[This post as been relocated to this back-up blog after a complaint was made to my provider. Details here.]

Well, the unpleasantness continues, and Alex Malloy is hiding behind his company firewall. If you could take a moment to read the detail and send a quick email to Nick Catt (if you see fit), then I'd greatly appreciate the time and effort. Cheers.

To:
Nick Catt
Managing Director, Redwire Design

Dear Nick,

Apologies for the open letter, but an all-too-familiar game is unfolding and your company Director Alex Malloy appears to have blacklisted my email address(es) in response to my query about the apparent (but still-unconfirmed) spam-blocking of these same addresses by one of your clients.

I use the word 'client' loosely given that the relevant account involves Jon Chappell, Alex Malloy's mate and partner in Kooba Radio. I'm guessing the whole arrangement involving your hosting of their website, email and what have you is more congenial than it is formal, but there is no question of you hosting it and being ultimately responsible for how your servers are used and for the conduct of your Director in their management and for any relevant communication from your staff about that.

Moving in the local band/club circles as you do, you must be aware of a band by the name of The Fighting Cocks. If you don't know who these people are, your Director Alex Malloy certainly does; he's played host to them on his Kooba Radio 'station' many times, and they appear repeatedly on his website (that you host). Core members of The Fighting Cocks (alongside hangers-on like Jon Chappell) also go by the name of the 'Cheerleaders', and in a lonnng campaign of harassment from behind these names and a series of sock-puppets and pseudonyms they have repeatedly published my ex-directory home address in an effort to intimidate me into silence. This all has to do with a conman of their acquaintance by the name of Dominic Wightman (NOT a name I expect you to know; this is just for background).

I can show you evidence of the involvement of the relevant Kooba Radio YouTube account in the active promotion of an account used (only) to broadcast my home address if you have any doubts about this, or if Malloy is denying any of it in your communication(s) with him. When we last communicated, he denied knowing about any of it, but the evidence suggests otherwise (personally, I suspect he's lying and obfuscating to protect himself and his mates, if you'll allow me to be frank with you) and it's still no excuse for his conduct in response to fair and pertinent questions.

Malloy knows who the main account holder for 'KoobaTV' is, but refuses to discuss the matter in any way. You may choose to back away into a legally-secure (if morally dubious) position that this aspect of our (ahem) disagreement is none of your business, but he is also refusing to be clear about the nature of an apparent spam-block on an email account that you host, and the stench of bad faith is coming from Redwire's corner as a result.

Oh, and now I'm receiving further threats made on behalf of these friends of the Cheerleaders who claim not to know anything about those same Cheerleaders. Here's the latest, received just this morning:

from Princess Calamity [princesscalamity@googlemail.com]
to Tim Ireland
date Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:02 AM
subject Re: Publication of your email address

Matyi is about to put a Gypsy curse on you and your entire family, at dawn tomorrow- and it'll be a bad one :(
... you can avoid this curse, by never contacting or writing about us or anyone to do with us again. I'm sure your wife wouldn't be too happy about your obsessions leading to her and you and yours getting lumbered with something that will follow your bloodline down the generations, now would it?
So.. your choice Mr Stalker.
:D
x
Priya

[FYI:' Matyi' = 'Charlie Flowers']

Now, if it were taken in isolation some people might expect all those concerned to laugh this one off, but I'm detecting an implied threat against my family there, and I'd be interested to know what you think, especially as these and other threats are now being made on behalf of one of your 'clients', a Director of your company and now, apparently, the company itself:

from The Fighting Cocks UK [fightingcocks@live.co.uk]
to Tim Ireland
date Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:45 AM
subject and you are now, officially, in the shit.

I TOLD you not to contact these people. But your mental condition meant you had to, didn't it? OK you are now officially in the crap, P-Group has found your web host, and they have been notified.
You have a choice:
1. Walk away and look away, and NEVER contact anyone involved with us again.
2. Keep it up, and reap the whirlwind.

3. This means and includes: anyone at Kooba or Redwire.

Matyi
TFC Cheerleaders

[I fail to see what possible case these people can hope to present to my web host, unless they're following up on Malloy's claims of 'threats and defamation' that he is curiously unable to identify when challenged.]

As you can see, by attempting to contact you I risk 'reaping the whirlwind', and I apologise in advance for my next act, which is designed to ensure that this attempt will not have been in vain:

Hi folks. Without being rude about it, please forward a copy of this message (and/or a link to this post) to Nick Catt at nick@redwiredesign.com

If you think I'm being too long-winded (as usual), then do feel free to aid comprehension with your own summary, but please try to remain professional about it, as Nick Catt is a Managing Director and therefore likely to be a Serious Person, unwilling to stand for any swears or abuse.

