the information here. On grounds of public interest I would hope to persuade David T to say more. We shall see.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 20:52
Being threatened with a libel action in Britain is no joke. The really frightening thing is that it can not even be referred to at Harry’s place.
Its what good old captn Bob used to do with much success
I wonder if Hari realises what damage he’s done to his reputation?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 20:52
Being threatened with a libel action in Britain is no joke. The really frightening thing is that it can not even be referred to at Harry’s place.
Its what good old captn Bob used to do with much success
I wonder if Hari realises what damage he’s done to his reputation?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 20:55
Yeah, how outrageous of Hari, to object to being accused of “making things up”, when actually he’s just been named Amnesty International Journalist of the Year and has clear integrity.
I don’t think it’s Hari’s reputation that’s damaged here…
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 20:55
Yeah, how outrageous of Hari, to object to being accused of “making things up”, when actually he’s just been named Amnesty International Journalist of the Year and has clear integrity.
I don’t think it’s Hari’s reputation that’s damaged here…
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 20:59
No, what’s outrageous of Hari is his recourse to law to silence his critics over the interpretation of some comments about whether or not he’s got his facts right.
actually he’s just been named Amnesty International Journalist of the Year
Lance Armstrong survived cancer. This proves he couldn’t possibly have taken drugs to win the Tour de France.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 20:59
No, what’s outrageous of Hari is his recourse to law to silence his critics over the interpretation of some comments about whether or not he’s got his facts right.
actually he’s just been named Amnesty International Journalist of the Year
Lance Armstrong survived cancer. This proves he couldn’t possibly have taken drugs to win the Tour de France.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:04
Thanks for putting the screencap up. It looked for a day or two as if Hari might get away with his Stalinoid distortions, but now everyone can see what a nasty, hypocritical little shit he is, and always has been (if they didn’t know already). No wonder he’s found a whole new bunch of friends among the “anti-war” crowd. Fortunately, nobody in Canada has ever heard of him, while Nick Cohen’s book is on sale even out here in the back of beyond.
Still, credit where credit is due: even after four years of churning out hysterical, dishonest drivel, the bullshitters are still good for a laugh or two, and the more pompous they get the funnier they are.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:04
Thanks for putting the screencap up. It looked for a day or two as if Hari might get away with his Stalinoid distortions, but now everyone can see what a nasty, hypocritical little shit he is, and always has been (if they didn’t know already). No wonder he’s found a whole new bunch of friends among the “anti-war” crowd. Fortunately, nobody in Canada has ever heard of him, while Nick Cohen’s book is on sale even out here in the back of beyond.
Still, credit where credit is due: even after four years of churning out hysterical, dishonest drivel, the bullshitters are still good for a laugh or two, and the more pompous they get the funnier they are.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:16
To win — I think Hari would have to prove that the post was designed to “damage reputation with your peers”
Er, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_libel#Burden_of_proof_on_the_defendant
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:16
To win — I think Hari would have to prove that the post was designed to “damage reputation with your peers”
Er, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_libel#Burden_of_proof_on_the_defendant
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:36
Hari was not trying “to silence his critics over the interpretation of some comments about whether or not he’s got his facts right.”
He was saying he doesn’t make facts up, because, er, he doesn’t. He’s always linking to articles that criticise him, far more than any other website I know. He’s linked to Oliver Kamm’s articles, which argue that his interpretation is wrong, and to Nick’s criticisms. He just won’t tolerate people saying he makes stuff up. No reputable journalist would. The people sneerign at him here look a bit ridiculous, to be honest.
SP writes: “I imagine Hari to be like those vaguely lefty post grads of my era who treated with disdain those of us who did politics rather than engaging in their higher minded, and not ideologically tainted, dissection of the great issues of the day.”
Er, hari has reported from Iraqi, Gaza, Congo etc, including warzones. Far from being “highminded” he does a lot of on the ground fact-finding. Have you done anything that shows as much commitment to human rights lately?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:36
Hari was not trying “to silence his critics over the interpretation of some comments about whether or not he’s got his facts right.”
He was saying he doesn’t make facts up, because, er, he doesn’t. He’s always linking to articles that criticise him, far more than any other website I know. He’s linked to Oliver Kamm’s articles, which argue that his interpretation is wrong, and to Nick’s criticisms. He just won’t tolerate people saying he makes stuff up. No reputable journalist would. The people sneerign at him here look a bit ridiculous, to be honest.
SP writes: “I imagine Hari to be like those vaguely lefty post grads of my era who treated with disdain those of us who did politics rather than engaging in their higher minded, and not ideologically tainted, dissection of the great issues of the day.”
