Johanna Kaschke: the strange case of the Tory ‘suspected of links to leftwing extremists’
Posted on Thursday 13 May, 2010
Filed Under Blogging
TOWER Hamlets Tory activist Johanna Kaschke really is one cherry short of a Schwarzwälderkirschtorte. [CONTENT TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED PENDING THREAT OF LEGAL ACTION]
Because the judgment attracts absolute privilege, I can also quote Eady’s finding that in the 1970s Ms Kaschke ‘played a minor role in organising a benefit concert in aid of “Red Help”, which provided legal assistance to left-wing radicals in Germany at that time’.
As is amply attested by newspaper coverage from the period, among the leftwing radicals assisted by Rote Hilfe – to give that group its German name – were the openly terrorist Baader-Meinhof Gang. Rote Hilfe is still in existence, and to this day proudly proclaims its ideological affinities on its own website.
Again in Eady’s words, it has also been established that Ms Kaschke ‘was arrested in Germany in July 1975 and suspected of links to left-wing extremists’. I am even in possession of a copy of the arrest warrant, which confirms that she was in proximity to paraphernalia including imitation firearms at this time.
It is of course true that she was never formally accused of any criminal offence, and that after some months in detention, she was compensated for wrongful arrest. But I prominently mentioned this to be the case in my original post. For the record, let me reiterate that I fully accept her assertions to this effect.
It is also true that Ms Kaschke resigned from the Labour Party in 2007 after having failed to secure nomination as prospective parliamentary candidate for Bethnal Green and Bow, and spent short periods in Respect and the Communist Party prior to her conversion to Conservatism by the end of that year.
These are simply the facts of her political life, and it falls to her to account for them should she seek to obtain positions of influence in the community or even elected office.
It is ludicrous that a civil prosecution can be brought simply for stating things that are widely known among political activists in Tower Hamlets, where Ms Kaschke resides. That I came close to facing a two-week jury trial because some bright spark made a wisecrack about cream-laden confectionary typical of the Black Forest region of Germany borders on the surreal.
[CONTENT TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED DUE TO THREAT OF LEGAL ACTION]
There are many aspects of libel law clearly overdue for reform, and it would be a step forward if measures were introduced to prevent anyone else having to suffer the grief and expense I have had to endure for three years.
At the end of the day, Ms Kaschke reveals herself as at the very least a [CONTENT TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED DUE TO THREAT OF LEGAL ACTION]person, who brings [CONTENT TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED DUE TO THREAT OF LEGAL ACTION] simply by virtue of her presence.
The Tories are welcome to her.
As I have now been vindicated in full, it only remains to thank my legal team – Robert ‘Legal King’ Dougans, David Allen Green (aka Jack of Kent), Joel Benathan QC and Martin Huseyin – as well as Stroppy for her constant backing throughout all this shit.
Thanks also to everyone else who has chipped in with supportive comments or attended any of the hearings.
Legal action between Ms Kaschke and Alex Hilton, recently Labour PPC in Kensington and Chelsea, and newly-elected Newham Labour councillor John Gray is still pending. But there is now little doubt as to what the result will be.
<<Go back
Comments
94 Responses to “Johanna Kaschke: the strange case of the Tory ‘suspected of links to leftwing extremists’”
Leave a Reply
Well done Dave!
Cakes and ale all round!
http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/cakes-and-ale-all-round/
Well done, and what a relief!
@modernity. My involvement in the case is that a comment I posted was alleged by Kascke to be libellous (or whatever the exact legal issue is that she was suing for).
This comment is contained in the judgement (along with other comments she complained about), as well as the substantive post.
My comment was –
“I’d be very dubious about someone, like Kaschke, who ‘suddenly’ discovers Labour are a bunch of bastards. I wonder if it could be connected with any realisation that her background would never allow her to be a Labour candidate in the way that any trivial conviction or even hint (or smear) of any illegality would bar anyone from being a main party candidate.
Maybe Respect will provide the next path for her career (although she has to be a Brit, Irish or a Commonwealth citizen to be an MP).”
No mention of this comment is given in Eady’s judgement. The comment I posted is entirely correct and not libellous and can no more be subject to a successful claim for libel that could, for example, Modernity posting a weather report.
If I had to guess what Kaschke may claim about my comment, I would guess that she would (wrongly) say the following was actionable – “her background would never allow her to be a Labour candidate in the way that any trivial conviction or even hint (or smear) of any illegality would bar anyone from being a main party candidate.”
