On my article about Alisher Usmanov which so incensed his lawyers Schillings, let me ask this question. Has anybody seen an argument posted or published from any credible source to argue that what I say about Usmanov is untrue?
I ask the question because one of the edits to this log my webhost made at Schillings’ behest was to say that my claim was “regarded as false by many people”. I have altered that edit, because there is no justification for such a claim. I have yet to see evidence of anybody, not one solitary person, arguing that I am wrong about Usmanov, other than his lawyers. Who are these “Many people”, and why are they peculiarly silent?
I am very sympathetic to my webhost having to change things for Schillings, but not to the extent of altering things to become defamatory of me!!!
Hi Craig, I've sent you an email (and an apology) regarding this. In response to a request, I didn't check that the text I was told needed to be altered actually matched what was published on the site. My bad, and no real excuse other than a surfeit of hassle.
They've been sending some strongly-worded letters our way (www.ukwatch.net) as well – surely a tribute to the assiduousness of the man's lawyers, that they will apparently weild the legal bludgeon to silence even the smallest, obscurest, and most financially strapped outlets. C**ts.
One really should protest at your headline: "Yet more Schillings Bollocks"
We would be grateful for an immediate clarification – should it read Schilling's Bollocks or Schillings' Bollocks?? I note further into the article: "Schillings' behest", so it is presumably the latter.
Get a grip.
However, despite all the activity by Schillings, the original post by Craig is still available on a fair number of sites on the internet. I just tried a google with "Alisher Usmanov Arsenal chairman" …
http://portal.nasstar.com/75/files/Bunt-v-Tilley%…
Line wrap on this page doesn't allow long urls. If you direct Schillings to this document it may shut them up.
http://tinyurl.com/ywoy5v
"Usmanov increases Arsenal holding"…
http://tinyurl.com/2n4b5h
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,…
Government intervened on Rostropovich art sale
The Russian government was involved in convincing Sotheby's to remove a Russian art collection from the market a day before it was to go up for sale and sell the works to a tycoon who promised to return them to their homeland, a culture official said yesterday. The collection of the late cellist Mstislav Rostropovich and his wife, Galina Vishnevskaya, was to go up for auction yesterday in London but was cancelled after the entire collection was bought by Alisher Usmanov, who promised to return the works to Russia – a move apparently costing more than ?25m, well above the highest estimate of ?20m.
Associated Press in Moscow
…they made them an offer they couldn't refuse??