Many thanks to those who have pointed out that Oliver Kamm is up to his old tricks. Previously notable for absolutely nothing except a campaign of criminal harassment against Neil Clark, he seems to have moved on to a campaign of criminal harassment against me.
This allegedly left-wing warmonger, genocidal racist (he wants to kill every Arab, Serb and heaven knows who else in the world) and union-buster (the Guardian and the BBC use him because his inherited wealth is such that he doesn't need to be paid) is closely associated with the warmongering, genocidally racist, and union-busting website for those of fabulous inherited wealth, Harry's Place, the latest manifestation of the ferociously pro-Soviet, gulag-denying Straight Left faction within the old Communist Party of Great Britain and among its nominally Labour fellow-travellers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What's he done? I just looked at his blog and I don't think he's posted anything about you on it. What's he said and where's he said it?
ReplyDeleteOver on a thread (to which he had already contributed under his own name) at the Spectator, he or one of his minions has been pulling off a recurring stunt of affecting a name (it's always the same one) and reprinting a previous contribution of mine word for word. Hilarious, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that had anything to do with him?
ReplyDeleteForm. Even if his was not the hand that did that deed, it was ceratinly the hand that guided.
ReplyDeleteForm? So this is a pattern of behaviour? What has he done to you in the past, and how do you know it was him then?
ReplyDeleteOh, exactly this trick, complete with the same assumed name every time, has been used repeatedly on threads to which we have both contributed. It's completely blatant.
ReplyDeleteSo, in other words, you don't know it was him and you don't really have evidence - you just suspect him.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, how does leaving comments under a false name, quoting your own comments, on a website constitute criminal harassment? If he did it, what law(s) has he broken?
I don't expect any repetition.
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not the question. Seriously, what law has he broken?
ReplyDeleteWe'll see, if he does it again.
ReplyDeleteHe does seem to have laid off Neil. He's not used to being taken on, so he has no idea how to cope with it. Well, he'd better get used to it if he gives me any more bother.
But the point of my question is that if you're alleging "criminal harassment", then you must have some sort of criminal standard in mind. I honestly can't understand why you wouldn't say what it is, unless you don't know what the law is and therefore don't know whether he's breaking it.
ReplyDeleteHe's broken it before and he's doing so now. But he runs away and hides if anyone confronts him. As I am now doing.
ReplyDeleteWHAT LAW HAS HE BROKEN?
ReplyDeleteIt's a serious question, and you're not answering it. Please don't run away and hide when you're confronted. That's the kind of thing Oliver Kamm would do - surely you're better than him. Aren't you?
And we'll let him answer that, if there is any repetition.
ReplyDeleteNo, David. That's pathetic. You can't answer a simple question about whether an allegation you're making has any substance.
ReplyDeleteI'm genuinely disappointed in you.
Is this the kind of thing you're talking about?
ReplyDeleteIs it criminal harassment by Oliver Kamm?
What law does it break?
I've given you the substance. We'll see if he thinks he's on firm ground if there is any repetition. And in that event, we'll then see if he's right.
ReplyDeleteYes, but I'm changing tactic after this. He or his little helpers (they really do exist, poor souls) are clearly waging this particualr campaign specifically in relation to my opposition to the Human Fertilsation and Embryology Bill. And there's a reason for that... Watch this space.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't given the substance, because the allegation has two parts:
ReplyDelete1) Oliver Kamm is responsible for a certain action.
2) This action meets a criminal legal threshold for "harassment".
You haven't demonstrated the first, because we don't know it's Kamm, and you haven't demonstrated the second, because you haven't even begun to say what law you think he might have broken.
There are things that I cannot discuss on the Internet, and we are touching on them.
ReplyDeleteThe law is not a secret. It would be really silly if it were.
ReplyDeleteBut other things are.
ReplyDeleteI'm ending this thread now. The matter in hand has outgrown it.