Er, hari has reported from Iraqi, Gaza, Congo etc, including warzones. Far from being “highminded” he does a lot of on the ground fact-finding. Have you done anything that shows as much commitment to human rights lately?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:41
Except that Cohen and Kamm say that is exactly what he does. Which makes me wonder why he got so upset at David T’s frankly quite gentle comments.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:41
Except that Cohen and Kamm say that is exactly what he does. Which makes me wonder why he got so upset at David T’s frankly quite gentle comments.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:42
I can think of few more repulsive things to do than to attempt to shut down debate on the blogosphere by threat of legal action. I couldn’t give a flying fuck where in the world Mr. Hari’s reported from. His overbearing attempts to threaten someone into taking posts down is disgusting. This is simply an attack on free speech.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:42
I can think of few more repulsive things to do than to attempt to shut down debate on the blogosphere by threat of legal action. I couldn’t give a flying fuck where in the world Mr. Hari’s reported from. His overbearing attempts to threaten someone into taking posts down is disgusting. This is simply an attack on free speech.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:43
The thing here, of course, is that the supposedly defamatory statement is objectively and provably true.
“However, if you aspire to be a serious academic commentator or non-tabloid journalist, a reputation for making things up should spell career death.”
What’s untrue about that statement? What’s untrue about the implication - that Johann Hari made something up? Hari has no evidence whatsoever that Cohen was brought up to see Orwell in Catalonia as his moral archetype.
Cohen should do David T a favour. He should tell Hari that he will sue him for defamation, libel or slander - whatever applies - over the Orwell-moral-archetype claim unless Hari drops the pathetic threats of a defamation suit himself.
If Hari takes objection to the implication that he makes things up, his first course of action should be to substantiate the claim that Cohen was raised to see Orwell has ideal moral archetype, not to threaten a pathetic and unjustified defamation suit because he’s too pussy to defend his own writing.
This whole affair is absolutely detestable. Hari has behaved like an utter twat, and David T has allowed himself to be cowed into suppressing his right to free speech over a completely unjustifiable threat of legal action.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:43
The thing here, of course, is that the supposedly defamatory statement is objectively and provably true.
“However, if you aspire to be a serious academic commentator or non-tabloid journalist, a reputation for making things up should spell career death.”
What’s untrue about that statement? What’s untrue about the implication - that Johann Hari made something up? Hari has no evidence whatsoever that Cohen was brought up to see Orwell in Catalonia as his moral archetype.
Cohen should do David T a favour. He should tell Hari that he will sue him for defamation, libel or slander - whatever applies - over the Orwell-moral-archetype claim unless Hari drops the pathetic threats of a defamation suit himself.
If Hari takes objection to the implication that he makes things up, his first course of action should be to substantiate the claim that Cohen was raised to see Orwell has ideal moral archetype, not to threaten a pathetic and unjustified defamation suit because he’s too pussy to defend his own writing.
This whole affair is absolutely detestable. Hari has behaved like an utter twat, and David T has allowed himself to be cowed into suppressing his right to free speech over a completely unjustifiable threat of legal action.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:50
I’ve spoken to a few people, and there will be fireworks on a few more blogs tomorrow and in the next couple of days.
If that mendacious little shit thinks he’s going to get away with it, he’s mistaken.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:50
I’ve spoken to a few people, and there will be fireworks on a few more blogs tomorrow and in the next couple of days.
If that mendacious little shit thinks he’s going to get away with it, he’s mistaken.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:51
Mephisto, you don’t understand English libel law. A libellous claim has to be not only untrue (and Hari says Cohen has said it in front of witnesses anyway, so I don’t think it is untrue) but also likely to lower somebody’s standing in the eyes of their peers.
I cannot see how having Orwell as your moral archetype lowers anyone’s perception of you. Making stories up, of course, would lower people’s perception of you, obviously. That’s the difference.
The Harry’s Place site published a big libel. they had to take it down. What’s the problem? Hari is hardly silencing criticism of him, he’s silencing blatant lies.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:51
Mephisto, you don’t understand English libel law. A libellous claim has to be not only untrue (and Hari says Cohen has said it in front of witnesses anyway, so I don’t think it is untrue) but also likely to lower somebody’s standing in the eyes of their peers.
I cannot see how having Orwell as your moral archetype lowers anyone’s perception of you. Making stories up, of course, would lower people’s perception of you, obviously. That’s the difference.
The Harry’s Place site published a big libel. they had to take it down. What’s the problem? Hari is hardly silencing criticism of him, he’s silencing blatant lies.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:53
Except, Nico, as many people, including this site, have repeatedly noted, Hari has a track record of bullshit and making things up.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:53
Except, Nico, as many people, including this site, have repeatedly noted, Hari has a track record of bullshit and making things up.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:53
Okay, Niko. Let me try and rephrase it in terms even an Independent reader would understand.
