Despite the topic, this is to be a short post (EDITOR – the road to hell is paved with good intentions). After all, as I was saying to a friend today, as my summaries are generally longer than what I am précising, Lord Justice Leveson’s full report of 2,000 pages might take me 4,000 pages to recap!
Instead I want to look at the regulation of bloggers. Leveson LJ addresses this from page 168 of Volume A.
He heard evidence from people responsible for websites including the Guido Fawkes political blog, Popbitch, which is a celebrity gossip site and the Huffington Post – effectively an online-only newspaper.
Lord Justice Leveson on Bloggers
He says, in describing the above at Chapter 3 para 4.6:-
These vastly different sites are all offered to the public in the same way; they all have the same theoretical reach to the entire internet-connected population at the touch of a button (particularly when facilitated by search engines). They are also, with the regulatory exceptions set out above, entirely unregulated, though subject to civil and criminal law in appropriate jurisdictions. However, it is noteworthy that although the blogs cited here are read by very large numbers of people, it should not detract from the fact that most blogs are read by very few people. Indeed, most blogs are rarely read as news or factual, but as opinion and must be considered as such.
As we have seen with issues as diverse as the false accusations against Lord McAlpine, and the riots in England in 2011, there are legal consequences under the civil and criminal law for those who overstep the bounds.
Ill-considered tweets, re-tweets, blog posts and Facebook statuses can all lead to receipt of lawyers’ letters or visits from the police.
Leveson LJ goes on to say from para 4.20, in relation to the regulation of blogs:-
Blogs and other such websites are entirely unregulated. The Huffington Post UK is unique in having opted to subscribe to the Press Complaints Commission.
With regard to the oversight and regulation of content published by third parties, views of the Huffington Post UK to hosted and other user generated content on its site are broadly typical of other hosting sites. The Huffington Post UK does not pre-moderate or edit that content. Indeed, Ms Buzasi has said that: “We want to have their personalities shine through on their blogs but there is a framework to ensure that we’re – or our bloggers are complying with the law.”
At para 7 he states:-
Despite the efforts made to comply with national law, it is clear that the enforcement of law and regulation online is problematic. Although the law with regard to online content is clear, and UK hosted content is by and large compliant, the ability of the UK to exercise legal jurisdiction over content on Internet services is extremely limited and dependent on many things. These include: the location of the service provider; the location of the servers on which material is held; and international agreements and treaties.
Most successful attempts to induce service providers of any sort to take enforcement action in relation to content are either through agreement, or dependant on case-specific court orders. In his evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Crowell (as well as representatives from Microsoft and Google) said that Twitter would enforce orders made by UK courts, in so far as they might apply to UK users, on a case by case basis. In practice, this means that for Twitter to remove a defamatory tweet that was re-tweeted, a court order would be needed in relation to every relevant tweet by every individual unique user who repeated that defamatory content.
In his concluding section, in Volume 4, Chapter K para 7.15, Leveson LJ quoted Paul Staines, creator of the Guido Fawkes blog, discussing the suggestion that blogs should be subject of PCC regulation or its equivalent:-
“It would bog us down in bureaucracy by opening a channel for politically motivated nuisance complainants. Every single article we write that voices an opinion is challenged by our readers in the comments, on Twitter and via email. If we were obliged to respond to complainants we would be overwhelmed. It is ridiculously impractical given the volume of specious complaints.”
At page 1656 Leveson LJ states:
Finally, issues have been raised about for whom any such regulation or standards would be mandatory. Specifically there are concerns about the ability of legislation to identify relevant online providers in a world where anyone might contribute to news and current affairs discussion online, via Twitter or blogs, alongside big news providers (including newspaper websites).
At paras 3.185 and 3.186 in Appendix 4, Leveson J states:-
The courts have struggled to apply traditional defamation principles to the internet and the case law has thrown up a number of interesting issues of unique application to the internet. For example, a special feature of chatrooms, message boards or blogs is that the text can continually evolve with new comments being added which may affect the context and meaning of previous and subsequent post. It has been decided that the final thread must be treated as a single publication for the exercise of determining meaning. Further, the meaning of the words must be considered in light of the purpose and role of chat rooms and message boards, where casual, emotive and imprecise speech are all common features. As Eady J explained in Smith v ADVFN people who participate in bulletin boards expect a certain amount of repartee or give and take.
The application of the defamation principles to the internet remains an area of considerable uncertainty. Whilst the courts have attempted to fashion principles that are workable in the short term, the law in this area is far from clear and this has given rise to conflicting decisions. Other jurisdictions have similarly struggled to grasp the complexities of the operation of the internet and recognised the need for the courts to view libel allegations within the unique context of the internet. A comprehensive framework of coherent rules and regulation remains lacking and it is likely that the law will be subject to further development in this area.
Lord Justice Leveson did not make recommendations regarding regulation of bloggers, trusting, it seems, the civil and criminal law to deal with its excesses.
Frankly, and bearing in mind the suggestions of statutory regulation for the mainstream media, it seems a surprise that the report effectively ignored the Internet.
Where Does the Criminal Law Apply Online?
There will be websites where readers of this blog have ventured where the discussions seem regularly to cross the boundaries of both the civil and the criminal law. Part of the problem for the police in dealing with alleged criminality on the internet is that they simply do not have the resources to deal with each and every example which could be reported to them. Instead there seems to be a policy of selecting individual “offenders” in an effort to set examples for the rest of the online communities. Sadly that des not yet seem to have worked. People still spout arrant nonsense, and far worse, over Twitter and on blogs and message boards.
There are some threads on websites where, to be honest, almost every post would seem to fall foul of the criminal law!
The legislative tools available to the police and procurator fiscal include:-
- The common law offence of breach of the peace;
- Threatening communications under Section 6 of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2011;
- Threatening behaviour under Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010; and
- Making improper use of a public electronic communications network under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (made infamous by its use in the Twitter Joke trial).
In addition, where a blog or tweet could be seen as potentially prejudicial to an ongoing criminal case, the Contempt of Court Act could be invoked.
In practice, it is very rare for blogs to be removed on the ground that the criminal law is breached. There are rare occasions where the police might advise a blogger to remove material on the basis that it is considered to be in contravention of the criminal law. However, it takes a lot to make this happen. Usually it would involve either the “target” for the allegedly criminal blogging, or the allegedly criminal blogger, to be of some prominence, even if only in a small field.
I know of one person who was subject of a number of complaints regarding their blogging activities. Ironically this showed both the advantages and the disadvantages of the present procedures. In one instance the police visited the blogger and suggested that the offending material be removed, which it was. No further procedure was necessary. In another the police at first denied having received a complaint, and when it was proved that it had been received then stated that they had investigated and decided that the material was not in breach of the law. Clearly the person who denied receipt of the initial complaint had been mistaken.
