Kent Parker - no defence.

Well, that's sorted out, that there was defamation and Parker has provided no defence against it. So the question is whether Parker is responsible for what he has published and the Judge has ordered that is for a Jury to decide.

Of course in considering that will be the nature of Parker's site, its bias against Karam etc. It's plain intention to continually misrepresenting facts and blame Karam for doing that instead. But what I have been talking about is the continued defamation, the continuing defamation Parker's site is full of it - most on public display showing his distorted and one sided views. Kent isn't listening so here's something from a lawyer to a client in another High Court decision regarding defamation..Hallet v Williams


'I appeared in Court in the defamation case yesterday [3 May]. In accordance with your instructions I applied for an adjournment. This was opposed with some vigour by Peter Williams who prepared and submitted a substantial document. He wanted the application for adjournment rejected and the hearing to proceed. I argued that – effectively – he was asking for the statement of defence to be struck out as he would be denying you the opportunity to present a defence. He put some pressure on the court. The Judge granted your application for an adjournment. He said it would be as short an adjournment as possible. Mr Williams wanted a date in May. It seems that is not possible and the earliest date we will be able to get will be in August. No date is set at this stage. If some other case falls over in the meantime this case might be put in its place. Mr Williams is not happy about everything concerned with this case and he has complained to the court that you continue to defame him. You may not get a Christmas card from him this year. I will let you know as soon as I get a new date for the defamation hearing. At this stage I am not recorded as counsel in the summary judgment matter [unpaid Architecture fee].'

To repeat 'Mr Williams is not happy about everything concerned with this case and he has complained to the court that you continue to defame him.'

That might sink in with Kent sometime.

Now, I wonder how the owners of other hate-site are feeling, particularly Annette Curran. I wonder how all the defamatory contributors are feeling knowing that according to last Friday's judgement they could be in line for defamation charges and, like Kent, have no defence - other than trying to blame the site owners that there was some binding or implied contract that Kent would, as he has to anyway, take the blame as a publisher but not (unfortunately for the defamatory rats) that the defamatory posts of others belonged to them first of all and Kent secondly.