Of the options listed in this paragraph a)conviction, b)hint of illegality or c)smear of illegality, that I list as being a cause of why someone would be barred as a party as a candidate, it is the final one that I contend would doubtless be used against her.
She was smeared when it was said she had a connection, in whatever way, to the Rote Armee Fraktion. This was a wholly false statement but my judgement is that despite this being wrong, it would still doubtless be used against her.
Osler quite reasonably asked me to give a statement about my comment and after some discussion between us I decided not to do so.
I think it should be presumed that it is incumbent on Lefts to assist others in such a way (even for barely Lefts), as Osler requested, but I am of the view that there were very good and ‘justifiable as a Left’ reasons for me not to do so. I conveyed these reasons to Osler.
I will be pleased to report these reasons here and people can make up their own mind. I think any reasonable Left would agree with me although doubtless some will be blinded by their political disagreements with me and so be unable to fairly judge whether I was justified, or not, in what I did.
But I think it would be most unwise to give these reasons here before the end of all proceedings.
I would intend to relate these at the end of the matter although I also do wonder, whether there is any interest in this matter as such a post would not be short and I don’t particularly wish to sidetrack a post about something to be celebrated with what is but a small side matter, as I regret I needed to do here.
I’d also rather not have to visit this disreputable blog. I might catch something (e.g. Islamaphobia) but I promised to address this issues when the time was right.
Hang on, Southpawpunch you wrote:
“I think it should be presumed that it is incumbent on Lefts to assist others in such a way (even for barely Lefts), as Osler requested, but I am of the view that there were very good and ‘justifiable as a Left’ reasons for me not to do so. I conveyed these reasons to Osler.”
So Dave asked for your help and refused? Hmm.
ops, So Dave asked for your help and **you** refused? Hmm.
Coatsey and Sue R. [and others] …
Here is something of interest:
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_soviet-archives.html
All of our old Euro-chums like Kinnock and Coates, plus Joe Biden and Gorby.
For those with an interest in matters Hibernian, here is the redoubtable Green Minister Mary White, and her compelling desire to stamp out the wickedness of bigotry:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/05/minister_to_roo.php
One might make obvious points about Coalition Government and how they work in practice, but one need not.
‘I can call spirits from the vasty deep…’ Just intone ‘Southpawpunch and he appears, ready to justify himself. Very Faustian.
Stormtrooper Corr: Your political education is sadly lacking if you never grasped the fact that Trotskyists NEVER supported te Stalinization of the Soiet Union and fought against it for decades. Nothing you say about the SU is a surprise to anyone who has been throught the Trotskyist movement.
Sue R. squeals without being hit; I never accuse anyone of unrepentant Stalinism without due cause.
I never accuse Trotskyites, Trotskyists or Trotskyettes* of the Kronstadt massacre nor do I accuse anarchists of ex post facto responsibility for the unfortunate occurences in the Ukraine and/or Spain, either.
Nor is old Missus Murphy to be held responsible for the Spanish Inquisition.
* A new coinage.
What the Bard called ‘fire-new words’ – or was it said of him? See McCrum et al.
“Vanessa Redgrave was a well-known thespian and Trotskyette.”
It was Don Armado in ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost’ who was a man of fire-new words.
http://firenewwords.blogspot.com/
But he never described anyone as a Trotskyette.
If there is a chance that this goes further (but I hope not, for ALL concerned) there’s a certain blog that this time should be carefully archived on a very regular basis:
I quote
Victims of terror of any type should unite against this very liberal ruling of Mr Justice Eady in the case Kaschke v Osler in protest to put a stop to the joking promotion of terrorism as if it was a very casual conversation topic and even funny.
Even the judge himself has been prosaic pictured wearing the t-shirt of a well-known terrorist group Brigade Rosse, as a result of the ruling. Justice Eady, who has been said to hate the press, but he has now found something he hates even more, which is me, a German immigrant, posing a threat to English law in relation to the Human Rights legislation, which saw the UK lose a trial at the Human Rights court over their refusal to grant legal aid to libel litigants, that want to save their good name but cannot afford to pay the libel lawyers fees.