(For the avoidance of doubt, and in case anyone thinks differently, I have never had a visit from, or contact with, the police regarding my own blog, not frankly would I expect to.)
Does it amount to censorship if the authorities ask for a blog post or tweet to be deleted on the grounds that it might breach the criminal law? That all depends on your perspective, I suppose.
On one hand, it seems a sensible step, avoiding the public expense of a prosecution. However, the problem is that material on the internet rarely disappears entirely, and where the act of removal becomes known, the Streisand Effect kicks in, and normally far more people then read, or become aware of the deleted material than would have see it in the first place!
So where the police descend on a blogger and suggest, on pain of prosecution should he or she demur, that a post should be deleted, are we seeing, as I have read, the Stasi coming to Scotland? No.
However, the concern with all these issues is that, no matter how fairly the law is applied just now, it could be extended in its application to cover saying things which criticise, for example, the government, or the rich and powerful.
The Potter Stewart Test
Perhaps, rather than a precise legal analysis, the best way of determining if online material breaks the law is to apply the test used by Justice Potter Stewart of the US Supreme Court in Jacobellis v Ohio, who, in a case where the definition of hard-core pornography was at issue, he said that “I know it when I see it”. (In that case, he found that the material was not “it”).
But can we apply a common sense approach to these matters when what would be deemed offensive and threatening by one would be regarded as nothing more than innocent banter by another. Paul Chambers, when tweeting – “Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!” – did not expect to have to go through two appeals before the High Court quashed his conviction for a breach of s 127!
(And has anyone yet worked out why Robin Hood Airport is in Doncaster, and not Nottingham?)
We come by this longer than expected route to the football field (figuratively). The common sense approach simply does not work where people make comments which are perceived by readers as critical of their team, or of their fellow fans, or of anything to do with their favoured club. The “exuberance” of bloggers and message board posters can run away with them, and before they know where they are, the police are at the door.
It seems that, from my knowledge of various cases, that the police are more likely to act where there is deemed to be a specific threat, rather than a generality of vulgar abuse. In such cases, the nature of the comments and the position of the companied form the basis for the decision about what to do.
So, for example, should a public servant feel that they had been threatened by online postings, then the police are more likely, I suggest, to visit the alleged perpetrator than if it was an ordinary Joe Bloggs.
Something of that nature appears to have happened today with the prolific blogger on Rangers-related matters and best-selling author Mr Leggat. He has stated that he was forced by the police to remove a blog post earlier today. The net effect of that is, I am sure, that far more people will read what he wrote than would have done so if it had been left unremarked. I make no comment on what Mr Leggat had written, not having had the pleasure of reading it, but I suspect that ten seconds on Google would locate a copy of it.
This shows the problems the authorities have. If Mr Leggat’s post did fall foul of the law (and I am not suggesting it did, notwithstanding the apparent view of the police that it did) then the act of removing it gives it wider currency.
If a post is removed on police suggestion because it contains a threat (and I am not suggesting that Mr Leggat’s did) then is it in the public interest, or even the interest of the victim for it to be spread around far more than was originally the case?
Here there is a dilemma for both the authorities and for the victim. Complain and run the risk of lots more people becoming privy to the matter, or do nothing and be seen tacitly to have condoned or accepted what was said. This shows how difficult the whole area is, and as Leveson LJ says, it might require a comprehensive review of the law in these matters to allow these issues to be resolved properly.
I am instinctively in favour of free speech, but as the press have discovered, with the right to free speech comes responsibilities.
I am sure that the police’s action as related by Mr Leggat was motivated by nothing other than a genuine and neutral assessment of the post in question. However, in such a polarised field, it is not surprising that there would be a clamour from fans of Rangers that their champion is being “gagged”.
One of the issues which seems to perturb some Rangers fans is that Mr Leggat was the recipient of a visit on the day his piece was published, whilst others, seen as anti-Rangers, your humble scribe included, have been able to post with impunity for a long time with no action being taken.
Speaking for myself, that is simply because I do not write anything which I think falls foul of the law.
Regular readers might recall though that recently I removed a few blog posts of my own after some very pleasant and mutually respectful discussions with lawyers acting for The Rangers Football Club Limited. This was a very different situation from that apparently involving Mr Leggat, as the debate centred on application of certain principles of civil law.
Both parties agreed to differ on their respective legal interpretations, but, on the basis that the other party is rather wealthier than I am, I decided that it would be quixotic in the extreme to take them on.
What is ironic is that, I suspect, many of the commenters who now join with Mr Leggat in bemoaning the act of “censorship” were the same ones who were proclaiming their delight at Rangers “taking on its enemies” when I was agreeing to do what their solicitors wanted!
It could be argued that the cause celebre of Mr Leggat’s blog and my interaction with Rangers lawyers show that the criminal and civil law “works” to regulate the blogosphere.
On the other hand it might show the arbitrary nature of the law. I am sure that, no matter what the police perceived Mr Leggat as saying, I could find significant material on the same topic which was far more serious in just a few minutes. Equally, I suspect that the topic of my posts to which Rangers took offence have been aired fully elsewhere (although with no involvement from me).
For many years John Ebdon presented a programme on Radio 4 where he looked back in the radio archives. It was always introduced by the announcer saying that “This week John Ebdon looks at ….. but comes to no serious conclusion”.
I feel the same – I find it hard to come to a conclusion regarding this. Lord Justice Leveson has perhaps been wise to keep away from the issue, having been bluntly warned of the problems of “regulating” the bloggers by Paul Staines.
The starting point in my view is that, as in the USA, free speech should be encouraged. However, even in the States, there is a line to be drawn.
I suspect that both Mr Leggat and I may have similar feelings about having our “free speech” rights infringed, even where we, or our readers, might have different views about each other’s writings. I also suspect that we might have in common an upsurge in views of our respective blogs – after all, the most visits in the last eighteen months to my blog took place on the day after the blog posts were removed.
I suspect that the Streisand Effect will do its work for Mr Leggat too!
Posted by Paul McConville
101 responses to “Free Speech – Lord Justice Leveson, Twitter, Bloggers and Scottish Football”
I can’t remember who said ‘power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot through the ages’. However, I seem to recall that that phrase was applied to the (print) press. Quaere: might it now be appied to the ‘blogosphere’? (I am NOT referring to you, Paul!)
Rudyard Kipling wrote it, Stanley Baldwin said it.
Personally, I am entirely in favour of free speech; until, that is, those who never experience a free thought demand their right to free speech as compensation.
