In a long overdue victory for free speech, Sir Elton John has been left fuming yet again after loosing his latest libel case against the Guardian newspaper.
This is a mighty blow to the ongoing efforts of one of Britain’s top gay mafia henchmen to seal the lips of all those who question his beloved charity, a battle in which has no doubt cost the “gratuitously offensive, nasty and snide” showman dearly. Journalist Marina Hyde claimed Elton’s AIDS Foundation does not “raise serious funds” and is merely an excuse for “self-promotion”. This is the third time the charity has come in for criticism in a national newspaper.
During the 1990′s, gay mafia charity “Stonewall” often flirted with Sir Elton, flying the entertainer and his entourage across the Atlantic from his L.A home. In November 1999, the organisers of it’s glamorous gala fundraiser at London’s Royal Albert Hall faced a legal challenge from the Scout Movement, enraged by Elton’s use of erotic dancers as part of his performance for the sold-out event who (although aged over 18.) were dressed up as Cub-Scouts alongside Elton (who’s real name is Reginald Kenneth Dwight). Several right-wing gay-bashing homophobic family-rights groups got on their moral high-horses and claimed “Stonewall should be condemned for holding boys up as sex objects” causing similar claims to be published in The Sun and other tabloid newspapers. Stonewall itself had to make a full public apologywhilst Elton stayed silent.
At the time Stonewall was lobbying to equalise the age of consent, and although it may seem like a long time ago now, it was still a very tough battle to fight. Public support was critical, lack of it contributed to several delays to the campaign along with the repeal of Section 28. Elton’s involvement probably didn’t help.
Since then Elton’s work with Stonewall has dwindled and his reputation for making brash personal attacks on other gay icons and celebrities with big gay followings such as Madonna and George Michael certainly no longer makes him a favorable act to headline at a glitzy money-making ball these days. In fact Elton’s now got his own charity, naughtily after himself. Just as the name “Stonewall” itself has slowly begun to drown out, Elton’s charity along with a rather convenient plug for his entire career, the Elton John AIDS Foundation is a name you probably will have heard more and more over the past few years. Combined with the 61 year old’s tendency to mouth-off and throw a queeny-strop at the slightest snippet of criticism or unflattering photo taken of his baldy noggin, the charity itself has given him even more opportunities to indulge in his favorite pastime – suing some ass.
Those who believe in the existence of parallel universes will probably envisage Sir Elton pursing a career in Law. At least in this one he’s got all the right wigs for the part!
Who Elton’s thrown his dummy at:
- Elton John vs. The Sun (1988)
(£1,000,000 damages paid out by The Sun newspaper) - Elton John vs. Sunday Mirror (1993)
(£75,000 damages paid out by the publishers of the Mirror on Sunday)
- Sir Elton John vs. Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (1997)
(£350,000 damages paid out by the Mirror Newspaper)
- Sir Elton John and others vs. Countess Joulebine (2001)(£15,000 damages paid out by the webmaster of a gossip message board)
- Sir Elton John vs. Associated Newspapers Limited ( May 2006)
(£127,000 settlement paid out by the Daily Mail) - Sir Elton John vs Associated Newspapers Limited (August 2006)
(£100,000 paid in Damages and an undisclosed sum from the Sunday Times)
- Sir Elton John vs Guardian News & Media (December 2008)(He lost this latest case but the Guardian said it was (sort of) sorry)
Elton’s petty legal fights have now whisked the Rocket Man into cyberspace, and although he’s a self-confessed Luddite and technopbobe he’s known to indulge in a bit of silver surfing.
One of his more mean pursuits involved sending the Lawyers down to the webmistress of entertainment “gossip message board” – Countess Joulebine. He managed to secure a hearing by citing precedent set in similar case (Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited 1999) which involved the former owners of the Pink Paper and Boyz Magazine David Bridle and Kelvin Sollis. The case involved material published by Chris Morris, a former Stonewall activist who had switched sides to grass routes gay rights group “OutRage!” headed by Peter Tatchell who was about to publish details of an apparently “fake” HIV charity “Positive Lives” (now defunct) on his website hosted by Demon Internet.
It appears Elton’s lawyers had in-depth knowledge about this particular case involving the owners of this other allegedly “dodgy HIV charity” which went to court only a year previously, putting the Pink Paper’s main rival publication “OutCast” right out of business.
David Bridle still publishes Boyz Magazine, and having recently done away with it’s previous editor he is firmly back at the reigns. The Pink Paper was sold to rival publishers Millivres Prowler Group in 2004.
Any brave soul (like Chris Morris, Marina Hyde, Countess Joulebine and a long list of others) who dares question the apparent charitable operations of any gay mafia entities face being silenced by a wall of law suits, funded by gay mafia barons with rich friends and a long list of Lawyers, Publicists and Spin-Doctors armed with everything they need to cover up the most heinous of scandals.
Final Facts
- In 2007 Sir Elton caused yet more fury after announcing he intends to Shut Down the Internet altogether claiming the web is “destroying music” and “stopping people going out”. Who knows what his real agenda is?
- In an obvious blitz of damage limitation, less than two weeks after Elton went red in the face after loosing this latest battle with the Guardian, Harrow Council announced it was considering naming a street after him. However it appears there is already a lovely little street right beside the Bus Station that is infact called “Elton Avenue”!
