British Gas Fails in Bid to have a Scottish Court Constrain Revelatory Blog!


Yesterday, in a historic ruling, the Court of Session Judge Lady Poole rejected British Gas’ Advocate's (Mr Giles Reid) petition that she“order the removal of the first two Episodes and interim removal of the “new Blog Posts”. The Advocate’s petition specifically referenced the “defamatory” content evident in Episode 3, “The Scarlet Letter” which, he claimed, “clearly implied” Philip Knight of Womble Bond Dickinson had lied to The Court when he informed a Sheriff that the British Gas Executive Officer, Kathryn White was in fact: “a junior customer services manager”. He continued, “It [the Episode] also implied a slur” on the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) by reproducing its adjudication which cleared Mr Knight (of my accusation that he was a “pathological liar”) because:

(a)   The false information was not “Capitalised”.
(b)   He only proffered the false information once.
(c)    The Sheriff had the option of reading the letter “subjectively”.

In order to reveal to The Court the “result” of the “defamatory content” evident in the post, Mr Reid repeated a comment from one of the Blog’s readers who had asked this question: “Is that SLCC Adjudication a spoof?”

Mr Reid was not finished: He reminded The Court - in a bid to have last week’s Post removed - that in that Post “the Defender [me] clearly made a “very serious allegation” regarding “the propriety” of the relationship between (his client) British Gas and the Industry regulator, Ofgem  ”which”, he claimed was “very clearly defamatory”...(1)  In lieu of any plausible defence, I admitted that “whilst I may well have implied such”, the MP for the Western Isles had “stated it outright” in a letter some three years ago. Which as readers of this Blog are aware, he did. That Post, as well as the other published subject to her adjudication of May 14, Lady Poole decided, is to remain online.

But that’s not the only accusation of criminal conduct Mr Angus MacNeil MP has levelled at British Gas over the last four years. Thanks to Lady Poole’s decision then, viewers of this Blog can look forward to reading about the others!

The only concession Lady Poole’s adjudication gave British Gas is that the first two Episodes are to be removed. Temporarily! She found, “narrowly” that these posts should be removed, but only until British Gas - if it wishes them taken down permanently - manages to convince a Judge at a future Hearing that their permanent removal should trump my Right to Freedom of Expression as enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights! Of course, as the fair and reasonable correspondent readers of this Blog know and expect, I’m minded to save British Gas the trouble. Especially as the most shocking revelations about British Gas’ business practices are still to come!


(1) If my claim that British Gas had deliberately misled Ombudsman Services: Energy was false, then that would indeed, as Mr Reid demanded, be "clearly defamatory". The only valid and watertight defence against defamation, as US Congressman Ted Liu said in March this year, is: "It's true." By a happy coincidence, that will be my defence to any spurious allegation of "Defamation" in this case. I'd imagine it would be Angus MacNeil MP's also.
(




Comments

  1. Margaret maclean2 June 2020 at 11:51

    Thanks for the update. Can't wait to see what happens next, who needs Hollywood when we have Mr McPherson v British Gas!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cobby3 June 2020 at 00:18

    Yes, you are indeed a star Mr Mcpherson .Maybe you could play the lead if "Rumpole of the Bailey" was to be resurrected.!!! Good on you ,not so sure I would have had the diligence or the stamina to continue the campaign .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nemissto3 June 2020 at 00:43

      I'm not sure either. I'm certain. Got an email from its outside counsel telling me that putting factual information on the Blog (that British Gas provided Ombudsman Services with a document containing probatively false information for the stated purpose of stopping an Investigation) is "defamatory". And if I repeat that the MP said exactly the same to Ofgem: ditto. You might be able to make this stuff up, but I couldn't!

      Delete
  3. Blogman3 June 2020 at 01:42

    Are you putting the full adjudication online so the readers can see what was said?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nemissto3 June 2020 at 02:02

      I'll look into doing that. Need to wait until my IT consultant gets out of bed (Early Evening I believe).