What a good story – journalist threatened with arrest. On its own this IS a good story, but as it appears to be a FIRST ever (as it is a blog) it’s
a cracker of a story. Now what MSM will report on it? This will be interesting.
If the MSM do report on the matter then let’s hope they will also print extracts from the posts that are still displayed as that will let the general public see the vile sickness that permeates a small but virulent section of our society.
I believe leggo himself recently declared the National Union of Journalists had red-carded him and fined him £1,000 although some say he resigned before being formally expelled.
So personally I doubt if the MSM would show much interest in the the ravings of a blogger just like they seldom report on individual suicides or mental health cases.
A read of a few of leggo’s posts soon makes it clear that the only person with any right to free speech is leggo and anyone else with a contrary view shouldn’t be allowed to exist let alone have a right to voice their opinions. He also allows no comments to be made on his blog – to me usually a sign of incipient megalomania.
It is worth reading opinions on Darkside fan sites re leggo and I have no problem in siding with the majority of these opinions from decent Bears who live in the real world and aren’t consumed with bile and fantasy.
Thankfully, zombies lack the power of speech.
. . . and further, Mr Leggoland does not seem to be a man of conviction. If he really, really believed in his blog a night in the cells would have been worth it. In Paul’s case (and I don’t, or want to, know the issue) he took the sensible way out. Mr Leggoland took the cowards way out!
Footnote to your opening paragraph:
Have just read that, at 1.4 million words, Leveson falls a mere 100,000 words behind Proust!
I dont think anyone outside of Rangers internet forum world know about Leggatt and if they read some of the garbage he writes, they would immediately disassociate themselves from his opinions.
Any hints or tips though on how to see what it was he wrote that triggered a call from the police ?
I read Leggo’s blog this morning and can’t remember anything offensive in it.He commented on the BAFTA awards,Mr Daly’s programme,the BBC and asked that questions be put to a Ms MacLaverty of BAFTA.It was all done in his “unique” style.
Whether it broke any laws or was offensive i’m obviously not qualified to say.I would imagine the complaint came from an obsessive on the green side of the barricade and that the blue sided obsessives will now be on red alert and ready to be offended.
To add to above,i just remembered, he displayed the letter he sent to Ms MacLaverty and the reply he received.
Its all getting a bit silly and if i’ve upset obsessives anywhere,i humbly apologise.Don’t set the fuzz on me guv’nor.
If there was addresses published on either letter perhaps that would be an issue – both under the data protection act and perhaps under some concern regarding public safety – after all these visits by Plod to all these guys offering safety advice must be eating into soneone’s budget…
I understand that Mr Leggat claims to have 3 million readers. As the blog host, then clearly he will know his blog statistics.
Of course this figure is only a small subset of the 500 million Rangers fans globally, so you are correct in referring to his audience reach.
With Eco like dedication i have solved the mystery.Seemingly he named people (allegedly) that are/were employed by HMRC.
My crunchy nut cornflakes obviously were more satisfying than Leggo’s blog and after a night at the panto,thankfully all of it exited my napper.
Surely Leggo was just following the precedent made by Ally “Alistair” McCoist – the demand to know who various people are, after all “we” have a right to know, Leggo just fulfilled that (tongue firmly in cheek officer).
Perhaps not wealthier, more spending power may be more accurate else why need for share issue, I’m sure the same would be true of the old Rangers all the time they were trading while insolvent.
Paul – serious question:
Does the existence of a registration/password limiting access have any sort of effect in law, ie does access have an effect?
In the dead-tree publishing world there isn’t a difference between subscription/newstand/fre in the eyes of the law burt rhe constant derogatory references to certain nationilitires and creed on some sites lead me to wonder if the rules are different if you have a self selecting audience?
I think that raises an interesting point and someone I think yesterday was making a point about claims made by chico on Rangers TV and whether they were actionable.
I think the newspaper/magazine subscription issue is a bit of a red herring as the identical product is also on public sale.
But what about a truly private restricted circulation? I suppose if it ‘leaks’ into public scrutiny then it automatically becomes subject to normal legal restraints.
But if it stays within its closed-group does that give any exemption? I tend to think it doesn’t on the basis that the subscribers might be of a certain mindset but that reading or viewing the published material could help reinforce their ‘legally wrong’ belief. I think it might be easier to see this in action with pornography rather than ideas and perhaps the Justice Potter Stewart ‘test’ (detailed in Paul’s post) might well come into play.
Still interesting concepts, rights and legal nuances at work which makes it a very difficult area not to mention the speed of online activity.
I should have mentioned that there was an interesting argument on RM (honestly sometimes there are things of interest if you strip away all the cr*p) on the subject with increased police activity taking place against posters – this was pre-leggo btw.
RM admin was basically saying clean-up your act because if the boys in blue come to us we have to reveal your details and you will then get a knock on the door.
Some posters did the usual beating of chests and loudly declared ‘Bring em on’. Others actually argued a lot of the cr*p could be cut-out anyway and really wasn’t needed and then others suggested basically childish ways of still getting the message across through subterfuge. The one that really amused me was that all the offending words should be asterixed – in view of the amount of offending words in some posts that would be an interesting thread to see.
Others of the barrack-room lawyer variety hammered on about the right to free speech and the SNP in general and Wee Eck in particular and the independent socialist republic which was being created to do down their freedom and traditions – no doubt directed from Rome rather than Holyrood.
But perhaps the most active discussion was between the site going subscription-only, to limit it to a certain element of Blue supporter, or leaving it, as is. The subscription-only followers used the argument that they could then say whatever they wanted on their private site and any ‘Timmy’ seeking ‘annoyance’ wouldn’t be able to go running to the authorities.
In a sense it takes us back to the old argument that this is not about the actual words spoken but the right to say them, irrespective of the offence caused to others – in the view of some Bears. I could equally reverse this perception to cover some Celtic supporters and personally no longer care who started it. It’s the present reality that IMHO requires to be tackled and not the irrelevant history which brought us to this point.
The RM ADMIN argued for leaving it, as is, on pure finance as RM could not survive financially without all the ‘visits’ from non-registered lurkers, who don’t have posting rights, which racks-up advertising revenue. I assume that a fair percentage of these are Celtic-minded which in itself is an interesting side-issue. RM also pointed out as well as covering their running costs they were also able to make charitable donations from the income.
Ha ha ha.
Quick before he removes it !
Everyone have a look at Bill McMurdo’s blog – More Knave Than Brave
Post by Torkemada at 9.52pm on 30 Nov
Don’t read the drivel – just the first letter of each line and see what it reads. I thought the formatting of the sentences was a bit funny. Explains why !!!