What the Dougans camp now want to achieve is to ban all litigants, that cannot pay fees outright from bringing cases. There are several considerations to be taken into account, one is of course that lawyers in general see a threat to their professions because of the Tesco law, whereby cheap legal advice will be available in supermarkets and also that libel lawyers can command immense fees for their services. Yet think about it, if all poor persons lose the right to protect their good name, their future will be blackened through publications whilst they are too poor to defend themselves and when it becomes apparent later that such publication would make it impossible for a person or their children to take up public office because of an ancient publicity, then it will become apparent, that we are creating an underclass of people who are subjected to abuse by the press. We must prevent this happening, we must prevent it from happening that people’s names can be abused to report jokingly about terrorist groups or activities as if it were a normal thing to do. It is bad enough already that we can purchase fashion items with the Baader-Meinhof logo on.
Courts tend to let cases go on the more money the parties can pay and the more compensation is at stake but the right to a good name cannot really be measured in the amount of compensation a defamatory publisher can pay. We’ll end up with a situation where only rich people are allowed to a have a good name because publishers can libel all the poor people for sheer entertainment.
What we saw in Osler’s blog is the mention of all Catholics should be assassinated and Tony Blair as well and that was put as a joke and all activities of known terrorists laughed about as a matter of online conversation, using my name as the starting block for this and relating to an article about me.
I do not think that the average reasonable citizen, that has been subjected to the results of terrorist attack would find the sickening article Osler wrote and allowed to be published funny. Yet Justice Eady has delivered a judgment that tells people how to look at the posting and commands us how to interpret the ruling in the light of it. This is not within the law of the Defamation Act, the Right for a fair trial or the Supreme Courts Act. Even during the hearing of 23 April 2010, when Justice Eady was favouring a new trial date, the third one so far, he changed his mind when Robert Dougans reminded him that he (Eady J) won’t be sitting in September 2010 and had to determine the issue now. This implies that another judge would not rule in the same way. Sir David Eady left a considerable case law legacy but some of it has not been thoroughly approved EU wide and may fall foul of certain regulations. Justice Stadlen was very wise to be cautious in applying legal principles that were founded on other scenarios.
I am upset about this and will now work on the permission to appeal this ruling and it is going to be a lot of work for me. Whats is even harder is not to be able to discuss much of it when I do not have anybody to discuss this with. It was easier for the McDonald’s pair at least they had each other, but I do not have that pleasure. I just hope I have your support.
Update: what the court is trying to do is declare libel actions as abuse of process mainly on the Jameel doctrine and then say we do not need to give you fair proceedings because you are abusing the process. The abuse of process is hinged mainly on the publication rule. The court says unless you proof that something has been published to individuals it has not been published even if it is available on the Internet. That is the sticking point of it.
Of course all that is going on without ever making that legal advice commonly available to people and they are given all the free listing fees just to be told then after years of legal process that they have abused the process.
Yet all that coincides with Human Rights Laws that contradict that thinking and it is important to sort out the law on an EU basis or we will continue to go around in circles. How can a court possibly dismiss the hurt, distress and loss caused to victims of reckless publishers to legal principles about publication numbers when we have to live with this day after day?
@SPP: That was the comment that put Dave in court? This (situation) is even crazier than I thought. How could she have been offended by the suggestion that someone might use a smear against her?
Completely absurd.
Southpawpunch,
Can you see the difficulties here?
Dave asked you to help, you refused.
You give some non-specified reasons (which may be valid, who knows?)
But essentially you are asking people to see your side or your situation without knowing the reasons, can you see the problem here?
In the past, you have proven yourself to be the most ultra Leftist, the most inconsiderate and least liable to understand other peoples’ considered points of view.
In the past, Southpawpunch, you were dismissive of others thoughtful reasons for doing things.
Yet now, you crave people’s indulgence to assume that the reasons, that you don’t specify are valid, and are not just craven or embodying cowardice.
Bearing in mind, that the British left is full of shouty types, who can rant for the Olympics, but when it comes to doing something, with people, they vanish.
Southpawpunch, you’re asking people to see your point of view, when in the past you made a virtue of never doing that.
I hope you understand the contradictions?
If you want a reply (also @ SueR) you need to spell it exactly as he wants (SouthPawPunch), otherwise his automatic internet SouthPawSearch won’t work, and he won’t get his SouthPawVaccine to protect him from the illnesses he’ll catch from being here. And when is SouthPawReadSomethingOnTheNetAndItWasWrong.com going on line? And the book? Hm?
He said But I think it would be most unwise to give these reasons here before the end of all proceedings
Can’t you all wait just a little longer?