If he thinks he’s been accused of making stuff up he’s perfectly entitled to be upset. How he responds is the key. As someone else has noted, Kamm and Cohen made similar accusations, but he hasn’t threatened to sue them. Why not?
Similarly, there’s a link here to a Private Eye piece which specifically alleged he had made up specific things. No law suit followed. So why pick on a blog which, unlike the Eye, doesn’t have a dedicated legal fund for such eventualities? Do you see now why people think his behaviour stinks?
Or if you prefer, here’s an analogy. If I called him a fat, bloviating creep no one would say he would be wrong if he felt hurt or upset about it. But he could respond with varying degrees of dignity from wounded silence to running out of the room in tears.
However, if his response was, say, to tell my wife I was having an affair* or get some mates of his to beat me up, people might well think his reactions were unacceptable.
*NB I’m not married. Most of this analogy is purely fictional.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:53
Okay, Niko. Let me try and rephrase it in terms even an Independent reader would understand.
If he thinks he’s been accused of making stuff up he’s perfectly entitled to be upset. How he responds is the key. As someone else has noted, Kamm and Cohen made similar accusations, but he hasn’t threatened to sue them. Why not?
Similarly, there’s a link here to a Private Eye piece which specifically alleged he had made up specific things. No law suit followed. So why pick on a blog which, unlike the Eye, doesn’t have a dedicated legal fund for such eventualities? Do you see now why people think his behaviour stinks?
Or if you prefer, here’s an analogy. If I called him a fat, bloviating creep no one would say he would be wrong if he felt hurt or upset about it. But he could respond with varying degrees of dignity from wounded silence to running out of the room in tears.
However, if his response was, say, to tell my wife I was having an affair* or get some mates of his to beat me up, people might well think his reactions were unacceptable.
*NB I’m not married. Most of this analogy is purely fictional.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:54
Bullshit Niko, you nasty little turd - Hari published blatant falsehoods in his review of Cohen’s book. He’s now trying to silence debate, which is utterly appalling given that he pretends to support values like free speech.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:54
Bullshit Niko, you nasty little turd - Hari published blatant falsehoods in his review of Cohen’s book. He’s now trying to silence debate, which is utterly appalling given that he pretends to support values like free speech.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:58
Blatant lies?
He made it up. He said that Cohen was raised to have Orwell in Catalonia as his moral archetype. Cohen himself has denied this, and given strong evidence in favour of why his parents would never have raised him such a fashion.
If the law prevents David T from pointing out that making such unfounded claims should damage a journalists reputation, then there is something severely wrong with the law.
Hari himself is the one making unfounded accusations, not David T.
All I can say is that I truly and sincerely hope that Johann Hari’s career and reputation IS irretrievably damaged by this. Not for making things up - though that’s bad enough - but for the cowardly and pathetic way he has acted in regards to Harry’s Place and David T.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 21:58
Blatant lies?
He made it up. He said that Cohen was raised to have Orwell in Catalonia as his moral archetype. Cohen himself has denied this, and given strong evidence in favour of why his parents would never have raised him such a fashion.
If the law prevents David T from pointing out that making such unfounded claims should damage a journalists reputation, then there is something severely wrong with the law.
Hari himself is the one making unfounded accusations, not David T.
All I can say is that I truly and sincerely hope that Johann Hari’s career and reputation IS irretrievably damaged by this. Not for making things up - though that’s bad enough - but for the cowardly and pathetic way he has acted in regards to Harry’s Place and David T.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:04
“I truly and sincerely hope that Johann Hari’s career and reputation IS irretrievably damaged by this.”
Get over yourselves! hari writes for the New York Times, the New Republic, he’s Amnesty Journalist of the Year… and meanwhile about ten people read these blogs. (I include myself among these sad people). Do you honestly think a few British blogs are that important? How will it “irretreivably” damage hari’s reputation that a website had to withdraw allegations he makes things up? I’m off….
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:04
“I truly and sincerely hope that Johann Hari’s career and reputation IS irretrievably damaged by this.”
Get over yourselves! hari writes for the New York Times, the New Republic, he’s Amnesty Journalist of the Year… and meanwhile about ten people read these blogs. (I include myself among these sad people). Do you honestly think a few British blogs are that important? How will it “irretreivably” damage hari’s reputation that a website had to withdraw allegations he makes things up? I’m off….
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:14
What’s he point of repeating that Hari is Amnesty Journalist of the Year? It doesn’t get any more impressive second time round.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:14
What’s he point of repeating that Hari is Amnesty Journalist of the Year? It doesn’t get any more impressive second time round.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:32
Who are you Niko - someone from the Indy’s legal dept ?
