![]()
Fighting to Eradicate a Smear David Irving's Attempt to Sue the Board of Deputies for Planting their Secret Smear Report in Foreign Government files. The Board's director, Michael Whinge (below) later confessed to having planted the document
|
|
London, November 14, 1995 Dear Mr Whinge, Defamatory Publications by the Board of
Deputies of British Jews As you will be aware I am a professional speaker and an historian of repute, whose works have been published for thirty-four years in the major publishing houses, newspapers, and journals of the world, including several titles being published in the former Soviet Union, and of whom The Times has written: "David Irving takes his place in the first rank of historical chroniclers." The fact that the reports referred to and the covering letters thereto were marked, as they were, confidential does not exempt them from the provisions of the Defamation Act. The reports were designed to damage my reputation; they did such damage, and I now propose to hold the authors of those reports liable. Please regard what follows therefore as a Letter before Action, and consider my requirements set out hereinafter most seriously. I have as recently as September succeeded in enforcing swift but satisfactory High Court libel action against a major British Sunday publication on very similar grounds indeed. The reports of which complaint is made are riddled with reckless inaccuracies, overstatements, and outright lies--precisely the kind of unfair dealing in data, by way or transfer or disclosure to third parties, which the Data Protection Act was designed to obviate. I now list some, but not necessarily all, of the passages to which I take exception; these include both passages which are defamatory and untrue and passages which are untrue but not necessarily defamatory. The paragraph numbers are those assigned by your author or authors: In the report entitled: "Confidential. David Irving Biographical Information": 6.2 "Irving claims that his father was also a polar explorer." The innuendo is that it was a false claim.
The implication of the word "supposedly" is that it is untrue. I have more than adequate documentary evidence of my employment in Germany at that time (1959-1960), and at any hearing of this action I shall produce payslips, correspondence with my steelworks employers and similar documentation to substantiate this, the sources of my income, and the state of my finances at that time. I started researching my first book in 1961. In the Daily Telegraph you will find an article by me published on September 6, 1960, entitled "Men Behind Germany's Miracle," in which I described my experiences at the steelworks. The Jewish Chronicle also published an article by me on the same theme. Let me state quite categorically that neither then nor since have I "received funding or other material assistance from Nazis" even taking the broadest definition of those words. 3.2.3. "Irving enjoys an opulent lifestyle, and has done for many years. It does not seem that he could maintain such a standard of living without source of income other than his books." Again the innuendo is that I received some kind of illicit funding from, as stated in the introductory paragraph, "Nazis." This is grossly libellous. My accountant will provide adequate evidence of my lifestyle during the time specified, which was not opulent.
In the Section "David Irving -- History of Activities":
In the Section headed "1970 1980": 2. "Irving had written in The Destruction of Convoy PQ.17 that Broome had deliberately abandoned the convoy to Nazi U boats." Untrue; there is no such statement or implication in the book.
In the Section headed "1980-1982": 2. "Irving angrily refused." This is untrue. I not only readily provided the Treasury Solicitor with access to the Churchill diaries, but I wrote to the Public Record Office offering them a set of the diaries at my own expense.
In the Section headed "1982 1984": 10. You reported that on August 10, 1983, the Guardian stated that I "ran the racist group WISE." I have never heard of this group, nor did I read the clipping at the time. It is untrue and libellous, notwithstanding that you simultaneously call the allegation a possible exaggeration. In the Section headed "1984-1985": 4. "In May, Irving visited North London Polytechnic at the height of the controversy of [right-wing student leader] Patrick Harrington's attendance at the college." Quite untrue. I've never been there in my life nor have I to the best of my knowledge and belief met Mr Harrington. In the Section headed "1988 1989":
In the Section headed "1990 1991":
In the Section headed "David Irving Selected Bibliography": 2.1. This statement is grotesquely wrong: e.g., the suggestion that following the 1967 publication of my book Accident: The Death of General Sikorski, "the publishers, William Kimble [sic. William Kimber Ltd] were put on trial and forbidden to continue printing the book." There was not even a hint of a lawsuit against this book or me as its author.