Well done David. Great news to hear about your victory.
How very reminiscent of my late, former wife Dorothy Squires, who undertook 30 libel cases over 15 years before the courts decided she was a “vexatious litigant”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigant
BTW is the Spartacist League of Britain still going? Time could drag on the Bond sets and I used to like nothing better than relaxing with a Cohiba, glass of shampers and a copy of the ‘Workers Hammer’.
Weather lovely in Gstaad today!
Thank you reader. As Henry replies to Gelndower, ‘You may call them, but do they come?’. If SouthPawPunch had come to the pre-trial hearing, he would have heard that it was the remark about the Black Forest Gateau that she objected to. She claimed that informing the remark was the knowledge that the Baader-Meinhof terrorists were certified insane and treated in mental hospitals, therefore, the remark suggesting that her own mental health was not 100% was a way of suggesting that she was a member of the Baader-Meinhof group. Draw your own conclusions.
Actually it worked the other way round – at least part of the second wave of Baader Meinhof terrorists were actually recruited from mental patients who had been radicalised by ultra-leftist therapists applying the then fashionable theories of RD Laing and Thomas Szasz that it was the sane people who were the problem…
So when those members got caught they did tend to end up being re-institutionalised for the mental problems they’d had in the first place.
The BM prisoners who were just plain evil rather than mad were on the whole treated with commendable liberalism by the social-democratic government of the time.
If you’ve not seen the film Baader Meinhof Complex is worth a look – historically and politically problematic in various respects but does at least give you an overview of what happened and a quite compelling picture of the central trio.
A thread wouldn’t be complete without the complete bollocks of Roger. You have been missed!
But well done on the outcome Mr Osler.
@Modernity
You’re completely wrong.
In my last post here, last year, I promised to return to correct the slur then made by Osler about me. I have done a little now but can not post the entire rebuttal until all the cases are finished. And that’s not for my benefit – I’d be happy to get it over with now.
So, no, I’m not “asking people to see (my) side or (my) situation without knowing the reasons”. Instead I think any reasonable person reading this would think (if they are remotely interested) ‘fair enough, his reason for delay in giving details sound justifiable and I will reserve judgement on whether he was correct to not give a statement for Osler, until I see those details. Just wait.
But then ‘reasonable person’ and ‘commentator of Dave’s part’ aren’t people who are often in the same room, or even on the same planet.
And I have never been at all the “least liable (sic) to understand other peoples’ considered points of view”, as you claim.
I understand exactly why the coalition government wishes to move to a 5 year fixed term (and a 55% majority of MPs for a dissolution); why Osler supports Labour; why you are such an apologist for Zionism and why that market trader this morning refused to return my money, even though I had him bang to rights.
You are all minor cogs in, supporters of, enamoured by or beneficiaries of capitalism.
I fully understand the point of view of others, from my not ‘ultra left’ position, but from my communist position. And I am not being “inconsiderate” but failing to be deferential towards.
I fully understand the positions of most commentators here. But as a Trotskyist I simply hold these political positions in contempt.
(Sorry ‘David Osler’ now, not ‘Dave’s part’. This new design is much inferior – articles not displayed in full, only most recent comments displayed under articles. I wonder who designed it? Maybe that very unattractive out-of-focus title background is a clue? As though seen by a drunken web designer, whose few remaining brain cells left are the ones that hold the swear words?)
@LabMike
No, it was one of them. If you look at the judgement (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/1075.html) you will see that Kaschke was taking action against the main article (by Osler) and eight of the comments (by six people) that were made, including the one that I wrote.
I do agree it is absurd to consider my comment was actionable. In relation to her, I think it is, if anything supportive – i.e. when allegations against someone are just a smear, I still think they will be barred from selection.
There is a problem with my comment though, it isn’t accurate. Powerful enough candidates can overcome smears, Rushanara Ali MP was smeared on this site by those supporting other candidates in the selection battle that once Kaschke was part of. But that’s not at all relevant to my comment being actionable by Kaschke.
@Roger Moore. Yes, Workers Hammer is still going and I was reading it this very morning at a refreshment stand in Ridley Road market, Dalston (in east London which is amusingly where I see the law now says that Osler lives. The judgement locates him there – “He too is resident in East London.”- and we all know that what a judge rules is the law. His fellow Stokies will be horrified by this development and their former ‘neighbours’ in Crouch End and Hornsey will be openly chortling. For my part, if anymore of them are transferred to ‘east London’, I’m off to Essex.)