Ha ha ha
McMurdo has been owned as the teenagers say!
As a blogger myself, I cannot approve of people using comments to send subliminal messages.
However, props to Torkemada for that one!
And has anyone yet worked out why Robin Hood Airport is in Doncaster, and not Nottingham?
Same reason that Robin Hood’s Bay is in Yorkshire.
OK clever cloggs – tell us the answer 🙂 A guess off the top of my head would be that the sheriff was in Nottingham but the forest was in Yorkshire. Or, it could be that chico used to be in charge of the Yorkshire Tourist Board and thought he could get tourist numbers up by creating a new legend about Robin Hood – after all Robin was all about taking cash from one group and redistributing it to another one.
OK OK I know Robin took the money from the rich and gave it to the poor – but times change and it’s new history that’s being written after all 🙂
Going way off topic. The forest is now predominantly in Notts but is believed pre woodland clearances to have spread into what now is South Yorkshire but at the time would be roughly where the East and West Ridings met. Riding being a derivation of ancient Danish word thriding (a third). The legend of Robin Hood certainly involves Pontefract (West Yorks) and Doncaster (South Yorks) as well as places as far North East as Middlesborough. Another character in the legend Guy of Gisburn could well have hailed from the village of the same name in Northern Lancashire.
Glenn Gibbons will not win many plaudits from Rangers supporters for this piece which is a great pity as the article should be of interest to them.
However, as well as your excellent piece Paul, it throws up the problem of deciding where balance truly lies when commenting on an issue where two deeply-entrenched, opposing and intractable views are held.
The answer is also complicated by the fact that both sides form relatively tiny minorities in the population as a whole and this factor seems to be the first casualty of Truth in the exchanges which take place.
And, by and large, Society doesn’t give a toss about the ravings of these small cadres of hate-filled, so-called football fans, as long as they don’t stray from their natural habitat of the sewers and come to public attention which then requires action to be taken.
‘Free speech’ is not the right to say anything – it is the right to say anything without sanction, and it is an illusion. No country allows freedom of speech without imposing limitations. For example, in the UK The Public Order Act 1986 states that ‘A person is a guilty of an offence if he… displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.’ This limit on free speech falls short of the high bar set by John Stuart Mill in his defence of free speech. Mill argued that free speech should only be curtailed if it failed the Harm Principle, i.e. it was likely to cause direct harm to others (and by that he meant physical harm, not psychological).
Others have criticised Mill’s criterion as impossibly narrow, in reality resulting in few, if any, limitations on free speech. Instead, they argue that the Offensive Principle is a more practical and realistic benchmark for what should/should not be allowed utterance. The problem with the Offensive Principle is that someone’s compliment is another person’s insult. Our Public Order Act is based on the Offensive Principle.
There are those who argue that free speech is a right that either a) we currently have and b) is one that should not be tethered in any way. They are wrong on both counts. Our speech is curtailed by both legal and civil rules. The Public Disorder Act 1986 is an example of the former; and without rules of civil discourse there would be a cacophony of uncontrolled noise, preventing an interplay of meaningful discussion. For society to function at a basic level there needs to be rules of discourse (even on social media outlets). Arguing for unlimited free speech without sanctions – something no society allows – would lead to support for hate speech, untruths in advertising, the open dissemination of child pornography, etc. Indeed, unlimited free speech goes against the very notion of democracy because it would legitimise the portrayal of some groups in society as unequal citizens e.g. women, thereby undermining our principles of equality.
Free(ish) speech does not exist in a vacuum, i.e. it is not a philosophical abstraction, but operates within political and societal frameworks and is always judged against other competing values, such as security, privacy, harm, offence, etc. This makes sense. Determining how to govern free speech, and when to constrict or loosen it, is a delicate balancing act: get it wrong and we either descend into anarchy (anything goes) or tyranny (an Orwellian state). Bizarrely, we now found ourselves in a topsy-turfy political world, where the historical protectors of free(ish) speech – the Liberals – now want to curtail the rights of the press, whereas the traditional self-appointed guardians of public morality – the Tories – vehemently oppose any such censorship!
I would say I agree with just about everything you have written . . except 🙂
You say: ‘the Liberals – now want to curtail the rights of the press’. I haven’t actually read what Nick said the other day but I believe you may be misguided in this.
I don’t think anyone is (excluding the Tories) wishes to prevent The Press from telling The Truth in a balanced and objective way. But the press IMHO have no right to print lies and and generally no right to commit criminal offences against individuals and organisations to get a story unless there is an over-riding National Interest involved. And that national interest can never just be the tearing-apart of people’s lives just to sell newspapers or to achieve a hidden political agenda or indeed any agenda set by media owners and disguised from their readership.
And on the Tories you state they: ‘vehemently oppose any such censorship’.
The only reason the Tories oppose the introduction of a legal spine to oversee the Media is it would muzzle their very own attack-dog newspapers whose owners and shareholders are Tory through and through and who exist primarily to further the politics, power and re-election of the Tory Party.
I come from at least three generations of socialists who know instinctively, built on bitter experience, that if the Tories back anything then it usually bodes ill for those further down the dung-heap of society.
Ecojohn, I’m not misguided. You are conflating a statement of fact with a judgement on the morality of what is being supported/opposed. Nick gave a speech yesterday in Parliament, which I listened to, wherein he demanded that the current freedoms enjoyed by the press need to be lawfully regulated. I offered no opinion on either the press’s conduct or on Nick’s position.
For what it’s worth, I support lawful regulation of the press: they should be subject to the same laws as everyone else, for better or worse.
I responded stating that I agreed with just about everything you posted.
What I did not agree with is your statement: ‘the Liberals – now want to curtail the rights of the press’.
For what it’s worth, I still believe that anyone holding that position is misguided unless it is made as an extremenly tongue-in-cheek comment. I don’t understand your statement that I have conflated fact and morality judgement but if that is your opinion you are obviously entitled to it and I am happy to remain in blissful ignorance of my shortcoming.
My opinion remains where it was to begin with and that is that the Liberals have no wish to curtail the Freedom of the Press to report the truth responsibly and objectively but rather to curtail their power to destroy private lives, mainly of little people, who have no real protection or recourse against them. I would hope that this broad position would also be adopted by Labour, all other parties and even some Tories.
As to the Tory Party, they will always fall into the ‘Trojans bearing gifts’ classification with me and you may have mistaken my position on this but I was actually agreeing with your point on them.
If the use of the word ‘misguided’ has upset you I readily apologise but to be honest I actually found the comment you made so out of character compared to your ‘normal’ position on a wide range of topics it made me comment.
