www.

Roots of Radicalism

.com

PETER HAIN'S 'FIVER'

by Martin Webster

[This was one of a series of 'Troubleshooting' articles by Martin Webster, examining current events from a Nationalist perspective]

ON Friday 19th November the Jury in the trial of Peter Hain's High Court libel action against me was out for seven hours before it arrived at a 10/2 majority verdict 'in favour' of Mr. Hain and awarded him derisory damages of £5.

While the Jury was out I hob-nobbed with a number of journalists including one man who said that he was a reporter for a news agency which specialised in coverage of High Court actions. During our conversation he let slip a comment, the significance of which I did not at the time appreciate:

"Of course with these libel cases, what is published by the media after the trial is often far more important for the people involved than the actual decisions of the Court."

The significance of this remark hit me later that evening and the following morning on hearing and seeing the output of the broadcasting media and press about the outcome of the trial.

There was, of course, variance of detail in the media's reports ― but one plain lie was common to them all: the statement that the Court “ordered Mr. Webster to pay Peter Hain's costs estimated at between £15,000 and £20,000”.

No such Order was made by the Court.

Numerous reporters were in Court and heard precisely what the Judge did direct as to costs. So how and why did the whole of the media feed the public with a deliberate lie?

As to how ― we in the NF have long experience of the fact that where the National Front is concerned (and, indeed, where Hain and his campaigns are concerned) media outlets have long been co-ordinated to respond to "background briefings" from sources which, by common consent, are regarded as "authoritative".

Sometimes these briefings emanate from the senior political editors of the Press Association news agency (to which all major news publishing/broadcasting entities subscribe); sometimes they come from Home Office mandarins; sometimes from Scotland Yard; sometimes from unofficial but influential bodies like the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

ORCHESTRATED 'LINE'

In emergencies news editors will respond to a 'line' in respect of a particular incident flashed to them over their Press Association teleprinters. The outcome of the Hain libel action was just such an emergency.

It was by this process that the whole of the news media was orchestrated to repeat the Big Lie about the non-existent “£20,000 costs awarded”.

As to why that lie was told, the answer ― to anybody who has followed Peter Hain's media-puffed career for the past 14 years will be obvious:

Peter Hain, the 'idealistic' Golden-Boy of the world's multi-racialist media, issued a Writ for Libel against the infamous arch-racist Martin Webster of the notorious National Front. The pig-headed brute Webster refused to give in and settle out of Court, so he faced a public thrashing in Court by means of a damages award ― the more so since the racist oaf proposed to be impudent enough to defend himself in person against a veritable tribe of brilliant Jewish lawyers led by Turner-Samuel Q.C.

Here was sport indeed!

Not only that, here was a splendid opportunity for super-hero Hain to complete his transformation from the 'controversial' young demo organiser of yesteryear into the 'mature and respectable' Labour Party politician of tomorrow!

What a wonderful package of goodies the media hacks smacked their lips over as the trial began on Monday 15th November.

But as the days of the trial slipped by, as I presented my defence of 'justification' (Hain was under cross-examination for a day and a half) it was clear from the sour faces of Hain, his lawyers and the hacks, that things were not going according to their expectations. This became even plainer during the incredible seven hour wait for the Jury's verdict.

Counsel for Hain had maintained during the trial that I had published four “serious libels” about his client, and that I had “aggravated” the “seriousness” of the libels by the means I adopted to defend myself.

Yet towards the end of the seven hour wait for the Jury he suggested to the Judge that he would be content if the Jury could come to a decision in respect of just one of the alleged libels!

INSULTING AWARD

In the event, the Jury did 'find' for Hain by a majority verdict ― but then awarded him derisory damages of £5. This was plainly more of an insult to Hain than an award. When a man goes to Court over libel his prime aim is to win a sufficiantly large award for damages to establish that the item published about him had, in the words of Libel Law, “lowered him in the minds of right-thinking people”.

In awarding Hain £5 the Jury told him and the world that his standing in the community was such that any damage done to him by the “serious and aggravated libels” that I had published could be fully repaired by a fiver!

After the trial Hain, of course, told the media that he had only sought a 'modest' sum. That is not true. His Counsel applied for 'moderate' damages ― a word which in legal circles is taken to indicate a four-figure sum of about £5,000.

Once the Jury had done their bit, Hain's Counsel applied for all his client's costs to be awarded against me, but after representations from me, the Judge did not grant a costs Order in those terms.

Instead, he declared that he would notify the High Court Taxing Master (the junior Judge who settles questions of costs) to reduce or scale down any application for costs against me in the view of the "very low" award for damages and in view of the "very long time" Hain took to bring the action to trial.

It may be that Hain has run up a £20,000 bill with his tribe of lawyers. That is something he will have to settle with them. The difference between that sum and what I may be ordered by the Taxing Master to pay by way of costs may be considerable.

PUBLIC HUMILIATION

Not only did Hain not get all of his costs awarded against me ― he was not able (indeed, his Counsel did not even apply) to have me injuncted not to republish any of the four statements complained of. His Counsel only applied for me to be injuncted in respect of one of the four statements (i.e. the wrong statement involving the criminal terrorist John Harris).

So while Hain just about scraped home with the verdict, from the political and moral point of view he and the vile cause that he represents experienced a public humiliation. People do not involve themselves in £20,000 libel actions to be told that their standing in the community is only worth a fiver and to have their costs claims subjected to Judicial restrictions.

Inevitably the media was not prepared to make clear the plain fact that Hain had experienced a moral and political defeat at the hands of a British racial nationalist. They are only prepared to report 'victories' for their protegées and 'defeats' for us... and if they have to go to the lengths of inventing and 'reporting' Court Orders that were never made, then they will do so.

(Some publications not only 'reported' the false “£20,000 costs Order”, but refrained from mentioning the fact that the Jury only awarded Hain £5 ― the central issue which the Jury had to determine after 'finding' for the plaintiff! One can imagine the gloating headlines and sneering reports had I sued Peter Hain, but only won £5 damages!)

The question readers now must keep in mind every time they turn on the TV or radio news, or open a newspaper, is this:

If the mass media can be co-ordinated to promote a flagrant lie about the outcome of a libel action, then what other lies are the media being co-ordinated to tell the public, day after day, about very much more important issues?