(not satire – it’s the UK today)
A psychotherapist who was struck off by the UK Council for Psychotherapy for serious sexual misconduct – and was described by them in a report as a “risk to female patents” – is threatening anyone who reveals his identity with libel:
I get a legal threat from a struck-off psychotherapist
Rich and powerful sexual predators like Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith also used UK libel laws to prevent anyone from investigating – and putting a stop to – their evil crimes.
UK libel laws are a joke.
They exist simply in order to allow the rich, the influential, the powerful and the downright criminal to threaten people to shut the f*ck up about their wrongdoings.
.
More details here:
UKCP strikes off psychotherapist
Struck-off psychotherapist rebrands himself
I get a legal threat from a struck-off psychotherapist
.
Please feel free to comment.
.
The Coalition Government Colouring and Activity Book is now available for download as a PDF and in print:
Pride's Purge 
Unfortunately, libel and the British justic system has been the subject of a longstanding struggle inside the National Union of Journalists (NUJ). Given the propensity of celebraties and such-like to choose British courts to bring cases of libel or defamation you could be forgiven for thinking that some judges are ‘star’struck’. When I was young I was star-struck by Pete Shelly and Siousie Sioux; I know, there’s no accounting for taste! Interestingly, Pete Shelly’s exuality was considered by many music journalists as ‘fair copy’.
LikeLike
Pingback: UK libel laws protect psychotherapist branded “risk to female patients” | Alternative News Network
If I name Jimmy Savile’s long-time friend and chauffeur Ray Teret as a persistent paedophile, do I risk being sued for libel??
LikeLike
Reblogged this on sdbast.
LikeLike
Thanks for your support, though I feel confident that Bott-Holland has no case against me even under our draconian libel laws. What I’ve posted is verifiably true through readily-available information.
Mr Bott-Holland seems to be one of a long line of rogues who use threats of litigation to bully and silence their critics. Personally, the legal precedent I will be relying on will be that of Arkell v Pressdram.
LikeLike
I’ve always thought psychotherapist is an odd job title, after all, who would want to visit Psycho-The-Rapist?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
This is a truly grotesque miscarriage of justice, but unfortunately, it isn’t the only one by a long chalk, nor the least important. A few years ago a book by an America academic, ‘Funding Terror’, was successfully sued for libel in Britain by a billionaire Saudi princeling, because it described how the bank account for a waqf – an Islamic charity – set up by the prince had been used to channel money for terrorists. The book explicitly stated that the prince was unaware that the charity was being used for such purposes, and had nothing to do with it. This was no defence. The princeling won because he claimed that the book’s revelations, while factually correct, were damaging to his reputation. This decision has damaged the reputation of Britain’s justice system, as several American states and courts passed legislation and legal decisions declaring that British legal rulings had no validity in the Land of the Free. And rightly so. Since then, there have been a succession of foreign despots and Russian oligarchs, all trying to use the British courts to close down criticism, both here and in there own countries. British libel law is a shambles, a mercenary laughing stock protecting the venal, corrupt and thuggish.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on L8in.
LikeLike
Now if only the victim in this case were to have their passwords cracked and the information was “stolen” by anonymous etc. Then i imagine the name of this vile person would somehow leak into the public domain anyway.
LikeLike
I think you have this backwards. The point is that the libel laws don’t protect him at all and his empty threats are making him look silly.
LikeLike