Ecojohn, no apology is necessary. My view is simple: there is a causal relationship between statutory regulation and press freedom. George Orwell would have no difficulty accepting that link. Ethical regulation of the press that depends on statutory enforcement necessarily removes a press freedom. Some newspapers abuse that ethical freedom (you give examples), the majority do not. That is different from saying, which I am not, that the press should be free to print lies or destroy lives. The intention of the law-makers in such a move – that the press should adhere to honest, decent reporting – is irrelevant. Once such a law has been passed then the press automatically lose the freedom of independence that they had before, with the danger of Orwell’s Ministry of Information becoming a possibility if not yet a probability. Why do you think those newspapers that behave professionally object to such a move?
Here is a more refined breakdown of my stance:
– a small percentage of the printed media behaved despicably and perpetrated lies with impunity, often destroying lives in the process.
– the Press Complaints Commission proved worse than useless.
– an independent self-regulatory body would be the preferred solution.
– if independent self-regulation failed to materialise or proved unworkable then statutory regulation is the only option on the table.
So, although I agree with statutory regulation, my position is incremental. I would draft statutory legislation, give the press an opportunity to self-regulate through a truly independent body but if that failed then I would implement statutory regulation.
I have watched the Irish dual layer model with interest but in general I am reserving my position till I have had a chance to read the Leveson Report and that will take me weeks possibly months. In the interim I will be watching the cross-party talks and the developments and suggestions that arise.
The huge flaw in idependent self-regulation is that there is no legal compunction for any organisation to actually join and even if they all did to start with then at the first bust-up with the organisation concerned it can just walk-away if there is no statutory underpinning as has already happened.
I also hope to see an organisation develop which can actually award compensation if an organisation has got it wrong so that people who can’t afford to go to court, either for financial or personal reasons, can obtain suitable financial redress.
I have deep doubts that this can be achieved through independent self-regulation because we are then getting into needing a much bigger structured organisation.
I really think you might be surprised at how many media outfits abuse their powers in a myriad of ways and it’s something which has been accelerating in the past 10-15 years. News International may provide a bit of a ‘block’ but a lot will be determined by whether convictions are gained and the sentences handed out.
However this is a very fluid situation and even Lord Hunt is reportedly becoing more of a hawk on the issue which surprises me a little. I would never accept any legislation which prevents a Free press bringing the truth to the Free Peoples’ of the World but it is self-evident they cannot continue as before when they broke criminal laws on an industrial scale.
And many many organisations are still frightened that they may yet be getting a knock on their door and that includes Scotland – as I said earlier there are very very few truly innocent media companies out there and I would venture likely to be none if morality was thrown into the melting pot.
I actually don’t believe we are a million miles apart on the issue, in any case, although our starting points may be different.
The one thing I do not understand is why so many people are being convicted for what they say on twitter! Is there No such thing as a joke or free speech any more! How can, say Frankie Boyle write or say what ever the hell he likes about anyone and everyone laughs and thinks no more about it but if say Jeremy Clarkson was to say the same thing all the do gooders would be up in arms! And if just the ordinary Joe on the street tweeted the same joke first they bcould be banned off twitter or even questioned by the police!
Whilst looking at the Bill McMurdo site i noticed a tweet allegedly sent by a maniac stating that he would like to see Mr Jardine live longer “so that he suffers like the c@@t he is”.
I don’t get the twitter thing and if that is what takes place on it then thank God i’m too old to “get it”
Doesn’t just happen on twitter it happens on trains and if you check the link you will see a terrible litany from a group of Rangers fans including: ‘Tommy Burns is a f****** skeleton’.
What needs to be dealt with here isn’t the medium – it’s the message! And that goes for all clubs who have an element of scum supporters.
Yup there are a lot of total nutters out there and this new media lark just gives them more outlets to spew their bile.
Imagine having to try to monitor this crap?
I’ll leave facebook,twitter and the rest to the generation that created it.
C’mon the Luddites!
Disgraceful comment about Jardine.
Of course we don’t know who actually sent the twitter and there are many very active agent provocateurs out there and some very dirty ‘games’ being played.
Supposition on these issues takes us nowhere – it is better to deal with facts.
I am dealing in fact, why is it the likes of Jimmy Carr Frankie Boyle and other “comedians” can make sick jokes either at their place of work or on twitter and it is seen as being Saud shock value but it’s a comedian saying it so it’s ok to say it and its ok for others to laugh at it! But there have been countless footballers fined for an off the wall remark that is not even at their place of work. The same footballers that get called names and take abuse every time they play football! I really don’t like myself for sticking up for footballers but this freedom of speech rule is a very hard one to understand!
it is very interesting that some people now have lots of comments/opinions on freedom of speech but i suspect they do not and will not show respect to the men who have given their lives for it , but would rather praise and sing songs praising murderers ( tynecastle midweek ) just my freedom of thought though.
Were they singing about peados running free in division tree or something? Nice thing to joke about!
i dont get your point “running free in div TREE or something ?
Division three, I could say I don’t know what a “div” is either but let’s not go there! I trust you don’t find the irony in asking if people do not respect the memory of those who have murdered their frends and families in theirs quest for this freedom of speech you speak of! Or does their freedom of speech not count?
all freedom of speech counts , but it is ironic that some people voice their freedom of speech to the maximum , then when others do the same they are offended , ring any bells , by the way i do not always agree with what paul or others blog but i must say at least he posts all comments unlike some others ,so, credit were its due.
It is a poor society where only one opinion is allowed and it can lead to dictatorship. But it must be remembered that Free Speech always carries responsibilities which temper the rights to it IMHO.
If you wish to understand the Scottish football set-up you should check:
Then you obviously haven’t seen the photograph of the banner displayed by some Rangers-garbed people at a SFL3 game roughly at the time of the Celtic Park Zombie banner spat. I am surprised you are not aware of it but just more bile from scum support and not worth a mention IMHO.
If you are offended then you should make a complaint to the appropriate authority.
i never said i was offended did i ? unlike some who are offended by all and ashamed of nothing ,and no i did not see the banner but have heard about it , when you refer to scum to do mean all rangers fans ? and bile ? did you hear the terror-fest mid-week? or did you have your selective hearing mode in use?
If you check my posts at:
December 1, 2012 at 10:41 am
December 1, 2012 at 2:55 pm
You will see my long-held view – for decades – re the scum element to be found associated with a number of clubs which has little, if anything, to do with football but invariably revolves round other issues important only to the sub group involved. I have consistently followed my line on here btw on many threads and posts.
I do not employ selective hearing but as I only saw the goal highlights from the game in question, on various channels, I can honestly state that I heard absolutely nothing untoward.