In the Report headed "1991":
We are all accustomed to a certain amount of rough and tumble, when we--as writers--are in the public eye. You and your anonymous authors have however stepped over the line that separates robust criticism from publishing malicious and reckless defamations with the avowed intention of injuring, and with reckless disregard for the truth. For thirty years and more I have adopted the Christian etiquette of turning the other cheek; I have gritted my teeth at these and similar smears, and looked the other way; no more. I therefore require the Board, within seven days of receipt of this letter, to undertake in writing:
Failing satisfaction in each and every one of the above five points, I reserve my rights to commence without further notice proceedings under the Defamation Act and to serve Writs against the Board of Deputies and the individual author or authors of these libels. I further expressly reserve the right to expand any statement of claim to include statements made in this publication complained of about me which are not set out above. May I now have a reply to this letter within seven days?
Will you be so good in your reply as to indicate whether the
address below is the Registered Office of the Board of
Deputies of British Jews, and whether it is a registered
company under the definitions of the Companies Act; and to
confirm the identities of the President, the Chief
Executive, and the director of the Research Unit at the
Board of Deputies of British Jews in June 1992; and to
confirm whether you will receive service of legal documents
or instruct solicitors to act on your behalf. Yours sincerely, David Irving
Board of Deputies of British
Jew |
1996. I. No. 1328 Form
10, O.7, r.2
* If action assigned *Master
Tennant
in Chambers
Intended Plaintiff THE LONDON COMMITTEE OF DEPUTIES OF THE BRITISH JEWS (AN UNINCORPORATED BODY ALSO KNOWN AS "THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH JEWS") Intended First Defendants Intended Second Defendant Intended Third Defendant Intended Fourth Defendant
|
1996. I. No. 1328
Intended Plaintiff THE LONDON COMMITTEE OF DEPUTIES OF THE BRITISH JEWS (AN UNINCORPORATED BODY ALSO KNOWN AS "THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH JEWS") Intended First Defendants Intended Second Defendant Intended Third Defendant Intended Fourth Defendant
I, DAVID JOHN CAWDELL IRVING, the Plaintiff herein, self-employed writer, historian, publisher, broadcaster, and lecturer, MAKE OATH and say as follows:- 1. I depose to the facts and matters herein from my own knowledge.
HISTORY
THE PUBLICATIONS COMPLAINED OF
USING THE PROVISIONS OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT
DELIBERATE CONCEALMENT
FURTHER STEPS TAKEN TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE AUTHORS
THE REASON FOR THIS APPLICATION
SWORN at Royal
Courts of Justice A Solicitor |
|
By the Plaintiff in
Person
Telephone 0171 499 9409
In the Matter of an Intended Action
Between
THE LONDON COMMITTEE OF DEPUTIES OF THE BRITISH
JEWS (AN UNINCORPORATED BODY ALSO KNOWN AS "THE
BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH JEWS")
This Writ of Summons has been issued against you by the above-named Plaintiff in respect of the claim set out herein.
Within 14 days after the service of this Writ on you, counting the day of service, you must either satisfy the claim or return to the Court office mentioned below the accompanying Acknowledgement of Service stating therein whether you intend to contest these proceedings.
If you fail to satisfy the claim or to return the Acknowledgement within the time stated, or if you return the Acknowledgement without stating therein an intention to contest the proceedings, the Plaintiff may proceed with the action and judgement may be entered against you forthwith without further notice.
Issued from the Central Office of the High Court this day of 1996.
NOTE: This Writ may not be served later than 4 calendar months (or, if leave is required to effect service out of the jurisdiction, 6 months) beginning with that date unless renewed by order of the Court.