You were on HP earlier and now on here defending the nasty little man as if he was your brother.
Perhaps as you’re so pally with JH you can tell us why he didn’t threaten Nick Cohen as well after he accused him of making things up ? Perhaps the thought of the Observer’s backing up Cohen might have dissuaded him eh ?
Hari is dispicable - I hope he never lives this down.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:32
Who are you Niko - someone from the Indy’s legal dept ?
You were on HP earlier and now on here defending the nasty little man as if he was your brother.
Perhaps as you’re so pally with JH you can tell us why he didn’t threaten Nick Cohen as well after he accused him of making things up ? Perhaps the thought of the Observer’s backing up Cohen might have dissuaded him eh ?
Hari is dispicable - I hope he never lives this down.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:34
… meanwhile about ten people read these blogs. How will it “irretreivably” damage hari’s reputation that a website had to withdraw allegations he makes things up?
Good question. Here’s another one: given that, how does it damage Hari’s reputation that HP published the allegations in the first place, if nobody reads them?
I don’t think you are quite cut out for the legal profession, sonny.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:34
… meanwhile about ten people read these blogs. How will it “irretreivably” damage hari’s reputation that a website had to withdraw allegations he makes things up?
Good question. Here’s another one: given that, how does it damage Hari’s reputation that HP published the allegations in the first place, if nobody reads them?
I don’t think you are quite cut out for the legal profession, sonny.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:36
Proving that Britain has a more diverse range of competing political newspapers than elsewhere in the english speaking world, because only established newspapers can afford to speak freely in Britain. Could title this post Independent stifles free speech.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:36
Proving that Britain has a more diverse range of competing political newspapers than elsewhere in the english speaking world, because only established newspapers can afford to speak freely in Britain. Could title this post Independent stifles free speech.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:43
Cohen didn’t suggest Hari “has a reputation for making things up”, did he? Because Cohen knows he doesn’t. It’s bollocks.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:43
Cohen didn’t suggest Hari “has a reputation for making things up”, did he? Because Cohen knows he doesn’t. It’s bollocks.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:50
Niko Mystery Lawman :
Well JH certainly has a reputation for making things up with Nick Cohen doesn’t he ?
Do you deny that is a reasonable comment given Cohen’s article ?
Quote from Cohen :
“Hari makes up these stories about my mother and father solely so he can declare that I am an âostentatious claimant of George Orwellâs mantle.â”
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:50
Niko Mystery Lawman :
Well JH certainly has a reputation for making things up with Nick Cohen doesn’t he ?
Do you deny that is a reasonable comment given Cohen’s article ?
Quote from Cohen :
“Hari makes up these stories about my mother and father solely so he can declare that I am an âostentatious claimant of George Orwellâs mantle.â”
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:50
Is Niko Johann?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:50
Is Niko Johann?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:52
I wish!
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:52
I wish!
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:53
You took the words out of my mouth, Tim.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:53
You took the words out of my mouth, Tim.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:53
Will uber Geek - where are you ? Give us the IP info on “Niko”.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:53
Will uber Geek - where are you ? Give us the IP info on “Niko”.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:54
He does the same on lenin’s tomb as “dave”…I presume.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:54
He does the same on lenin’s tomb as “dave”…I presume.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:55
Yes, check my IP address. You’ll find I am not, I’m afarid, Johann Hari. E-mail me and I’ll give you my phone number if you like, you can call and verify.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:55
Yes, check my IP address. You’ll find I am not, I’m afarid, Johann Hari. E-mail me and I’ll give you my phone number if you like, you can call and verify.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:56
Give us the IP info
BT-CENTRAL-PLUS - no excitement there.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:56
Give us the IP info
BT-CENTRAL-PLUS - no excitement there.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:58
So then, Junior Counsel Niko, back to my question :
JH certainly has a reputation for making things up with Nick Cohen doesn’t he ?
Do you deny that is a reasonable comment given Cohen’s article ?
Quote from Cohen :
“Hari makes up these stories about my mother and father solely so he can declare that I am an âostentatious claimant of George Orwellâs mantle.â”
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 22:58
So then, Junior Counsel Niko, back to my question :
JH certainly has a reputation for making things up with Nick Cohen doesn’t he ?
Do you deny that is a reasonable comment given Cohen’s article ?
Quote from Cohen :
“Hari makes up these stories about my mother and father solely so he can declare that I am an âostentatious claimant of George Orwellâs mantle.â”
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:04
Well, Hari says it’s not made up, I think. Given that Cohen also says Hari made up a claim that Cohen said the US was right to support Saddam in the 1980s, and Hari shows far from being made up it’s there in Cohen’s own book, I’m suspicious of Cohen’s claims about this really, aren’t you?