I trust however that if anything inappropriate did take place that the SFA would investigate and take the necessary action against the club/s involved not just regarding any offence which has ocurred but also to discourage any similar future offence.
There are of course a number of songs and chants which cause deep offence in Scottish Football and if the SFA is to take action then it must be applied equally to every club where a number of fans persist in causing offence. Personally I am all in favour of the penalty imposed being to play behind closed-doors at home with a 50% fine levied on ( made up of notional gate money, plus STs & average comps) going to the ‘innocent’ away team.
If this didn’t work I would increase the percentage to 75% for a second offence and 100% for a third offence. And if this still didn’t work then I would suspend the team involved for the rest of the season from all competition and should they have qualified for Europe they would lose their slot.
If we are to be serious about tackling the rotteness that exists in Scottish Football then the penalties require to be draconian and the vast majority of decent fans in a club must realise that they have an enormous part to play is shunning and identifying those who would destroy their club.
They need to stand up and be counted and speak with a clear voice and they need to do it now.
It’s not easy listening to or reading the views of people you don’t agree with.
The simplest response is to block your ears or close your eyes. You may of course respond with a little name calling. Idiots, fools or even scum are handy put downs. 🙂
It’s easy, too easy.
Something in the idea of free speech got me thinking. I want to be able to express myself freely without fear of suppression or penalty. I don’t think I’m alone in this, but I want more than just that.
Being free to speak or to express by other means contains within it the freedom to hear and to understand the views of others.
Is that not the greater freedom?
The price we pay for these freedoms is that if they is ours, then they are everyone’s.
If you don’t like what people say, there is always earplugs and blindfolds.:)
The price we pay for these freedoms is that if they are ours, then they are everyone’s.
Sorry for the mistook 🙂
agreed , but why is it only one club and its fans ? it is highlighted every time Rangers fans step out of line ,everyone and their granny hears it , but other clubs filthy chants ? and i dont buy the political chant argument , its football not some political party conference
Stunned to read that the Times is running a story that the AIM flotation of the Gers shares is gonna attract £20 million of intitutional investment?
I had read on here and totally believed that it was a Xmas turkey.
We shall see how it goes.
why are you stunned ? because you dont want it to be true ?
There is already 22+ million shares paid-for and issued to the original consortium whose mystery members may well be institutions.
I think the general take on the financial sites is that it is not one for widows & orphans and also some scepticism that institutions will invest heavily.
This isn’t necessarily a specific anti-Rangers opinion as far as I can see but more re football clubs in general because of poor past AIM and Main Market performances.
I still tend to think the main backing will come from Bears making an emotional punt but whether enough will be raised for what chico nneds – whatever that is – remains to be seen but not long now to wait.
As a Gers fan who is/was a bit wary of the intentions of non Gers investors,i wasn’t gonna invest when i first heard of the proposed flotation.
The learned opinion in here did suggest that the only folk who would “waste” their cash would be fans emotionally investing.
If there is interest from institutional investors at the level mentioned in the Times then that can only be a good thing?
I was stunned by the FTT verdict and again the bloggers had me convinced of our guilt.
Hopefully Rod and the bhoys efforts at the kangaroo court will result in a hat trick of stunners and i might stop believing everthing i’m told in here.
Thats my new year resolution sorted,,,,stop being gullible!
Everything I’ve read in the business pages concludes that this is one for the heart rather than the head. There are a number of questions which still hang over Newco, most notably from BDO, but these may be adequately addressed in the Prospectus. If you are thinking of investing your all look very carefully at the Prospectus and take some professional advice. Also, you need to form a judgement on Mr Green. Suffice to say, that I will be looking elsewhere.
If i have £500 after my girls have bled me dry at Xmas then i would rather buy a few bricks which would be worth more emotionally and very possibly financially.
On Charles,my head says no but my heart says yes.Something about the guy i like,but i did say i’m gullible.
There is a better mood in the blue air at present,so upwards and onwards.
I’m afraid the Times Market story is behind the paywall so I can’t see the whole story other than it isn’t official but from an anonymous ‘source’ and I thought you would have learnt what can come from listening to anonymous ‘sources’.
However, I don’t know that I would agree with you that money that any fan puts into any football club is ‘wasted’ no matter what actually happens to share values. Sometimes there is no alternative to save the club. In the Rangers situation we are told it’s not about saving the club as the club is cash rich with the ST money still in the bank and no debt. It also isn’t terribly clear what the money will be spent on.
These however are issues for Rangers fans to address. The rest of us no doubt will wait and see the share capital actually raised and what it is spent on. It will also be interesting to see what happens with the 22+ million shares already paid for and issued to the existing consortium at prices ranging from 50p to £1 a share according to Mr Ahmad.
If the Times Market report is correct, or more accurately if their anonymous source is correct, does that mean that some original investors (£1) will be taking a 30p hit per share on top of any dilution caused by the increase is issued share capital. I don’t know – do you have any thoughts on that?
It also raises the question that chico stated that the original investors (50p) had doubled their money. Well if the share flotation price is 70p accoding to my arithmetic that isn’t double and if any paid £1 a share they have obviously lost money.
Could it be that there will be more than one class of share sold at different prices? This could allow the original investors to cash-in and double their money as chico stated or stay if they wish.
The answers to these questions and many others will hopefully be contained in the AIM Prospectus and I await that with interest as I do enjoy a bedtime story of a certain genre 🙂
But I’m glad to see you take investment so seriously as I have difficulty remembering you writing any serious posts previously and here you were looking for investment advice all the time – well I never 🙂
I find it hard to believe that anyone with any experience of the law or legal decisions could be ‘stunned’ by the FTT Decision unless they had a closed mind. I also think there were few bloggers capable of fully understanding the legal principles and arguments involved coupled with the necessary tax accountancy knowledge and I doubt if any of that elite band would have come to a conclusion before the Decision as I doubt if any of them was privy to the evidence presented or the questioning of witnesses.
However on the flotation front and also the possible Upper Tribunal appeal by HMRC we will ned to wait and see what happens and to a large extent the same goes for the SPL Commission although there is now a lot of information which allows some kind of judgements to be made on what might happen.
Never had the slightest interest in the stock market.The concept that a bunch of pen pushing, button pressing wide boys who create nothing can control so much of peoples lives disgusts me.
Watching pictures of the stock markets in action causes me to drift off into camworld,where the same clowns are doing the same thing,only under 1000ft of water.
I remember the chaps in here who are well versed in that circus,stating that this attempt by Chico’s gang to raise funds wasn’t gonna take off.We shall have to wait and see, as you say.
The SPL commission hopefully won’t be decided by blogger,leaked info, or “evidence” gathered by clients of CFC,presented by the bold Rod.