The Plaintiff's claim is for libels contained in the thirty-one page report headed "CONFIDENTIAL. DAVID IRVING -- BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION" and in the six-page continuation thereof headed "1991" the whole of which document the Defendants did jointly and severally publish or cause to be published in or about June 17 of 1992 to the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada and to divers other parties within and without the United Kingdom. |
1996. I. No. 1328
Intended Plaintiff THE LONDON COMMITTEE OF DEPUTIES OF THE BRITISH JEWS (AN UNINCORPORATED BODY ALSO KNOWN AS "THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH JEWS") Intended First Defendants Intended Second Defendant Intended Third Defendant Intended Fourth Defendant
|
1996. I. No. 1328
Intended Plaintiff THE LONDON COMMITTEE OF DEPUTIES OF THE BRITISH JEWS (AN UNINCORPORATED BODY ALSO KNOWN AS "THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH JEWS") Intended First Defendants Intended Second Defendant Intended Third Defendant Intended Fourth Defendant I, DAVID JOHN CAWDELL IRVING, the Plaintiff herein, self-employed writer, historian, publisher, broadcaster, and lecturer, MAKE OATH and say as follows:-
sworn at A Solicitor |
1996. I. No. 1328 In the High Court of JusticeQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Intended Plaintiff THE LONDON COMMITTEE OF DEPUTIES OF THE BRITISH JEWS (AN UNINCORPORATED BODY ALSO KNOWN AS "THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH JEWS") Intended First Defendants Intended Second Defendant Intended Third Defendant Intended Fourth Defendant
Date of Knowledge
Prejudice
Conclusion
SWORN this 19th day of November
1996* Before me, A solicitor
|
1996. I. No. 1328
Intended Plaintiff THE LONDON COMMITTEE OF DEPUTIES OF THE BRITISH JEWS (AN UNINCORPORATED BODY ALSO KNOWN AS "THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH JEWS") Intended First Defendants Intended Second Defendant Intended Third Defendant Intended Fourth Defendant
THE LEAGUE OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE B'NAI
BRITH CANADA
I had previously visited Canada without difficulty some thirty times since 1965, and lectured and promoted my writings around the world. In consequence of the above-mentioned entry bans enforced against me, because of the actions of the Defendants and their agents overseas, by the governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, as well as by the governments of Germany, Austria, and Italy, I have suffered accumulated losses since 1992 of many hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling in speaking fees, book sales, publishing royalties and license fees and other emoluments, television and radio fees, as well as legal costs. These consequential losses will continue in coming years. The Defendants successfully conspired in secret with their overseas partner organisations and other agents to destroy my livelihood, denying me my civil rights and robbing me of my liberty and of my freedom of speech around the world. THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE para.4 (b): My communications with the Data Protection Agency were concerned additionally with asserting my rights as a Data Subject under the Act. Ten days ago, on November 4, 1996, since I was satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, provided that the Board of Deputies of British Jews had not pre-emptively destroyed all its information files on me, it was not withstanding its denials still maintaining data about me on its registered database, I wrote to the Data Protection Agency asking it to institute compliance and enforcement procedures against the Board. para.4 (c): My concern in not identifying to the Board the information I had received was to prevent it from destroying any or all of the files it held on me before they could be inspected by myself or by the Agency. Whether the 'Data Protection Act exercise' was pointless remains to be seen. para.4 (d): The Second Defendant has distorted the
infrequent stereotype references to a 'traditional enemy' in
my irregular newsletter Action Report -- which
reports on my worldwide legal actions. The reference is not
to an enemy of me (or 'us') but explicitly to 'the
traditional enemy of the truth' (see e.g. para. 1 of the
Christmas letter's first page, and the first line of its
second page). The OPERATION BODYLINE
was a fictious codeword used in the newsletter in a
further attempt to smoke out who the author of the report
was, since we were aware that various unauthorised addresses
were on the mailing list. The real file-name was
ILL WIND. The Action Report issue
dated October 1, 1995 referred to a 'North London' body
identified as Network HQ: To my knowledge there are situated
in North London the Zionist Federation and the Jewish
National Fund namely at Balfour House in Finchley or Hendon,
while the offices of B'nai Brith and the Herut Party's
branch in the UK (that is, the late Menachem Begin's party)
is in Compayne Gardens, West Hampstead. The Board of
Deputies of British Jews is however not in North London but
at Woburn Place, London WC1. DELIBERATE CONCEALMENT PREJUDICE In the premises I submit that the delay in instituting these proceedings before this Honourable Court was largely a consequence of my desire to negotiate in good faith with the Defendants for an amicable settlement as is evidenced by the documents exhibited above at pages 123, 124, and especially 137, final paragraph. SWORN at A Solicitor |
© Focal Point 1998 |