      Delete
  4. Nemissto3 June 2020 at 07:11

    After your request that I put the adjudication online, I contacted the Court Clerk for advice. I cannot publish until it has been published on the Court of Session's own website which will take longer than normal given the ongoing lock down.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AaC3 June 2020 at 07:42

    If a solicitor told you it is defamatory to reveal factual information, you should contact The Law Society of Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
  6. .3 June 2020 at 12:47

    Contacting the Law Society is a good idea, If you are being told your facts are defamatory to dissuade you from printing them ,(and they can't be defamatory if they are true}, then you are being fraudulently advised for purpose by a licenced professional.!
    Surely the Law society, who place themselves on a high pedestal of justice, would need to take action against such unprofessional behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dan3 June 2020 at 13:22

    That last comment sounds like good advice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Iiiiiiiii4 June 2020 at 00:04

    Let me get this straight. If an MP discovers British Gas gave The Ombudsman - in writing - false information. He then tells OFGEM what has happened because he wants it sorted. But if you put that information into the Public Domain you're defaming the company which passed false information? Yea right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nemissto4 June 2020 at 00:45

      According to British Gas' outside counsel (the same outside counsel who on Nov 2nd 2018 wrote to Stornoway Sheriff Court to inform the Sheriff that a British Gas Executive Officer was a "junior customer services manager") that is right.

      Delete
  9. A local resident12 June 2020 at 06:52

    Wow, read the papers today and court adjudications and the headlines are VERY different to how you have portrayed them. BG thrashed you and got expenses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A local resident12 June 2020 at 06:56

      “British Gas wins court ruling to halt blogger’s ‘defamatory claims”

      “Judge tells Stornoway blogger to stop defamatory posts about British Gas”

      “Energy firm wins court fight over blog posts”

      And yours...

      “British Gas Fails in Bid to have a Scottish Court Constrain Revelatory Blog!”


      Delete
  10. A local resident12 June 2020 at 07:02

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nemissto13 June 2020 at 00:25

      I think this "Local Resident" lives in Edinburgh and get paid to misinform, is what I think.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

  Disclaimer. As many readers will be aware, early last summer British Gas Trading Limited ( BG ) engaged an Advocate of some renown to argue, before Lady Poole in Scotland’s second highest court, The Court of Session , that I should be prevented from continuing to produce this Blog and that the five published Episodes , should be taken down. The presiding judge, Lady Poole was hardly impressed ( cf . Daily Mail 17/6/20). She did, however, agree to the removal of the first two Episodes having adjudged – by a “ narrow margin ” - that they incorporated “ a threat” to publish “ defamatory ” claims in later Episodes . What concerned Lady Poole was the possibility of unsubstantiated claims likely to suggest BG had resorted to “ criminality ” in order to cover-up violations of The Law and Industry Regulations . Such claims, according to Her Ladyship , could not be published without probative evidence. As a law-abiding Scot who reveres this country’s Legal System above all other
Read more
Episode 8: An open letter to our MP, Angus Brendan MacNeil SNP.   Dear Angus I hope this letter finds you well. Below is an email which one of your constituents (name withheld) shared with me. It was forwarded to you last Saturday in response to your refusal to request OFGEM reopen its Investigation into British Gas ’ “refusal” to allow your Stornoway constituents access to it most economical tariff.   Dear Mr MacNeil                                 Thank you for your belated email. Let me remind you, I am a single mother and I found the years which British Gas refused me access to its Sainsbury's tariff very difficult financially and when I contacted you for help British Gas simply said it "had no record of my having called" and implied I had never made the call - that I was in fact a liar! And your advice is that I contact that same company. Are you serious? If so, I am disgusted. When I voted for you to represent me last December, I did so in the bel
Read more

Court Decision.

Morning All                     As many of you are aware British Gas filed an emergency Motion in The Court of Session yesterday ,  seeking to have this Blog discontinued and removed. During the Hearing  that Motion was amended " at the bar " (during the Hearing) subsequent to the Judge (Lady Poole) indicating her desire to ensure the order not be any wider than necessary to protect the pursuer's [British Gas/British Gas agents] interests. What the amended Motion requested of The Court amounted to this: That the Blog does not proceed in the manner set out in the Introductory and that the Blog's creator discontinue issuing his "opinion" of the material he publishes in his Blog. In short, the writer should not be allowed to publish a letter containing demonstrably dishonest information and then claim the author of that letter is a " pathological liar " or that the letter was written for the specific purpose of  misleading the recipient and was th
Read more