(I'll scrub this message when he responds. For as long as it remains live, the request stands. Cheers all.)

These people can only continue to attack me for as long as they remain anonymous, and these people will continue to attack me for as long as the man who is directing the attacks enjoys plausible deniability.

Your man Malloy appears determined to be a strong link in a long chain of ratbags. I'm hoping that you will recognise the value of being at least a little bit more professional about it, even if you're going to deny all knowledge yourself and pretend that you've merely been away from your desk for a 67-hour moment.

Cheers

Tim Ireland

OK, so now we see what kind of person Nick Catt is, I guess.

Craig Murray - Iraq Mercenary Boss Hires Schillings To Block My New Book Schillings are a firm of libel lawyers dedicated to prevent the truth from being known about some deeply unlovely people. They managed temporarily to close down this blog (and several others) to keep information quiet about the criminal record of Alisher Usmanov. Now they are attempting to block the publication of my new book in the interests of mercenary commander Tim Spicer, one of those who has made a fortune from the Iraq War.

Unity - Murray faces more legal bullying: To appreciate the full scope of what Schillings are trying to do here, you need to read the letter that was sent to Craig and his publishers, which was marked 'Not For Publication' - Craig has it on his blog in PDF format, but to make life easier for everyone, here's the full text of the letter...

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Mainstream Publishing Company (Edinburgh) Limited
7 Albany Street
Edinburgh
Scotland
EH13UG

BY POST AND FAX: XXXX XXX XXXX
OurRef: SMS/JXR/ww/A131/3
ON THE RECORD
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
08 July 2008

Dear Sirs

The Road to Samarkand - Craig Murray

We represent Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Spicer OBE, C.E.O. of Aegis Defence Services Limited ("Aegis").

We are instructed to write to you with regard to 'THE ROAD TO SAMARKAND- INTRIGUE, CORRUPTION AND DIRTY DIPLOMACY' ("the Book") written by Craig Murray and due to be published in September 2008 by you (http://www.rbooks.co.uk/search results.aspx) to be sold in England and Wales by Random House Sales Department.

We have reason to believe that the Book may contain serious, untrue and damaging defamatory allegations about our client.

Please confirm by return whether the Book is due to be published in England and Wales in September 2008 and if so, the exact date. Please also confirm whether the Book is due to be published in any other jurisdiction, setting out each jurisdiction, together with the publication date and publisher concerned in each case.

Importantly, we require you to confirm by return whether or not the Book contains any reference to our client, and if so, we require you to set out in full each and every reference to our client in its entirety to give our client the opportunity to take legal advice and to respond to any allegations in good time prior to publication.

Any widespread publication of the Book containing defamatory allegations concerning our client would be deeply damaging to our client's personal and professional reputations and would cause him profound distress and anxiety. We remind you that you would be responsible for that damage and any subsequent republication of the allegations. We also put you on notice that you will be liable for any special damage or loss suffered by our client as a result of the Book and we reserve all our client's rights in this regard.

We note from your website http://www.mainstreampublishing.com/news_current.html that Mr Murray is due to speak about the Book at a 'Mainstream author event at the Edinburgh International Book Festival' entitled 'Lived Lives' on 12th August 2008 at 4.30pm in the RBS Main Theatre, Edinburgh. We hereby put both you and Mr Murray on notice that all our client's rights are reserved in relation to any defamatory comments or publications made by you or Mr Murray in relation to that event.

Please immediately take into your possession all drafts of the Book pre-publication, all notes, emails, correspondence, memos, images and other documents relevant to the publication of this Book, and preserve them safely pending the outcome of this dispute. They will need to be disclosed in due course if litigation has to be commenced. Also, you will need to disclose the financial arrangements for the sale and licence of the Book to other publications.

In the circumstances, we require that you confirm immediately that you agree to undertake on behalf of Mainstream Publishing Company (Edinburgh) Limited not to publish any libels regarding our client in any editions of the Book or at all.

We require the above undertaking by 4pm on Friday 11h July 2008, failing which we will have no option but to advise our client with regard to making applications to the High Court for an injunction to restrain publication and/or for pre-action disclosure. You are on notice that we will seek to recover the costs of any necessary applications from you.

We await your response by return. In the meantime all our client's rights are reserved, including the right to issue proceedings against you without further notice.
Yours faithfully

SCHILLINGS
cc. Craig Murray Esq.

(Please note that simply reproducing this letter on your own blog could cause one of our bravest cash-only fighting heroes "profound distress and anxiety"...)