I have no experience of legal matters and instead of heeding the MSM,i followed the new messiahs,the prize winners,the guys who were leading the way,the folk with the info and the wisdom,the bastions of integrity,truth,and virtue.Now you can understand why i’ve resolved to be less gullible in future.
The pitcher has tried his fast ball,knocked for a home run by Mr Thornhill.
The curve ball is being lined up,Chico might not send out a hitter as he suspects the balls been doctored.
Lets play ball!
Shouldn’t be hard cam – you are a gers fan and must have had lots of practice.
Sorry , should have started re; Being gullible.
Off topic, my favourite phrase in Italian is “la strada per l’inferno è lastricata di buone intenzioni”.
I’m quite chuffed that i translated that without cheating!
I agree Stephen,the Fiat Strada could go like a bat out of hell if well driven.
Reading Leggo’s comment I now fear we are living in a kind of Orwellian nightmare. I am no longer allowed to write anything at all and if I do, I will have my collar felt. Be very afraid.
Incidentally I trust all of you from both sides of the Old Firm, will be lined up at Ibrox to buy Leggo’s book.
Leggo certainly has the doublethink concept down to a fine art.
Outrage that something he has written is shut down.
Outrage that something others have written has not been shut down.
It seems you can be either for free speech or against it…or both 🙂
Yes Violet,i shall buy that and assist Leggo’s pension fund, or “free Leggo” campaign,whichever comes first.
He gives hints as to who is gunning for him in his latest blog.I am very good at adding two and two and getting five,so i have my own theory which i shall divulge ,,,here,,,soon,,,when i have bounced the post off three satellites and my other passports are in place at airport lockers.
Its panto season,,,look out Leggo,HMRC are behind you!!
By the way, it looks like Eco is having a problem with some other posters. Others he has to keep on the straight and narrow. What would we do without him. By the way, you might not be aware that Celtic’s supporters did their their image no good at Tynecastle.
I did hear about the latest songfest, but i do realise that the bhoys are legitimately expressing their political viewpoints and are in no way guilty of sectarian hate crimes.I know this as Ms Findlay of the Celtic Trust told me. As you know Violet i never argue with a lady.
Eco is a good guy,,,deep down.I was gonna do a long post highlighting his positive qualities and invite him over for Xmas dinner but he would have corrected me and told me how to stuff the turkey properly.
Aye, Celtic fans will take lessons on crowd behaviour from Hearts fans. Only at Tynecastle would you find the type of religious sensitivity towards one’s fellow traveller normally found at the home of your big cousins over at Ibrox.
I see that you’re still trying to curry favour with Cam. Do you swap photos? Here Cam, look at this one of Lennon being attacked at Tynecastle! Ok, if you give me that one I’ll let you have a Manchester Riot photo! Oh, to think we met on a blog!!
Doesn’t matter what kind of offer anyone makes,i’m never parting with my first edition,laminated,signed by the CCTV guys, photo of the bhoy who scudded a pound coin off Shugs napper.
Wee Fergus made me an offer a few years back so he could work out whereabouts of said coin,but i don’t wear a bunnet and a half price tour of Parkhead doesn’t appeal.
If you are determined to proceed with your suicide mission of arguing with Violet,then may your god go with you.
Would that be the same Shug that was removed from his job for anti-Catholic bigotry? A direct print onto brushed aluminium Dibond with a BUTLERFINISH look of the two Rangers fans leaving Lennon for dead would surely win Violet’s heart. She’s such a softie and a sucker for nostalgia. Ah, the good old days.
The Orwellian nightmare is here,now,in the shape of Mr Dalys documentary.
If SDM has indeed instigated legal requests for how confidential info is in the public domain and being used by bloggers(allegedly) to shape opinion then Leggo might have strayed into a minefield.
Me,i’m walking backwards slowly and sending mick up ahead to check things out.
Stand on the bits that look like mole hills calm your save at those bits the mines are in the flat bits Lol
@violet go back to stickle bricks from yesterday
I am not sure why you feel you ought to write the comment above, but with that kind of sophisticated debate, how can I compete.
I must say I do like your point above in reference to the behavior of Celtic fans. No condemnation of them just a reminder that Hearts and RFC are not angels. On another thread I spoke about the hate I have seen and see at Tynecastle from Hearts fans. That seems to be the difference between us, I condemn no matter who it is, you deflect any criticism of Celtic’s worst element by attacking another set of supporters.
One of my sons supports Celtic and occasionally we go to a Celtic game at Hearts. He refuses to go in with the Celtic fans because of their behavior.
Re. Cam, it’s called trying to see the other persons viewpoint – you should try it sometime.
Your contributions are not the self-declared balanced bon mots that you pretend. Previously they contained an element of intelligence and humour but after one or two people rattled your cage, that changed. The post under discussion is representative of your recent efforts: rather than an attempt at a high-level intellectual analysis on political signing and freedom of speech, it was a tawdry aside with the lowly purpose of gaining favour with Cam.
You are categorically wrong to state that I always “deflect any criticism of Celtic’s worst element”. For example, I objected to a sick comment directed at Sandy Jardine, but why let the truth block your narrow singular view? I don’t know what songs the Celtic fans sung at Tynecastle. If you tell me the songs then I’ll tell you if I object to them. I take it that the Hearts fans were a model of decency.
You shadow Cam in order to see his point of view? Eh? The truth is less noble. Your attachment to Cam is based on your shared belittling of ecojohn. Cam at least is amusing; you, on the other hand, are bitter. You no longer hold a point of view – you hold a grudge and it shows in your illiterate remarks.
Violet dost not shadow me rude knight,tis i who art forever in the fair maids shadow.
The lady hath spoken and no wormtongue shall sully her honour.A true knight would bow before the Lady Violet who has suffered at the hands of the Dark Lord of “whataboutery”
You need to control thy rebel forces and forgive them not their transgressions.I sense an ounce of goodness within thee Jousting John and after a nights sleep an apology shall be expected.
I carry the Lady Violets colours and honour must be satisfied.
My armour has been collected from Ramsdens and is being readied for the morrow.
I had the radio on earlier to catch up on the footie scores,its tuned to Clyde and its playing George Bowie’s dance music programme.
The pumping bass makes me wanna open a twitter account!
Bit Smokie in here …geddit…lol
Is it smoke from the flares or from the haddies?
With the changes in housing benefit affecting folk that stay in houses that are too large for them,does this mean the Celtic will need to move to a smaller stadium?
We now how Coyote Pete keeps a tight hold of the budget.
@cam at tynecastle the lighting was sh!t, cutbacks I hear so some flares had to be lit, couldn’t see the rangers mark 2 could hear them all the same..
