Update

Letter to David Paisley's solicitors regarding recent requests he made.

Two weeks ago, i wrote to David Paisley’s solicitors, giving them two weeks to respond. I informed them that if no response was forthcoming, i would publish the letter. They did not reply, so here is the letter.

_________________

Sirs,

In order for your client, David Paisley, to drop his libel claim against me, you have asked me to remove all references to your client from my social media; to apologise publicly to your client, and; to make a public undertake not to libel your client or breach his GDPR protections in future.

My answers are as follows: no, no and no.

So what’s next? There are only three possible outcomes in this case.

Outcome One: I successfully defend the claim. Given the facts of the case, I believe this to be a likely outcome. If this outcome transpired, your client, a public figure, would bear all the costs of his own legal action, which may run into tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds. He may also be forced to pay to cover the cost to me of defending the case. This isn’t even the worst outcome for your client.

Outcome Two: I successfully defend your client’s action against me and am successful in bringing a counter claim for libel and harassment. This is the worst outcome for your client, and I do not believe it to be an unrealistic prospect.

Between your client and I, there is only one of us who has been warned by the police about their actions towards the other. There is only one of us who has sent a letter containing a string of serious and untrue allegations to an organisation they used to volunteer for. There is only one of us who has sent threatening, pseudo legal letters and messages, containing outrageous, baseless, distressing accusations, not just to me, but to my associates and supporters. Many of which allegations, by the way, have subsequently been dropped by your client. There is only one of us who claimed, falsely, that the other lived in London, in order to discredit their involvement in the politics of this island. 

If I am successful in a countersuit for harassment and libel, your client is at risk of significant costs. He may have to pay not just for my time in bringing the action, but also damages for the significant harm his harassment of me has done to me and to my family. Given his tweets about his financial situation, this is an outcome I would think he would be keen to avoid.

Outcome Three: Your client secures a win in court and forces me into bankruptcy.

Your client has wildly misjudged me if he thinks that bricks, mortar, my bank balance, and maintaining my credit score are more important to me than child protection, free speech, defending the rights of women and girls, and standing shoulder to shoulder my lesbian sisterhood, and our gay brothers against the destruction of our communities and the appropriation of our identities.

I wear the suffragette colours, I carry the Stonewall banners with pride. I would stand up and speak out for child safeguarding with the last breath in my body. I do not claim to possess half the courage of my heroes, but I do not need half their courage to be unafraid of standing up to represent myself in court, or to risk bankruptcy in defence of what I believe. I do not need half their courage to be unwilling to cost this movement another penny in crowd-funding, to defend such a ridiculous, time-wasting claim against me. I would have to raise more in crowd funding than I have in assets, just to get to the door of the courtroom; it is not worth it. 

Even if he wins, your client will be out of pocket to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds and wrapped up in court action possibly for years. He cannot hope to recover this money from me; I do not have it, no matter what internet trolls may claim. Your client is also taking another libel action in another jurisdiction, simultaneously. He has recently tweeted that he is in debt. Given all that, I cannot understand why he appears so committed to what seems to be such a reckless course of action, or why you are advising and assisting him in pursuit of it.

You will understand, under the circumstances I have outlined, why I have decided to represent myself. I do not care about the risk of bankruptcy. I care about protecting children. I care about freeing up this debate from transparent attempts to intimidate private citizens into silence for beliefs that are protected in law. I care about the hard-won rights of women. I care about protecting my community. I care about protecting myself from your client’s ongoing course of conduct against me, in which he has repeatedly imposed unwanted, threatening communications and contact on me and those I associate with.

So here is my counteroffer. Outcome 4. If your client withdraws his action against me, and undertakes to leave me alone, I won’t seek an injunction against him, or counter-sue him for harassment and libel, and you won’t have to undertake a prolonged court battle against a litigant in person, with no possibility of a good outcome for your client, even if he “wins.” 

Yours most sincerely,

Ceri Black

_____________

Note: the version i sent said “visited”by police - i was visited, but only to have my rights read to me. I noticed the error after sending and have changed it to “warned” here for clarity, as we have both been visited, but please note, this use of “warning”here is not the same as an official warning or anything of the sort.