Yesterday, Blogger.com got in touch following a false report that this website was a 'spam blog'. For roughly 24 hours, the site was suspended.

The case was quickly reviewed by a human being working for Blogger.com who determined quite rightly that it wasn't a spam blog at all.

This was the only Blogger.com-based weblog of mine that was targeted in this way, so I think it's fair to say that this was probably the work of someone acting in the interests of Alisher Usmanov, Schillings, and/or Fasthosts.


Whoever was behind the false complaint, I have a short message for you:

1. It was dishonest.

2. It was pathetic.

3. It didn't do you any favours.

4. And now you've got my attention all over again.

Well done!

Matt has it. I'm still getting over it.

A little something for the (very few) supporters of Usmanov challenging Craig Murray to produce evidence:

Guardian - Government denies access to Usmanov reports: The Government has refused a parliamentary request for it to publish two official Foreign & Commonwealth Office reports about the activities of Alisher Usmanov, the Uzbek-born Russian billionaire who is now the second largest shareholder in Arsenal.... Murray said that he sent the two reports from the Uzbeki capital, Tashkent, to the foreign office by confidential telegram, the standard format for communications from overseas-based embassies. They were "quite highly classified" because of the risk of identifying the people Murray claims passed him the information. "It is true that there is no documentary evidence - how could there be on such a matter?" he said. "I think it is right that the reports be published, although in a form which would protect the identities of the sources."

Meanwhile...

Bartholomew - Journalist-Critic of Uzbek Regime Murdered: Twenty-six-year-old Uzbek journalist Alisher Saipov has been shot dead in the city of Osh, Kyrgyzstan, apparently by Uzbek security agents.

Craig Murray has more on both developments.

REVEL in the sheer hypocrisy of the Mail bringing up a past connection to the Nazis!

SHIVER in anticipation as Schillings advises their client to press any and all legal advantage in a way that's sure to bring more negative publicity!

SIGH in relief when that client reveals that - unlike certain ancestors - he can be quite sensible when the pressure is on.

Anorak - Schillings Update: On Alisher Usmanov, Peter Serafinowizc And Online PR

Schillings really have to learn that that they're no good at this PR lark.

SpyBlog - Alisher Usmanov Parliamentary Question rebuffed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: The Labour government appears to be trying to protect Alisher Usmanov from public scrutiny... (Their) "personal data" excuse is also what the FCO appear to be relying on in their refusal to name the former Russian Federation and British and diplomats who were expelled over the Andrei Litvinenko Polonium-210 radioactive poisoning murder and contamination affair.

UPDATE - A 'see also' via Atlantic Free Press:

Brian Barder - The Telegraph on the gagging of ex-diplomats by the Foreign Office: Is the Foreign Office simply protecting its official secrets, or seeking to save ministers from embarrassment? Official secrets are protected by the Official Secrets Act, which rightly binds officials for life, both as government employees and after retirement. The new rules go much further, banning any unauthorised expression of opinion not just by serving officers but by also by retired diplomats for the rest of their lives, if it "draws on, or appears to draw on, official information or experience gained in the course of official duties", even if no breach of secrets is involved.

Independent - Arsenal move to block Usmanov: Arsenal's directors have extended the 'lockdown' to ward off a potential takeover - and are set to invite American sports tycoon Stan Kroenke to sign up to the agreement. The move is a clear snub to Alisher Usmanov, the Russian billionaire who controls Red & White Holdings which has a 23 per cent stake in the club, and cements Kroenke's favoured status with Arsenal. He was consulted on the lockdown while Usmanov wasn't.

Meanwhile, there's another lockdown of an entirely different nature going on...

John Helmer - Court documents reveal De Beers charges against Usmanov over Grib diamond pipe: A public relations blitz under way this month in London and the UK media has produced charges and counter-charges involving Alisher Usmanov, an iron-ore and steel magnate. He is accused of conspiring with other Russians to defraud a De Beers-affiliated company of its 40% stake in, and several hundred millions of dollars in future profits from, the only major diamond deposit newly discovered in northwestern Russia... This time Usmanov has been after possible control of the Arsenal Football Club. As the Corus board had done before them, the Arsenal shareholding defenders have attempted to persuade the London newspapers to publish items from Usmanov's past career, thereby deterring shareholders from selling out, and creating an atmosphere hostile to Usmanov's involvement in the affairs of the football club. As Usmanov had done before, he found his champion in a Moscow-based correspondent for the Sunday Times. What the latter omitted to report was a detailed dossier of court files from Sweden to the United States, the existence and meaning of which Usmanov has gone to great public care and private expense to deny. The wording of Usmanov's denials is subtle; the only way to understand that is to read the court documents themselves. De Beers isn't providing them. The diamond group is carefully avoiding being drawn publicly on the conflict, although it is indirectly connected to Arsenal through Sir Chips Keswick. A former Hambros banker, Keswick sits on both the De Beers and Arsenal boards. Keswick was last reported as owning 20 shares of Arsenal, amounting to 0.032% of the issued stock.