[Will comments: — listen up you thick cunt. Click on the link in the paragraph in the post where it says: “A twisty little git. Cohen says ‘nowhere in my book did I say “x, y, z”‘ and Hari’s response is ‘I know from private conversations etc’ and then doesn’t refute an accusation of distortion — he confirms it by perpetrating a new distortion of a different book.”
Once you’ve done that and read it then kindly fuck off back to HP Sauce where your sort of moronic tripe and shit is acceptable. Failing that - you lickspittle divvy - you could always kill yourself.]
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:04
Well, Hari says it’s not made up, I think. Given that Cohen also says Hari made up a claim that Cohen said the US was right to support Saddam in the 1980s, and Hari shows far from being made up it’s there in Cohen’s own book, I’m suspicious of Cohen’s claims about this really, aren’t you?
[Will comments: — listen up you thick cunt. Click on the link in the paragraph in the post where it says: “A twisty little git. Cohen says ‘nowhere in my book did I say “x, y, z”‘ and Hari’s response is ‘I know from private conversations etc’ and then doesn’t refute an accusation of distortion — he confirms it by perpetrating a new distortion of a different book.”
Once you’ve done that and read it then kindly fuck off back to HP Sauce where your sort of moronic tripe and shit is acceptable. Failing that - you lickspittle divvy - you could always kill yourself.]
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:08
If JH thinks NC is accusing him wrongly of making things up and NC does not withdraw then he should sue NC for defamation.
Why isn’t he doing this ?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:08
If JH thinks NC is accusing him wrongly of making things up and NC does not withdraw then he should sue NC for defamation.
Why isn’t he doing this ?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:09
Montag
Will is entirely correct as indeed your own link identifies i.e. “public figures must prove actual malice” … in order to collect damages, or as Will puts it, the comments need be designed to “damage reputation in the eyes of your peers”.
Niko
Hari certainly inspires loyalty amongst some of his acolytes!
I do my job as required - so does Hari, switch places and I would take those trips. (BTW I very nearly went to Iraq, voluntarily, as a member of an LFIQ delegation but the trip fell through. But so what, proves nowt concerning the politics involved here. Also, and if you really want your “human rights” answer, contact me directly about a campaign for justice for Birmingham Lawyer Ranni Bassi. Nonetheless still proves nothing)
The main point however is that defamation litigation is almost entirely the preserve of the powerful. There is an inequality of arms of monumental proportions. Hari, if backed by his employers, wields a power against David T and HP which they cannot resist. Consequently it represents a moral abuse if used by anyone professing to a basic “human rights” agenda, like yourself on Hari’s behalf.
Given that you brought “human rights” up go have a look at the ECHR. With the obvious imbalance of power and resource here, is there not an Article 6 breach, and what about 9 & 10. I do of course make these points polemically rather than legally.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:09
Montag
Will is entirely correct as indeed your own link identifies i.e. “public figures must prove actual malice” … in order to collect damages, or as Will puts it, the comments need be designed to “damage reputation in the eyes of your peers”.
Niko
Hari certainly inspires loyalty amongst some of his acolytes!
I do my job as required - so does Hari, switch places and I would take those trips. (BTW I very nearly went to Iraq, voluntarily, as a member of an LFIQ delegation but the trip fell through. But so what, proves nowt concerning the politics involved here. Also, and if you really want your “human rights” answer, contact me directly about a campaign for justice for Birmingham Lawyer Ranni Bassi. Nonetheless still proves nothing)
The main point however is that defamation litigation is almost entirely the preserve of the powerful. There is an inequality of arms of monumental proportions. Hari, if backed by his employers, wields a power against David T and HP which they cannot resist. Consequently it represents a moral abuse if used by anyone professing to a basic “human rights” agenda, like yourself on Hari’s behalf.
Given that you brought “human rights” up go have a look at the ECHR. With the obvious imbalance of power and resource here, is there not an Article 6 breach, and what about 9 & 10. I do of course make these points polemically rather than legally.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:24
Will is entirely correct as indeed your own link identifies i.e. “public figures must prove actual malice”
You need to read the Wiki article more closely. There is a difference between winning a libel case, and being awarded damages.
The Wiki article is quite clear: “a defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth.”
In other words, JH would not have to “prove” anything. It is not the case that, as Will says, “Hari would have to prove that the post was designed to ‘damage reputation with your peers’”. That’s why the British libel laws are so unjust — they reverse the usual burden of proof.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:24
Will is entirely correct as indeed your own link identifies i.e. “public figures must prove actual malice”
You need to read the Wiki article more closely. There is a difference between winning a libel case, and being awarded damages.
The Wiki article is quite clear: “a defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth.”