- Like most secretive criminal societies, the “gay mafia” has friends in high places, but not all. Even within it’s own close-knit circles there is in-fighting and fierce rivalry, as well as family-like births, deaths, and civil partnerships! We’ll be going more in-depth on who’s who in our forthcoming features “Gay Mafia Families” and “The Gays After Tomorrow”.
Simon Singh
The British Chiropractic Association dropped its libel action against the science writer Simon Singh today, filing a notice of discontinuation in the high court.
The case had become a cause celebre, with scientists, celebrities and freedom of speech campaigners lining up to condemn the British libel laws and argue that Singh had a right to express his opinion in print.
The sudden end to the case will strengthen the campaign for reform of the libel laws, which Jack Straw, the justice secretary, is considering. It is also a specific pledge in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.
Singh was sued by the BCA for a piece he wrote in the Guardian's comment pages, criticising the association for defending chiropractors who use treatments for which there is little evidence on children with conditions such as colic and asthma.
Singh and his supporters were dismayed by an early verdict by Mr Justice Eady on the meaning of the words used in the article. The judge ruled that Singh was stating facts, which he would have to prove in his defence, rather than voicing opinion and that he had implied the members of the BCA knowingly promoted what Singh called "bogus treatments".
Singh argued that was not what he meant and went to the court of appeal. Two weeks ago, he won the point.
In their ruling on the case, Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley: "It is now nearly two years since the publication of the offending article. It seems unlikely that anyone would dare repeat the opinions expressed by Dr Singh for fear of a writ.
"Accordingly this litigation has almost certainly had a chilling effect on public debate which might otherwise have assisted potential patients to make informed choices about the possible use of chiropractic."
Robert Dougans of Bryan Cave LLP, who represented Singh, confirmed that the BCA's case was at an end. "All that now remains to be settled is how much of Simon's legal costs he can recover from the BCA, and how much he will have to bear himself," he said.
"However well this process goes, Simon is likely to be out of pocket by about £20,000. This – and two years of lost earnings, which he can never recover, is the price he has paid for writing an article criticising the BCA for making claims the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled can no longer be made. In the game of libel, even winning is costly and stressful.
"To have won this case for Simon is the proudest moment of my career, but if we had the libel laws we ought to have I would never have met Simon at all. Until we have a proper public interest defence scientists and writers are going to have to carry on making the unenviable choice of either shying away from hard-hitting debate, or paying through the nose for the privilege of defending it."
Ely Place Chambers, the chamber of William McCormick QC, one of two barristers who represented Dr Singh, said that the BCA had ended its "ill-fated" claim.
"Dr Singh's predicament as the sole defendant in an action brought in respect of a comment piece in the Guardian newspaper (to which the BCA never directed any complaint) was seen as a rallying point for those concerned about the abuse of UK libel laws in connection with scientific debate."
The case had become a cause celebre, with scientists, celebrities and freedom of speech campaigners lining up to condemn the British libel laws and argue that Singh had a right to express his opinion in print.
The sudden end to the case will strengthen the campaign for reform of the libel laws, which Jack Straw, the justice secretary, is considering. It is also a specific pledge in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.
Singh was sued by the BCA for a piece he wrote in the Guardian's comment pages, criticising the association for defending chiropractors who use treatments for which there is little evidence on children with conditions such as colic and asthma.
Singh and his supporters were dismayed by an early verdict by Mr Justice Eady on the meaning of the words used in the article. The judge ruled that Singh was stating facts, which he would have to prove in his defence, rather than voicing opinion and that he had implied the members of the BCA knowingly promoted what Singh called "bogus treatments".
Singh argued that was not what he meant and went to the court of appeal. Two weeks ago, he won the point.
In their ruling on the case, Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley: "It is now nearly two years since the publication of the offending article. It seems unlikely that anyone would dare repeat the opinions expressed by Dr Singh for fear of a writ.
"Accordingly this litigation has almost certainly had a chilling effect on public debate which might otherwise have assisted potential patients to make informed choices about the possible use of chiropractic."
Robert Dougans of Bryan Cave LLP, who represented Singh, confirmed that the BCA's case was at an end. "All that now remains to be settled is how much of Simon's legal costs he can recover from the BCA, and how much he will have to bear himself," he said.
"However well this process goes, Simon is likely to be out of pocket by about £20,000. This – and two years of lost earnings, which he can never recover, is the price he has paid for writing an article criticising the BCA for making claims the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled can no longer be made. In the game of libel, even winning is costly and stressful.
"To have won this case for Simon is the proudest moment of my career, but if we had the libel laws we ought to have I would never have met Simon at all. Until we have a proper public interest defence scientists and writers are going to have to carry on making the unenviable choice of either shying away from hard-hitting debate, or paying through the nose for the privilege of defending it."
Ely Place Chambers, the chamber of William McCormick QC, one of two barristers who represented Dr Singh, said that the BCA had ended its "ill-fated" claim.
"Dr Singh's predicament as the sole defendant in an action brought in respect of a comment piece in the Guardian newspaper (to which the BCA never directed any complaint) was seen as a rallying point for those concerned about the abuse of UK libel laws in connection with scientific debate."
No comments:
Post a Comment