Por lo visto, se acabó el tema. Parece que han llegado a un
acuerdo en el que por supuesto Niema ha tenido que rendirse. No va a
publicar nunca más el libro y no puede hablar tampoco de los detalles
del juicio, en definitiva de nada que tenga que ver remotamente con
Loreena. Fijate que ahora más que nunca me pica la curiosidad :)

Estaba claro que el final iba a ser este. Niema no tiene el
dinero suficiente para seguir con el juicio. Esto nos lleva a pensar
que la justicia no es una balanza justa, cae casi siempre hacia el
lado del que más dinero tiene, este caso es un ejemplo clarísimo, no
importa quien tenga más razón, el que tiene dinero gana.Os pego un
artículo de un amigo de Niema que ha seguido el caso practicamente al
momento, de hecho ha acompañado a Niema a los juicios. Su página web
es: http://www.powrd.demon.co.uk/ark/mckennittvash.htm


Thursday 4 October 2007 - : - The end.

The case of McKennitt v. Ash has been settled, fully and finally,
nigh on two years after it began. This afternoon, following lengthy
negotiations in the Law Courts, an agreement was reached in which -
according to the statement finally read out in open court in front of
Mr Justice Eady - Niema Ash undertakes not to "publish 'Travels with
Loreena McKennitt' any further, nor publish or disclose any other
information about the Claimants [i.e. Loreena or her companies] or
her dealings with them." Niema will also make a "substantial
contribution in payment of the costs."

This means that Niema is basically not allowed to say anything in
public about her past dealings with Loreena, not even about the past
two years' litigation. The statement ends with the following sentence
(the English is atrocious, but you have to blame Loreena's solicitors
at Carter-Ruck for that...): "Loreena McKennitt feels she has
achieved her objective in protecting the human right she shares with
others to a private life, and welcomes the settlement which has been
achieved".
I'm sure this is what Loreena feels. You and I might conceivably
feel that this settlement has nothing whatever to do with privacy,
but everything to do with the first principle of the law: might is
right. But then, what else is new?
I don't know if I'm going to comment on this case any further. Why?
Because I'm rather looking forward to the rest of my life, in which I
propose to spend not a single thought on Canadian folk singer
Loreena... erm, you know, Whatsaname