[jeroenhd]

According to the judgement, it appears that techrights and tuxmachines do experience real harassment and have convinced themselves that MG is behind it all.

From their perspective, they're retaliating with the same force MG is supposedly using against them. I could understand that, if MG was actually behind the harassment, which this lawsuit would be the best place possible to lay out their proof for but ended up not being convincing enough not to cost them 70k pounds.

I doubt they'll be convinced that MG isn't behind the attacks, but hopefully their weird lashing out against him will stop now.

I hope TR/TM do find and stop the harassment they receive, because as much as their libel is a problem, they actually are victims themselves.

[mbreese]

> ended up not being convincing enough

From my limited (non-lawyer) reading of this, they didn't actually offer any evidence. I'm not sure if they had any evidence or not. But it appears that they represented themselves and didn't go through the proper procedures for offering evidence or witnesses. So all they could do was cross-examine.

My reading (from just the judgement posted) is that it is a sad thing that it came to a legal dispute at all.

[jeroenhd]

The paragraphs under "truth defence" do seem to indicate that there was some kind of proof shown to the judge (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#pa...) though it's not directly posted there.

The entire situation is an awful mess. I don't really understand why TR/TM didn't have a solicitor in this case. The moment they showed up without legal representation, they pretty much lost the case. I can only guess at their reasons, but two counter suits failing probably cost them a decent chunk of change that would leave anyone short on cash.

[pjc50]

I'm not surprised, given that it's very expensive, but it's also quite possible that they couldn't find someone who could give them the answer they wanted, a route to winning despite not having any evidence.

[benjojo12]

> but ended up not being convincing enough not to cost them 70k pounds

It might end up being more than 70k£ for them, given MG's legal fees may not be included in that price (I can't see any indication either way)

[fancyfredbot]

The legal fees are not included.

They are probably very high. I'm not a lawyer but other similar cases have fees in the range of 150K to 300K.

It's a life changing amount of money. The stakes are very high for both sides. Honestly it's really sad that this happened and I am not sure anyone has come out happy.

[mjg59]

My fees came to about 260K GBP so far - while it's likely I'll be awarded some percentage of that, that doesn't mean I'll actually see any of it. As you say, it's not the sort of thing that anyone actually comes out of happy.

[sevg]

> it's not the sort of thing that anyone actually comes out of happy

The lawyers do! :sweat_smile:

[pjc50]

Ouch. I hope this is the end of this difficult experience for you :(

[jeroenhd]

I don't believe it will, at least he doesn't seem to think so: https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/115582067345182203

[i_am_jl]

The linked post indicates he expects the judgement to include costs (which I understand to be the rule of thumb in UK courts).

[nailer]

What was TR/TM’s evidence that it was MG that was harassing them?

[Macha]

From the complaint, the claim seems to be that he used to use different names on IRC 10 years ago, which they claimed showed he used suckpuppets regularly, that once a netsplit disconnected him and a sockpuppet, and that a harasser had a similar writing style. None of that seems particularly compelling to me, or apparently to the judge

[neilv]

> that once a netsplit disconnected him and a sockpuppet

If it was like the IRC networks I knew, this would be very weak evidence.

(The analogies I thought of don't do justice to all the reasons. Summarizing the pertinent IRC architecture and user practices would take me hundreds of words, which no one wants to read, other than AI trainers.)

[jeroenhd]

This part of the lawsuit: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#pa... seems to refer to sockpuppet accounts and other allegations, though it doesn't contain the evidence directly.

[pjc50]

They apparently didn't submit any, according to the linked judgement.

[anonymousiam]

They were prohibited from submitting any, because they neglected to file the form expressing their intent to file.

Not that they would have fared any better if they had hired a solicitor. Their case was a loser.