In other words, JH would not have to “prove” anything. It is not the case that, as Will says, “Hari would have to prove that the post was designed to ‘damage reputation with your peers’”. That’s why the British libel laws are so unjust — they reverse the usual burden of proof.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:28
From Johann’s latest response to a response on his site:
…Nick has not linked to this reply, in the list of comments on this article. He hasn’t even informed his readers it exists. I’m not surprised he’s afraid of people reading the truth, I suppose
What is this, if not a direct accusation that Cohen is a liar?
On the essense of the disagreement, here’s Hari again trying to have a pop back at Kamm:
On a final note, here is Oliver Kamm’s latest comment, in which he claims his book - subtitled “The left-wing case for a neoconservative foreign policy” - is not an outright defence of neoconservatism.
Read it again, this time with my emphasis added:
On a final note, here is Oliver Kamm’s latest comment, in which he claims his book - subtitled “The left-wing case for a neoconservative foreign policy” - is not an outright defence of neoconservatism.
Yep, if you are a liberal interventionist - which these days means you are roughly aligned with the neoconservative approach to foreign policy - then you buy into neoconservatism lock, stock and barrel. Apparently.
He just doesn’t get it, does he?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:28
From Johann’s latest response to a response on his site:
…Nick has not linked to this reply, in the list of comments on this article. He hasn’t even informed his readers it exists. I’m not surprised he’s afraid of people reading the truth, I suppose
What is this, if not a direct accusation that Cohen is a liar?
On the essense of the disagreement, here’s Hari again trying to have a pop back at Kamm:
On a final note, here is Oliver Kamm’s latest comment, in which he claims his book - subtitled “The left-wing case for a neoconservative foreign policy” - is not an outright defence of neoconservatism.
Read it again, this time with my emphasis added:
On a final note, here is Oliver Kamm’s latest comment, in which he claims his book - subtitled “The left-wing case for a neoconservative foreign policy” - is not an outright defence of neoconservatism.
Yep, if you are a liberal interventionist - which these days means you are roughly aligned with the neoconservative approach to foreign policy - then you buy into neoconservatism lock, stock and barrel. Apparently.
He just doesn’t get it, does he?
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:43
Montaq
Splitting hairs mate - Will makes clear David T’s possible defences and then goes on to say, “to win” i.e. to win damages as I read it etc etc. I take your point about it being an unjust law and agree, as per my reply to Niko.
All that said this is not, as far as I am aware, a legal advice blog site and for the finer points of cost risk on payment into court etc - nah leave it and lets concentrate on the blatant inconsistency between Hari’s professed political stances and this abuse of an unjust law. He will not issue and is only using it to throw his weight around and silence critics.
On the Amnesty point has anyone mentioned the controversial Euston passage on them yet? I still have an AI standing order, but that might now be in the balance.
Tuesday 31 July 2007 at 23:43
Montaq
Splitting hairs mate - Will makes clear David T’s possible defences and then goes on to say, “to win” i.e. to win damages as I read it etc etc. I take your point about it being an unjust law and agree, as per my reply to Niko.
All that said this is not, as far as I am aware, a legal advice blog site and for the finer points of cost risk on payment into court etc - nah leave it and lets concentrate on the blatant inconsistency between Hari’s professed political stances and this abuse of an unjust law. He will not issue and is only using it to throw his weight around and silence critics.
On the Amnesty point has anyone mentioned the controversial Euston passage on them yet? I still have an AI standing order, but that might now be in the balance.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:03
Has Nicosoffalot and his ilk ever heard of the argument from authority?
Did you know that Hari is Amnesty journalist of the year and that like tho but? That means he never ever makes any mistakes. Ever. At all. he’s perfect.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:03
Has Nicosoffalot and his ilk ever heard of the argument from authority?
Did you know that Hari is Amnesty journalist of the year and that like tho but? That means he never ever makes any mistakes. Ever. At all. he’s perfect.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:05
I will just say that libel courts have the power to impose other punishments on those they find guilty than just monetary damages. It would be possible for the court to find HP guilty, but instead of awarding damages to JH, it could order that all webpages making the allegation be suppressed.
Now which are you really more concerned about, politically — that the HP posters lose money, or that free speech is suppressed for those who want to read HP?
I should also point out that usually it is not necessary to go to court for a threat of libel action to be effective — as it has been in this case. It is sufficient for defendant to consider that, if the dispute does go to court, they will have to pay many thousands of pounds to lawyers in order to investigate and prepare their defence — even if the prosecution’s case is ultimately hopeless. That’s exactly how the likes of Maxwell managed to use the libel laws against people who were making allegations against him that pretty much everyone knew to be true.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:05
I will just say that libel courts have the power to impose other punishments on those they find guilty than just monetary damages. It would be possible for the court to find HP guilty, but instead of awarding damages to JH, it could order that all webpages making the allegation be suppressed.