It is a poor ‘Workers Hammer’ (and the stranger sharing a table with me, looked at me as though I was a madman for reading it. Even though it was she, a Stokie to her fingertips, who was reading some ultra-designed, uber-hip magazine’s post-modernist reworking of that hackneyed and reactionary staple of Cosmopolitan – ‘How to get a man’ ).
But there is some very good stuff in WH , such as about Millerandism and from the Second Congress of the CI – “It is no different with the bourgeoisie’s (note the spelling, Sue R) institutions of local government. To counterpose them to the organs of the state is theoretically incorrect. They are in reality organisations similar to the mechanisms of the bourgeois state, which must be destroyed…”) Watch what the Greens do when they take control of a council, you Leftish sap supporters of the ecologists.)
-
The request to use the term ‘Southpawpunch’ is not some eccentric quirk; it’s if you intend to state something about me, I get to hear about it and so reply (if appropriate).
Comments on the previous post here mentions me as ‘Southpaw Punch’ and so I would have remained unaware of these, save my reading of that article whilst I’m here. For believe me, there’s no other reason to visit this site.
I suspect most people reading this post couldn’t give a monkey’s about this matter (and quite possibly most of this post, if not all). So I suggest when I hear that all the cases are finished (which may not prove easy) I will just publish an email address here and will send my final response to anyone who requests it.
I will do that unless there are objections; I don’t want to waste my words on this site.
Apologies for the late congratulations. But very many congratulations. Drinks are on me if and when we next meet.
Southpawpunch: That’s telling us!
By the way, anyone got any idea what’s going on in Thailand?
SPP, fair enough,
until the end of the cases then , and we’ll await your sage like pronouncements
Congratulations, comrade.
By the way, anyone got any idea what’s going on in Thailand?
Yes Sue R, Bangkok is my home and has been for more than half of my life. But is anyone really interested or do they just want the SWP position.
Les Abbey –
Plenty of us are interested and are mature enough to assume the best, rather, than the worst of expats residents in Thailand.
What puzzles me is why so many obviously sane and resolute people – mainly from the hubler classes of Thai society – are willing to deplete their own modest savings and to literally risk life and limb in the cause of a Thai oligarch, an Asian version of – say – Charlie Haughey.
And the man whom those redshirted or formerly-redshirted ones idolize has now, it is reported, accepted Montenegrin citizenship.
THE ADVENTURE OF THE STABBED M. P.
http://londonmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/05/stabbing-of-stephen-timms-mp.html#comment-form
We never had any of this bother when the only ‘Asian’ MPs – not counting Lord Liverpool, of course – were Parsees / Zoroastrians.
Someone ought to start a campaign to demand more Parsee MPs.
We seem to have missed each other again! There was me all ready to buy you a pint to celebrate the victory.
You also missed Alan Wood’s daughter singing – in Welsh – on the terrace in the pub next to ULU.
Anyone interested in the history of the RAF could well read this recently published book:
http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/the-red-army-faction-a-documentary-history-a-notice/
Plenty of us are interested and are mature enough to assume the best, rather, than the worst of expats residents in Thailand.
Bill Corr I have no embarrassment over the country in which I have lived such a large part of my life. I have great pride in my children who were born and raised here and I have pride in that I have always worked for my living.
So, the line being peddled by Giles Ungpakorn over at IS or whatever it’s called now-a-days is that the UDD red shirt movement is part a peasant based class struggle against the Bangkok aristocracy while the PAD yellow shirt movement is a proto fascist group supporting that aristocracy.
You could almost sell that line except the red shirts are fighting for and financed by Thaksin Shinawatra. Now Shinawatra has gone into exile to avoid a two year jail sentence for corruption while prime minister and has had much of the proceeds of the sale of his telecom company to a Singapore government owned company confiscated by the courts due to among other things failure to pay tax and hiding the true ownership of his shareholding.