The Register - Judge orders football website to name 'libellous' posters

Guardian - Warning to abusive bloggers as judge tells site to reveal names

OUT-law News - Sheffield Wednesday can't unmask 'saloon-bar moaners', says libel judge

Bartholemew - Identities of Internet "Saloon-Bar Moaners" Protected

Please note that the following thoughts are based primarily on hypothectical circumstances more likely to relate to poorly-regulated weblogs than forums:

- What if the "seven of eleven individuals" who are protected are all the same individual and/or a small group deliberately using "trivial attack(s)" to bolster, boost or 'boot' the primary attack?

- Those running anonymous weblogs and/or poorly-regulated weblogs that allow for repeated anonymous smears 'jokes' will want to take a long, hard look at the costs accrued in revealing the identities of those involved. There are ways of retrieving historical comment-related IP data from months back that you may not even be aware of, and most of them are extremely expensive.

- Expenses that seem prohibitive (to you) could conceivably prevent a libel action, but they could just as easily be dumped right in your lap.

Via Toby Bryans and Peter Risdon and James Graham and Tom Watson and Justin McKeating and... well, almost *everyone*, really:

DC's Improbable Science - Society of Homeopaths: cowards and bullies: Many people now have written about the disgraceful and dangerous claims by homeopaths to be able to prevent and cure malaria... One of the best contributions was on the Quackometer blog, The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing. But the post vanished at midday on Thursday 11 October. Quackometer's ISP has received threatening letters sent by lawyers on behalf of the Society of Homeopaths, who claim that the truth is defamatory, while being unwilling to say which statements are wrong.

Bad Science - A corporate conspiracy to silence alternative medicine?: Did the SoH engage with these criticisms? Reflect on them? Challenge and rebutt them? No. They sent a threatening legal letter. Did this threatening legal letter say what was wrong with Dr Lewis's post? No. It wasn't even sent to him, it was sent to his hosting company Netcetera, demanding they take his page down. He contacted the SoH, very politely (I mean incredibly politely, read it here), to ask them what the problems were with his comments. No response. Instead their lawyers sent another angry letter to his hosting company, who of course cannot investigate this in full, are strictly speaking liable, and so - good call - the page was taken down. Corporate conspiracy silences the little man: except of course his piece has now been replicated a hundred times across the internet by an army of smirking bloggers.

You can read that awfully polite but sadly ignored letter in full here:

Quackometer - Unanswered Questions

You can read the offending post at any one of these fabulous new locations, but the best version is hosted by none other than James Randi, who helpfully points out where in the article the Society of Homeopaths might seek to gain legal advantage through the equally-misunderstood art of Semantic Origami:

James Randi - Criticize Carefully

Yes, with the exception of possible differences in body count, it's the Alisher Usmanov affair all over again.

The body of what Andy Lewis had to say was not challenged in any genuine legal sense by Homiety of Sociopaths; in fact, there appears to have been a determined effort to prevent Andy Lewis from seeing the body of the challenge in order to deny him the possibility of challenging it. Bodily. (Nurse! The sugar pills!)

First this happens:
The Register - Fasthosts admits email destruction fiasco

Then this:
The Register - Fasthosts customer? Change your password now

Davblog - Password Basics

Bloggerheads - Yet another reason to avoid Fasthosts like the plague

I'm not entirely sure, but I think I may have found a contributing factor to this and other problems...

Hang on... what's going on here, then?

The Times - (August 30, 2007): Mr Usmanov, who is married and has two children...

The Times - (October 14, 2007): (Usmanov says); "I have everything, except children. That's the only thing missing in my life."

For clarity on this point, we turn to the Telegraph....

The Telegraph - (31 August, 2007): He is married to Irina Viner, one of the leading trainers of Russian rhythmic gymnastics, who has two children from a previous marriage...

... who therefore do not count.

He's got a heart as big as all outdoors, this one.

Via Arseblog and Arsenal Times comes news of a lone blogger taking the 'middle' ground and saying;

"It's a bit sad that Craig Murray says Franchetti was bought off with a good meal. A bit of a low blow personally because Franchetti has given a balanced account..."

Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Arsenal Muse has had a lot to say about Craig Murray in recent weeks, and here's a highlight that shows the balance and clarity of thought that he brings to the table;

"I know Craig Murray. He was removed from his job after profiting from the instability in the middle east to lead a party lifestyle in Uzbekistan. This led to instability in the foreign office in Uzbekistan and numerous operation problems occurred when the British and I would say that includes you and I and the rest of the world during the Middle East conflict, needed as much stability in the region."

'Arsenal Muse' does not allow comments on his weblog, and has a charmingly desperate 'shotgun' approach to keyword placement in headlines. There is also a shocking allegation on the loose that he is a bit of a muppet... but don't let that put you off giving him a fair hearing.

Over time, Shaun Custis appears to have allowed Usmanov's largesse to slip his mind...

The Sun - Alisher is dead set on Arsenal: Alisher Usmanov, the Russian billionaire trying to get hold of Arsenal, has adopted a macabre tactic - plundering the dead. Usmanov, who has a 23 per cent stake in the Gunners, is attempting to buy all the shares owned by folk who have died. It is believed nearly one per cent of shares are owned by those who have passed away. And, while that may not sound a lot, it is a significant amount in the current power battle. Usmanov is just two per cent away from a 25 per cent shareholding which, he believes, would give him a say in the club.

An extraordinary article has appeared in the Sunday Times, which appears to be the first shot fired with the aid of PR firm Finsbury Limited. Please note that differs from an earlier PR push in that the journalist involved actually makes a note of the opulent circumstances surrounding the interview. In fact, he seems positively hypnotised by them at times...

The Times - Arsenal billionaire, Alisher Usmanov, recalls six years in penal colony

Mark Franchetti, Moscow

When Alisher Usmanov was sent to an Uzbek penal colony stuffed with 3,500 inmates, including murderers and rapists, he came face to face with two dozen hardened criminals who had been prosecuted by his father. Few thought he would get out alive. "When they realised that my dad was Uzbekistan's deputy prosecutor-general they wanted to rip me to shreds," Usmanov recalled last week in his first full interview since he bought a £120m stake in Arsenal football club. "My life was in serious danger and I was shocked at what had happened to me. After a privileged upbringing I suddenly found myself in a tuberculosis-infested maximum security penal colony. Conditions were appalling and I had to survive day by day. But in time the inmates learnt to respect me and I managed to stay true to myself. I stayed alive and remained an honest person."

Pollyanna plays the victim. Next!

Usmanov was 33 when he was released, six years into an eight-year sentence for fraud and embezzlement, in 1986. The convictions were later overturned by Uzbekistan's Supreme Court, which ordered his police record to be expunged.

This would appear to run contrary to Usmanov's earlier statements that he was "a political prisoner who was then freed and granted a full pardon once Mikhail Gorbachev came to power as president." In fact, in the article by Craig Murray that kicked this whole thing off (now republished in full here), Murray says quite clearly; "The lawyers cunningly evoke Gorbachev, a name respected in the West, to make us think that justice prevailed. That is completely untrue. Usmanov's pardon was nothing to do with Gorbachev. It was achieved through the growing autonomy of another thug, President Karimov, at first President of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic and from 1991 President of Uzbekistan. Karimov ordered the 'Pardon' because of his alliance with Usmanov's mentor, Uzbek mafia boss and major international heroin overlord Gafur Rakimov."

Transfattyacid later noted that; "it could not possibly have been Mikhail Gorbachev who annulled his convictions, as he was overthrown by Boris Yeltsin in 1991: 9 years before (the Soviet conviction was annulled by the Uzbekistan supreme court in 2000)."

So there are two clear reasons to distrust this new line;

a) It has clearly changed after an early attempt at spin

b) It's remarkably coy about details such as the past and present level of corruption in Uzbekistan that is so deep-rooted that some fear any comprehensive effort to correct it could topple the economy.

[Those with an eye for detail may want to search for 'uzbekitsan' on this website.]

Little more than 20 years after he was freed, he has amassed an estimated £5 billion fortune and is ranked 18th in the list of Russia's richest. He runs a metals to media business empire that spans three continents. There are properties in Moscow, Surrey and Sardinia and a "mega-yacht" with its own helipad. As a senior adviser to Gazprom, the world's biggest extractor of natural gas, and the president of one of its subsidiaries, Usmanov also maintains regular contact with influential figures in the Russian government. He is on good personal terms with President Vladimir Putin and is often summoned to the Kremlin by officials seeking his opinion. Unlike some Russian tycoons who dabbled in politics, angered Putin and ended up in exile or in jail, Usmanov has stuck to business. He describes Putin as a "blessing for Russia" and spends £20m a year supporting Russian sport and culture, including the Bolshoi ballet. Last month he bought the entire art collection of the late cellist Mstislav Rostropovich for a reported £30m to stop it being broken up and sold abroad. The 450 works were donated to the Russian state.