Now which are you really more concerned about, politically — that the HP posters lose money, or that free speech is suppressed for those who want to read HP?
I should also point out that usually it is not necessary to go to court for a threat of libel action to be effective — as it has been in this case. It is sufficient for defendant to consider that, if the dispute does go to court, they will have to pay many thousands of pounds to lawyers in order to investigate and prepare their defence — even if the prosecution’s case is ultimately hopeless. That’s exactly how the likes of Maxwell managed to use the libel laws against people who were making allegations against him that pretty much everyone knew to be true.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:24
“or that free speech is suppressed for those who want to read HP?”
Ok — nitpicking aside (what the fuck — I’ll nitpick with HP Sauce commenter dickheads all night long for the fucking laugh it affords me) — I like taking the piss out of HP Sauce commenters (tis fun).
How is your *free speech* suppressed by *not being able to read* HP Sauce? Politically, I’m concerned about J Hari closing down criticism of his shit by recourse to lawyer filth. I could not give a monkey’s bowl of jism about HP Sauce. It’s generally a pit of filth and right wing nutjobbery. Fuck ‘em and fuck ‘em all.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 0:24
“or that free speech is suppressed for those who want to read HP?”
Ok — nitpicking aside (what the fuck — I’ll nitpick with HP Sauce commenter dickheads all night long for the fucking laugh it affords me) — I like taking the piss out of HP Sauce commenters (tis fun).
How is your *free speech* suppressed by *not being able to read* HP Sauce? Politically, I’m concerned about J Hari closing down criticism of his shit by recourse to lawyer filth. I could not give a monkey’s bowl of jism about HP Sauce. It’s generally a pit of filth and right wing nutjobbery. Fuck ‘em and fuck ‘em all.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 12:35
Has someone traced that Niko character already, you lazy MoFos?
I’ll bet it will appear… no, the heck with your libel laws…
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 12:35
Has someone traced that Niko character already, you lazy MoFos?
I’ll bet it will appear… no, the heck with your libel laws…
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 14:01
Except that Cohen and Kamm say that is exactly what he does. Which makes me wonder why he got so upset at David T’s frankly quite gentle comments.
Perhaps because David T has a reputation of being generally honest and accurate, and not one of being a big-time bullshitter who makes stuff up or manipulates facts to suit his argument.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 14:01
Except that Cohen and Kamm say that is exactly what he does. Which makes me wonder why he got so upset at David T’s frankly quite gentle comments.
Perhaps because David T has a reputation of being generally honest and accurate, and not one of being a big-time bullshitter who makes stuff up or manipulates facts to suit his argument.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 14:17
No he just picked the easier target to menace.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 14:17
No he just picked the easier target to menace.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 14:20
Who are these monkeys that collect jism in a bowl?
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 14:20
Who are these monkeys that collect jism in a bowl?
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 14:33
Not from the Arctic I’ll hazard
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 14:33
Not from the Arctic I’ll hazard
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 15:02
Not from the Arctic I’ll hazard
It took me ages to get that joke. I must be getting old.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 15:02
Not from the Arctic I’ll hazard
It took me ages to get that joke. I must be getting old.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 15:17
Unlike “Dave” Cameron
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 15:17
Unlike “Dave” Cameron
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 15:56
How is your *free speech* suppressed by *not being able to read* HP Sauce?
Now that’s a strange way of thinking, coming from a Trot. And rather literalist to — free speech doesn’t mean the freedom to open and close your mouth and emit sounds, it really means the free exchange of ideas, doesn’t it? It therefore doesn’t just imply the right of an individual to speak or write, but of others to listen or read. I would have thought the dialectician in you would rebel against the idea of speech in the abstract, and understand it as a concrete act between people.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 15:56
How is your *free speech* suppressed by *not being able to read* HP Sauce?
Now that’s a strange way of thinking, coming from a Trot. And rather literalist to — free speech doesn’t mean the freedom to open and close your mouth and emit sounds, it really means the free exchange of ideas, doesn’t it? It therefore doesn’t just imply the right of an individual to speak or write, but of others to listen or read. I would have thought the dialectician in you would rebel against the idea of speech in the abstract, and understand it as a concrete act between people.
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 23:08
I’ve been very patient so far in putting up with HP Sauce commenters posting here because of the subject matter. Usually I will delete on sight (with a few exceptions). However, my patience has now run out.
Montag: You ridiculous fucking windbag (you really like the sound of your own gob don’t you)?. Typical of the Sauce type commenter more generally of course. You set up a false paradigm thusly:
“that the HP posters lose money, or that free speech is suppressed for those who want to read HP?”
