Thursday, February 18, 2010

El Naschie vs Nature news

There's a brand new comment on the Sarah Limbrick Pressgazette archive.


Here it is inline:

darrylmoffet, Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:30 AM
Nature’s Lawyer Taylor Wessing supposedly a reputable law firm is losing its marble. The reason is as childish and idiotic as one could possibly think. El Naschie is giving interviews in Arabic newspapers scorning Nature and its low standards. Quoting from the obscene site called Watching El Naschie day and night [o_O], they say he gave false information about the High Court Case El Naschie versus McMillan [sic. Macmillan], Nature and Quirin Schermeier [sic. Schiermeier]. El Naschie is supposed to have said he more or less he won the case and that Nature will pay him ten million pounds. I am not sure about the ten million pounds but I am sure that El Naschie has more or less won the case. Nature has no case whatsoever. Anyone familiar with British libel law knows that for sure. The third point is that Taylor Wessing is using all conceivable delay tactics. Complaining about interviews in Arabic newspapers must be an expression of Taylor Wessing’s desperate attempt to defend their client. They should know better. England is not the USA where noise and big words could score anything with the court. English judges are very cool. On the other hand, Taylor Wessing could not find a client who is more willing to pay than the rich McMillan. The lawyers of El Naschie are confident that they will win the case. Collyer Bristow are far more professional than Taylor Wessing. They have their client under control. They are calling the shots and setting out the tactics. By contrast Taylor Wessing are counting time sheets. I am ready to bet one to ten [ten to one, he means. :)] that Nature is going to lose this case no matter how well connected they think they are. Nature has been twisting things for too long and there is something like a backlash now particularly with regards to environmental issues. Quirin Schermeier lied and his colleague in Die Zeit Christoph Drosser [sic. Drösser], is on the records of the courts in Hamburg as a blatant liar. Wouldn’t it be better for Nature to donate the money they are spending on a hopeless lawsuit to some charity or even to scientific research?


Nature's lawyers, Taylor Wessing, quoted El Naschie Watch! LOL. This is the post they must have used: El Naschie: Nature lawsuit is "almost won". Hopefully they had the good sense to consult an Arabic speaker rather than depending on my interpretation of a terrible machine translation.

This El Naschie supporter is very optimistic, but I'd like to hear Nature's version of events. If Taylor Wessing or anybody reading this knows more, please let us know.

England's libel laws do favor the plaintiff, as darrylmoffet says.

I don't buy the part about Collyer Bristow being better lawyers than Taylor Wessing. El Naschie has deep pockets, but not as deep as Nature's parent company Macmillan. They can afford good lawyers.

Darrylmoffet says "Nature has been twisting things for too long and there is something like a backlash now particularly with regards to environmental issues." He is referring to this controversy over an editorial about global warming. I don't think it's at all relevant to the El Naschie vs Nature case.

The suggestion that Nature should "donate the money they are spending on a hopeless lawsuit to some charity" doesn't make sense, because El Naschie brought the suit. Taylor Wessing is defending Nature, and must be paid.

These posts have lots of background on the El Naschie vs Nature suit:


UPDATE:


At The Sockpuppets Soldier On archive, which I have just updated with a couple of new reader comments supporting El Naschie, sockpuppet A.S. leaves a comment similar to darrylmoffet's:

Taylor Wessing is the solicitor firm defending Nature against the writ issued by Prof. El Naschie. As far as the records go this is a respectable law firm. A solicitor should be leading his client and not the other way around. This is an important principle regulating the relation between client and solicitor. Naturally I am referring to a respectable solicitor. As this case drags on people start questioning the reason or reasons. The case of El Naschie is straightforward. There is very little doubt if any that Nature is guilty of publishing a tabloid article way beneath its dignity. The proper way of dealing with that is to issue an apology and make an out of court settlement. Curiously Taylor Wessing has so far been driven by the unreasonable requirement of a client who doesn’t want to concede the truth. I was told that Taylor Wessing are upset about certain negative publicity which Nature is receiving in the Middle East. That is exactly what I expect from Taylor Wessing namely a clean end to a rather unpleasant and unnecessary state of affair. Publicity works both ways. If Taylor Wessing or indeed Nature shun negative publicity then they should realize the damage which they caused to the other side and that unless this damage is alleviated then the other side will give them a taste of the same. This is a well meant advice from a knowledgeable and experienced person .
A.S.

A. S. (not verified) | 02/15/10 | 13:34 PM


Regarding "Nature is guilty of publishing a tabloid article way beneath its dignity." That is a ludicrous characterization of the Schiermeier article, but never mind: Nature has a perfect right to publish undignified tabloid articles if they want to. As to "The proper way of dealing with that is to issue an apology and make an out of court settlement." It's telling that A.S.'s preferred outcome is that Nature gives up and settles out of court. It appears Nature fancies its chances in court.

Translate English to Arabic


محمد النشائى El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائى
محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائى

StumbleUpon.com

No comments:

Post a Comment