He is rich. He is generous. If you're having difficulty containing your awe, then consider that some might think that because he is so obscenely rich he can afford to throw obscene amounts of money around in an effort to be seen as generous.

Now 53, Usmanov appears to have led a charmed existence since he was released from detention. But he remains haunted by his years of incarceration on the outskirts of Tashkent, the Uzbek capital. Although he was fully absolved in 2000 and no longer has a criminal record, rumours about his past persist. Usmanov believes they are promulgated by business rivals and feels wronged by his portrayal in Britain since he bought 23% of Arsenal during the summer.

Diddums. First he's imprisoned because everybody had it in for him and now his past is being thrown in his face because everybody has it in for him. Is there no justice?

Craig Murray, the outspoken former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, has accused Usmanov of links with organised crime but has offered no proof. Usmanov rejected the charges and threatened to sue Murray "if he can first prove that he is completely sane".

An extraordinary ad hominem attack, which Mark Franchetti (an alleged journalist) passes on without comment or qualification. In fact, Franchetti even seeks to kick it along with his use of the ever-reliable codeword 'outspoken'.

And it comes complete with an empty threat; a spokesperson for his law firm Schillings made it clear recently that; "they did not intend to sue Murray directly."

[Personal Note - Many of you will be familiar with this particular brand of ad hominem attack, used repeatedly by many sock-puppeting losers during the recent Bit Of Necessary. Usmanov will no doubt be calling Murray an 'obsessive stalker' next.]

It was partly in an attempt to curb claims of a shady past that he invited me to his Moscow mansion and agreed to talk for the first time about the circumstances that led to his being imprisoned in 1980.

Our first hint that Mark Franchetti's helmet has handlebars.

"I was jailed on trumped-up charges and lost six years of my life as a result of infighting within the KGB," he said. "It took another 14 years to clear my name and prove that I was framed. All my career I've been confronted with prejudiced people who are determined to turn me into a stereotype, a central Asian thief.

Apparently, one who acknowledges institutionalised corruption is prejudiced. Perhaps even a borderline racist.

"I'm fed up with having to answer these slurs. Not only did I never do anything criminal but I managed to stay honest and become one of the world's most successful businessmen, despite being locked up with criminals for six years. It's high time that those who continue to insinuate things about me recognised that."

I would like to state for the record that I fully recognise that Alisher Usmanov has become one of the world's most successful businessmen, despite being locked up with criminals for six years. As for his being honest before going into prison, remaining honest throughout, and emerging possibly even more honest than ever... well, we'll get to that right after the money shot.

Usmanov runs his empire from the headquarters of Metal-loinvest, his main company, in a lavish building in central Moscow fitted with Italian marble and heavy chandeliers. From there I was driven 30 miles along Rublovka, a road that cuts through a forest of firs to a "billionaires' row" where Usmanov has a 30-acre estate beside the Moscow river. A 16ft-high metal fence encircles the property. Usmanov, who never leaves home without a retinue of bodyguards armed with machine-guns, was working in a large, single-storey wooden villa which he has built as a private office next to his palatial house. Casually dressed in a Lacoste polo shirt, tracksuit bottoms and leather slippers, he was sitting in an armchair, advising a friend on the telephone on how best to clinch a £1m deal. In front of him was a small table and a bell with which to summon staff. In the next room, his personal adviser on equities was checking the latest share prices on a 30in computer screen. Sipping tea after his phone call, Usmanov studied the screen with the analyst as they discussed whether to sell a large holding in a Russian bank. A butler delivered frequent messages or passed on one of several mobile phones on which the tycoon fielded further calls.

Translation: Alisher Usmanov does not own a cat.

"I'm less excited now

Source (PDF):

LexisNexis in association with Schillings present:

Reputation Management
A roundtable breakfast briefing on how to avert a public crisis and protect your company's brand, reputation and share price
Wednesday 24 October 2007
Halsbury House, 35 Chancery Lane, London

This highly practical roundtable breakfast will give you an opportunity to:
- Understand how to utilise the laws of defamation, privacy and intellectual property to safeguard your company's reputation
- Gain tactical advice on how to strategically deploy injunctions
- Learn how you can exploit the Reynolds defence
- Discover how to "out" anonymous attackers
- Appreciate on-line threats and how to protect against internet attacks

This LexisNexis roundtable breakfast briefing in association with Schillings will provide you with the knowledge you need to either avert a crisis before it arises or mitigate its effect. The roundtable is by invitation only and will give you the opportunity to obtain expert practical advice on handling such a crisis and compare notes with your fellow in-house counsel under Chatham House rules on how such disasters can be averted.