What should be avoided is comparing this man with Chavez. The more accurate comparison is with Berlusconi. While in power, which he obtained by buying off the old and most corrupt gangster run political parties in Thailand, he put his family and friends in most of the powerful positions in the country. He turned the Moslem independence movement in the south from a low level insurgency into a full blooded war because he wanted to copy Blair and Bush. He corrupted the business government relationship even more than usual which is saying something. He enacted a regime of police killings against small time drug dealers probably finishing off about a thousand of them. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
The best that can be said about the Trotskyist analysis of the present struggle is that like Thälmann they think that after Hitler they will get their chance. Everyone disagreeing with their analysis is regarded as a fascist royalist sympathizer. It is a shame that the present prime minister is a schoolmate of Cameron and Boris, but in outlook he is probably closer to a Clegg. The BBC’s correspondents has been following the Trotskyist line for the last couple of years but please look a little closer before making up your minds. It’s not what they are telling you.
I have no wish to hijack Dave’s thread so you can find more discussion by Googling “New Mandala”, a blog over at the Australian National University although be warned it is mainly pro-red shirt.
Hi Les Abbey. You say the line being peddled by Giles Ungpakorn over at IS or whatever it’s called now-a-days is that… the PAD yellow shirt movement is a proto fascist group supporting that aristocracy.
and:
The best that can be said about the Trotskyist analysis of the present struggle is that like Thälmann they think that after Hitler they will get their chance.
Assuming that Giles’ is the Trotskyist analysis referred to, it would seem to be the opposite of the Third Period Stalinism you accuse it of. He is saying the fascists need to defeated not that their opponents are as bad as they are.
It is still called the International Socialist Tendency.
A brief account of Giles’ position can be found on his blog.On the Red Shirt question he told the Guardian last year: They started out as passive supporters of Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai government, but have since formed a new citizens’ movement they call Real Democracy.
Skidmarx as I said I don’t want to hijack this thread. It was only that Sue R asked. If Dave wants to start a Thailand thread then I will happily join in. In the meantime I would warn you to be very cautious of accepting Giles’s analysis.
Les said,
“It is a shame that the present prime minister is a schoolmate of Cameron and Boris, but in outlook he is probably closer to a Clegg”
I will wait with interest the moment Clegg starts ordering troops to massacre demonstrators.
Looking at the few leftist sites engaging in the situation in Thailand (oh imagine if this was Iran!) no one seems to regard Shinawatra as the new Chavez!!!
But as Les said this aint the place for that debate.
I found Giles to be an excellent comrade when he was in Oxford SWP, and have no reason to be less trustful of his analysis now.Though I might say there’s little more to be said about formerly wrongly suspected Bayern Munich supporters, New Thread Now!
Breaking news is that BA have won their high court injunction.
Can I just say – Fuck bourgeois justice!
Dean. Maybe the Union has got piss poor lawyers acting for them unlike Dave! All the Union has to do is hold a fair legal ballot. Twice they have got it fuckin wrong. They will soon be accused of ballot rigging by the Tory/Lib alliance if they do not get the finger oot
Belated congrats, Dave
Mr Osler,
if you read the judgment – that can be seen on http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/1075.html&query=Kaschke+and+v+and+Osler&method=boolean – properly in Paragraph 16 the honourable Mr Justice Eady says that: ” I do not think that Ms Kaschke herself quarrels with the accuracy of the summary”. That means he is not absolute certain. In Paragraph 27 of the judgment he says: “In case I am wrong about this,…” meaning paragraphs 1 – 26. So this judgment is not completely certain about what it says. This judgment is crying out for an appeal and Jusrice Eady has given me the concession of staying costs till that application has been decided.
I think if you want to be absolutely honest, you should tell your readers that your lawyer, Robert Dougans is amember of the Conservative Party in Poplar and Limehouse.
And not to forget whilst David Osler calls me dishonest and malicious and all sorts of dishonest things, he has invited me to join his social network on LinkedIn only 2 days ago. No thanks Dave
Ms Kaschke: Have you taken any courses in idomatic English? And, Dave has said quite openly that Robert Dougans is a Conservative (like yourself). He has nicknamed him ‘ToryBoy’ even in print.
Dear Sue
no, I have not taken a course in idomatic English but could look up the meaning here, hopeful also useful to others.
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/
“I think if you want to be absolutely honest, you should tell your readers that your lawyer, Robert Dougans is amember of the Conservative Party in Poplar and Limehouse.”
Hmm, silence on the fact that Dave has been very honest about this on his blog.
On a related note, Ms K may like to know her attempt to cause trouble for Dave at work won’t work
http://jkaschke.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/lloyds-list-writer-promotes-anarchy/
as they already know about his politics and blog.
Anyway, bets on what Party the ex Labour/Communist/Respect/Tory member will join next ?