Those who ‘want to read’ HP do *not* have their free speech suppressed because they can’t read HP.
I answered your loony rant (precisely on the terms you set) by pointing out that your ‘free speech’ is not in anyway affected ‘by not being able to read’ your beloved silly weblog. You still have the capacity and the means for the ‘free exchange of ideas’ you pissant fucking dipshit. You know…? Like start a fucking blog of your own you trolling twit. Technology empowers and all that…
Now you start lecturing me about speech in the abstract and speech in the concrete…tosser!
Dealt with you’re sort of absolutist not long ago:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dstpfw/4687704166542346666/#157642
Specimens of the sort like what you are, are the sort of filth we shall have to dispose of in an ecologically sound fashion come the revolution. Pushed into a windmill’s flailing blades! Barabecued over a sustainable solar powered cooking appliance with zero carbon emissions! …
Now piss off and don’t darken this house ever again. Twat!
Wednesday 1 August 2007 at 23:08
I’ve been very patient so far in putting up with HP Sauce commenters posting here because of the subject matter. Usually I will delete on sight (with a few exceptions). However, my patience has now run out.
Montag: You ridiculous fucking windbag (you really like the sound of your own gob don’t you)?. Typical of the Sauce type commenter more generally of course. You set up a false paradigm thusly:
“that the HP posters lose money, or that free speech is suppressed for those who want to read HP?”
Those who ‘want to read’ HP do *not* have their free speech suppressed because they can’t read HP.
I answered your loony rant (precisely on the terms you set) by pointing out that your ‘free speech’ is not in anyway affected ‘by not being able to read’ your beloved silly weblog. You still have the capacity and the means for the ‘free exchange of ideas’ you pissant fucking dipshit. You know…? Like start a fucking blog of your own you trolling twit. Technology empowers and all that…
Now you start lecturing me about speech in the abstract and speech in the concrete…tosser!
Dealt with you’re sort of absolutist not long ago:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dstpfw/4687704166542346666/#157642
Specimens of the sort like what you are, are the sort of filth we shall have to dispose of in an ecologically sound fashion come the revolution. Pushed into a windmill’s flailing blades! Barabecued over a sustainable solar powered cooking appliance with zero carbon emissions! …
Now piss off and don’t darken this house ever again. Twat!
Thursday 2 August 2007 at 1:24
Rule of thumb:
When a fuckwit complains about his ‘freedom of speech’ being ‘challenged’ they/it is most likely an apologist for crimes against humanity. To impugn (attack as false or wrong) that it is otherwise only makes the apologist more of a scumbag.
I despise conservatives. All of them. Without favour.
Thursday 2 August 2007 at 1:24
Rule of thumb:
When a fuckwit complains about his ‘freedom of speech’ being ‘challenged’ they/it is most likely an apologist for crimes against humanity. To impugn (attack as false or wrong) that it is otherwise only makes the apologist more of a scumbag.
I despise conservatives. All of them. Without favour.
Thursday 2 August 2007 at 14:16
“Linking to HP Sauce, Will? Shurely Shome Mishtake.”
When needs must…
Will | Homepage | 31.07.07 - 4:09 pm | #
Here’s a warning.
Take heed and implant it in your fucking heeds for all eternity.
Any fucker who pastes a link to that disgusting piece of shit site (HP Sauce) in the comments boxes here ever again for whatever reason will be deleted and banned. I will hunt you down and personally carve your genitals into a new shape.
Will | Homepage | 19.07.07 - 10:51 pm | #
Hypocunt.
Thursday 2 August 2007 at 14:16
“Linking to HP Sauce, Will? Shurely Shome Mishtake.”
When needs must…
Will | Homepage | 31.07.07 - 4:09 pm | #
Here’s a warning.
Take heed and implant it in your fucking heeds for all eternity.
Any fucker who pastes a link to that disgusting piece of shit site (HP Sauce) in the comments boxes here ever again for whatever reason will be deleted and banned. I will hunt you down and personally carve your genitals into a new shape.
Will | Homepage | 19.07.07 - 10:51 pm | #
Hypocunt.
Thursday 2 August 2007 at 14:32
Can you not read?
You’re banned as well now.
Thursday 2 August 2007 at 14:32
Can you not read?
You’re banned as well now.
Saturday 4 August 2007 at 20:11
I have to say Hari is not the only one who is sorry he was ever associated with the pro-war Left. I am too. Indeed, I am sorry he was ever associated with the left at all.
Saturday 4 August 2007 at 20:11
I have to say Hari is not the only one who is sorry he was ever associated with the pro-war Left. I am too. Indeed, I am sorry he was ever associated with the left at all.