It seems to me that we should have a representative at that meeting... are there any volunteers?

:o)

Slate - Michael Weiss: Civil Disobedience on the WebBritish bloggers stand up to threats of libel lawsuits: British libel law is notorious for its ability to silence critics of wealthy - and often shady - public figures. One would think, then, that bloggers with neither the deep pockets nor the lawyers of their mainstream media compatriots would be even less willing to fight accusations of libel. But, as two recent cases point out, they might be ideally suited to undermining the institution that precipitated the downfall of Oscar Wilde.

Let's hope so.

(See also: Roy Greenslade)

The recent report on the diamond-fraud row revealed that Alisher Usamov is now using the services of the financial public-relations firm Finsbury Limited.

Perhaps this will work out better than, say, having the law firm Schillings double as his PR team.

(Matt Wardman has a report on their effectiveness in this role here and a recent follow-up here.)

Are Finsbury up to it? Well, that question is only part of the equation, as you'll soon see...

Via the comments over at Craig's site and Sourcewatch comes the following:

2001 - The government is accused of making taxpayers pay twice for spin, when it emerges that Finsbury have been hired to effectively take on the work of special adviser Jo Moore in promoting ministers' rescue plan for Railtrack. Later, questions are asked in the House of Lords relating to the appropriateness of hiring Finsbury to represent Railtrack.

2002 - British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) hire Finsbury for corporate and financial PR support. This appointment coincided with the fallout (sorry) from the return a load of defective nuclear fuel. Finsbury also appears to have been part of the later effort to sell the idea of 'new and safe' nuclear power to the public.

2004 - Roland Rudd's financial PR firm Finsbury is receiving taxpayers' money as part of a lucrative contract with university vice-chancellors to sell the Tony Blair's plans for university top-up fees.

2004 - Shell, already using Finsbury for PR, for some reason take on an additional PR firm to help them deal with the crisis that emerged following their massive overstatement of the amount of natural resources in their reserves.

2006 - Tony Blair's eldest son Euan spent a fortnight at Rudd's company Finsbury on a work experience placement.

(Psst! I threw that last one in for David Icke and his followers. But it's true.)

It would appear to me that Finsbury have a long track record of defending the indefensible, with most notable clients taking them on when they are in the deepest shit imaginable.

The following question was asked under comments over at Craig's weblog:

Is it significant that Finsbury have +accepted+ Usmanov as a client? They have their own reputation to protect too no?

My view is that it is significant, but the primary impact is on Usmanov's reputation; this appointment sends a message to a savvy audience that he is:

a) seeking to defend the indefensible

b) in the deepest shit imaginable

Oops.

I realise that British-based ISPs are behind the eight-ball with UK libel law as it stands, which is why I want to work with the local industry to effect change.

However, there are a few actions by Fasthosts that I personally find hard to forgive:

1) Their sudden and OTT closure of an entire account involving sites and servers unconnected to the complaints made by Schillings.

2) Their refusal to engage in dialogue (when this was offered, they simply closed the account and walked away).

3) The misleading statements issued to the press suggesting that we had been less than co-operative when we were in no position to call them on their bullshit.

4) Their subsequent refusal to say anything at all when we could (and did) call them on their bullshit.

I'm sure you can spot the common thread here, and Fasthosts have recently withdrawn even further.

As most of you should be aware, a weblog is more than a content management system; it is (or at the very least should be) a contract with the public that offers open dialogue.

But after pissing off most of the blogosphere and making it clear that they had no intention of defending their actions or the initial statements attempting same, Fasthosts have done something that I think is fair to describe as typical of their attitude:

Instead of facing or embracing dialogue on their weblog (which has been in operation since late 2006), Fasthosts have simply deactivated it.

The weblog used to be here. It is now gone. Kaput. No more.

Of course, it's possible that this is only a temporary technical hitch... but it's far more likely that this is a clear signal from Fasthosts that they would rather avoid contact with bloggers in future.

If you own a weblog that is currently hosted by Fasthosts, take note.

A recent poll on this website put the following to readers:

ANSWER ONLY IF YOU SUPPORT CHANGES TO EXISTING UK LIBEL LAW:- If a snap election is called, how do you plan on voting?

The Alliance Party - 1 (0%)
Conservatives - 52 (19%)
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) - 0 (0%)
Greens - 23 (8%)
Labour - 61 (22%)
Liberal Democrats - 72 (26%)
Plaid Cymru - 8 (2%)
Sinn Féin (SF) - 3 (1%)
Social Democratic & Labour Party (SDLP) - 3 (1%)
SNP - 28 (10%)
Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) - 0 (0%)
Other - 20 (7%)

Total Votes: 271

This confirms what most of us already knew; that there's considerable support across the political spectrum for changes to UK libel law .

We are also in a situation where we have the support of some individual journalists (with some notable exceptions), but very few editors.

(I don't think it's at all paranoid to acknowledge that old media have a vested interest in keeping new media on a tight leash.)

These are the two reasons why I think that this could be a watershed moments for bloggers; we're largely on our own, but we're willing to stand together.

A group of us are right now working on a proposal that will involve manageable and carefully prioritised changes.

We'll be putting something to the public soon. Watch this space.

I'm in the Eye, me... and in a good way:



For the record, the good people at Arsenal News Review deserve credit for the initial list that led to this post.

International Herald Tribune - Bloggers beware when you criticize the rich and powerful: The daily Web log, or blog, of the former U.K. ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, vanished after Murray's British Internet provider received a flurry of ominous legal letters demanding the removal of "potentially defamatory" information about Alisher Usmanov, a mining mogul with a rising stake in the English soccer club Arsenal. Two weeks later, Murray is not blogging, but his blistering opinions are about to surface again through a Dutch Internet provider that offers refuge to controversial bloggers in the United States and in England, where libel laws are more lax. And with that journey, Murray has stirred support and a common outrage among bloggers and Internet service providers who complain that chilling demands from companies are becoming more frequent in a number of countries.

In other news, Craig Murray's site is now back online, and we can probably expect to hear something from him later today.

It looks like this is going to be an unhappy week for Mr Usmanov.

While Usmanov butters up journalists and maintains his 'water of a duck's back' charade, the willing flunkies at Schillings have resumed their attacks on websites vulnerable to their quasi-legal challenges:

Indymedia UK Facing Legal Censorship… again!

Justin and Septicisle have more.

Via Arsenal News Review (with one extra added by moi) a list of 9* 8 of the 10 journalists reported to have been flown to and from Moscow by Alisher Usmanov on a Gulfstream 550 private jet and put up at the five-star Kempinski Hotel:

Roger Blitz (Financial Times): Blitz wrote two articles, here and here, but did not mention the rather notable travel and accommodation arrangements in either.

David Bond (The Daily Telegraph): The resulting article makes much of Usmanov's 'knowledge' of Arsenal, describes Murray's allegations as "an extraordinary attack" and our only hint about travel and accommodation is given in the following passage; "...in an effort to dispel the mystery and set the record straight, Usmanov invited British journalists to Moscow, to explain his side of the story."

Jason Burt (The Independent): Two articles here and here, but no mention of travel or accommodation.

Shaun Custis (The Sun): The resulting article is very light on detail when discussing Usmanov's past, which this 'journalist' describes as 'smears'. There is no mention of travel or accommodation.

Matt Dickinson (The Times): The resulting article mentions travel, but not accommodation. [MINI-UPDATE: Another article gives readers some clue as to what's going on by using the words "charm offensive".... but makes no mention of some rather important specifics that show how offensive it is.]

Richard Galpin (BBC) The resulting article says that "in the cramped conference room were British newspaper journalists intrigued to discover more about Russia's 18th richest man," but fails to mention that they were not intrigued enough to make the journey under their own steam. [snip] [*MINI-UPDATE: Richard Galpin himself is based on Moscow. See comments.]

Martin Lipton (The Mirror): Articles headed 'Martin Lipton in Moscow' here and here, but no mention of how he got there, and no mention of any fuss over Usmanov's past. All the folks at home get is "Alisher loves Arsenal." Way to go, Martin Lipton.

Charlie Sale (The Daily Mail): Sale is quite specific about travel and accommodation here and here, but he dutifully states in his main article that; "Usmanov was pardoned by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev" (all that jetting about can't have left much time for research).

Matt Scott (The Guardian): The resulting article airs more detail than most, but does not mention travel or accommodation.

So that's 9* 8 out of a reported 10 journalists, flown to and from Moscow by Alisher Usmanov on a Gulfstream 550 private jet and put up at the five-star Kempinski Hotel. Only one of them is completely honest with their readers about the extraordinary and luxurious circumstances surrounding the interview.

One can only assume that their editors approve.

Are you impressed? I'm impressed.

UPDATE - Gulfstream 550s look nice. So do Kempinski Hotels. Go on... have a little imaginary wallow and see what it feels like. Incidentally, a single room at the Hotel Baltschug Kempinski Moscow will set you back about 25,000 Russian Rubles excluding tax per night (or about £500 if you ever have cause to pay for one yourself).