@alex nice one, you remembered your pills tonight?
Of course, blue as always…..
I realise that Jim Traynor isn’t the most respected chap in here and a good few other “churnos” to paraphrase the incubated one,don’t inspire much confidence.
I was wondering what the reaction by CFC fans would be, if an unknown journo working for one of the MSM rags spent 18 months writing daily stories of how in his opinion,CFC had broken laws and rules.If the paper then opened up a comments section where all kinds of fantasies were allowed and the general consensus was that CFC must be severely punished.
I would suppose that this paper might be the subject of some criticism,possibly legal action.
Think about how the good name of a club could be damaged by that kind of churnalism,how the share price could be damaged,how unattractive it would be to potential buyers.
I suppose thats why papers can’t be printing anything that takes their fancy,,,,just saying!
It seems we are being linked in some way, even if only by TD’s. I seem to be beyond the pale however, I posted a sarcastic comment about Leggo and got 3 td’s and 0 tu’s. You responded and got 1 of each. What this tells me is that some of the people on this site not only have an intolerance for opinions voiced by RFC fans, they have an intolerance of anyone who tries to be even handed. In other words, they are intolerant of anyone who doesn’t share their view.
I think I am going to enjoy myself.
There is a name for such people, which unfortunately in the West of Scotland means something different. I raised this point a few blogs back but simply got thumbs down for it. There is no other explanation though.
I’ve been in here longer Violet and the chaps suffer me like the village idiot.
You have produced some quality work and i reckon you tread the middle ground very well.Its the plain commonsense that a few of your posts have displayed that will have me as your champion,fair maiden.
Thumbs down are a badge of honour and Paul does invite us into his cyber lounge in good spirit.I must plead guilty to messing up his cd’s and throwing a few sausage rolls about, but the guy just stuck me in the lobby for a while and then let me back in and i shall respect his hospitality.
I’ll have a sit on the couch and watch you getting a few of the bhoys up for a dance.
Bam! You are beginning to sound reasonable. Cease and desist!
Isn’t one of the arguments that mags/newspapers can be left somewhere and thereby gain exposure outwith the target audience – on that basis there are certsinly dangers on t’internet.
I don’t know what rules those responsible for passing on the info on to “the media” may have broken – interesting that to my knowledge and regardless of Leveson’s omission, laws on publishing in the public interest does not specify publishing on paper or over the ether… I REALLY don’t see bloggers in any danger here. Also its not like publishing prejudiced a trial of 12 good men and true… Would a blogger go to jail to protect his/her source? Up to the individual I guess. Either way, is there any actual interest from plod/proc fisc regarding this? I doubt there is from HRMC and I am sure MIH want to put it behind them and not keep it in the public eye.
IMO this is a bit of a red herring, a reaction in the heat of the moment- maybe even just a direct amswer to an MSM question dressed up as a call to arms – after all they were found asleep on the job as the story was broken by bloggers: what better revenge than to have the blogoshpere razed to the ground (I know, I know but after all these were the guys who claimed craig wjyte deleted his history from the net…).
Is Tom English seeker of truth and justice still flavour of the century here, don’t want to “stoke” any fires just asking like…:wink:
I think you may have missed the response I sent to you and I would hate you to think I was ignoring you o:
OK so I assume the bit that you refer to is: ‘The FTT proceedings ended in January. D&P’s lawyer told Lord Hodge that they do not know when the FTT decision will be issued.’
I assume that you are inferring that the QC concerned was either simply wrong or had been misled by D&P as I further assume that you are not accusing the QC of deliberately lying.
I think it would be helpful to look at the background to the report from the court – it came from a tweeter and I have no idea what their capabilities are like or what professional experience they have in law or journalism. So there is a possibility they were mistaken and without an alternative source that remains a possibility.
However, let’s assume the tweeter got it right on 31 October 2012 at the Court of Session. I actually commented on the tweet at the time and speculated whether the D&P QC had been thrown in at the last minute as it appeared preparation might have been better.
However, to fully investigate your concerns you need to establish: When exactly did D&P receive a copy of the FTTT Decision? If it was prior to 31 October was the QC representing D&P that day apprised of this prior to appearing in court on behalf of his client? If D&P received the FTTT report prior to 31 October what advantage would they gain by not advising the Court of this fact?
The release date of the Decision to the parties was 29 October – I don’t know when D&P got it – do you? I can’t see how they would get it before the parties because as far as I know they were not involved in the FTTT.
But even if they did receive it on 29 October this doesn’t prove that the QC acting for them 2 days later on a totally different matter would have known the FTTT Decision had been issued and we are still left with the issue of what possible effect would that have on the legal debate on 31 October.
It could well have been that D&Ps reply was merely in response to Lord Hodge being nosy and asking if the knew whether the FTTT Decision was in yet as he may well have picked-up a rumour that it had been issued a couple of days earlier.
If the FTTT Decision could possibly have affected the case he was dealing with then he would have adjouned until he had a copy of the Decision. I really can’t see what you hope to achieve as I can’t see any substance there. But if I’m not seeing something then pls get back to me.
I do know for a fact that ALL concerned received the FTTT report at business opening on 29/10/2012, I will leave you to figure out why anyone would tell a Law Lord that their client the Administrators didn’t know or had any idea when the result would be available on 31/10/2012.
I have given you a detailed reply to try and actually ascertain what point you are trying to make which I have never been able to establish since your first post and still can’t. I keep coming back to the simple question: What difference could it possibly make?
It seems you are making an awful large leap into the unknown on just a few words without having any notion of the context or indeed accuracy. I have based my answer on the citation you provided and I obviously can’t see what you do.
But I know when I am beaten and I certainly am in this case. It may well be that the QC was correct and D&P didn’t know when the Decision would be issued. And even if they did, was this ever communicated to the QC who was in court on a totally separate issue.
If you think the QC lied or delibertately misled Lord Hodge no doubt you will inform the necessary authorities as it is a serious allegation to make and natural justice would demand that the QC be allowed to clear his name of any such slur.
@every1 merryxmas and a happy new year to every 1 lets hope you all get lots of gifts and lots of happyness
ave been away from my desk top lately but am back now
Think i’ll just laugh at the empty seats in the Crazy House.Can Coyote Pete not give out free tickets or get people to change seats every 15mins to fool us all.
What slur ? you seem to be implying something by implying the notion of a slur, I know what I am implying and so do BDO, you will catch up once the cat is out of the bag.
alex only understands yes or no replies – your’e only confusing him.
Sorry Maggie; you’re only confusing him.
Damn this recession another good company about to be struck off the companies house register
Name & Registered Office:
CAPELLA BUILDING (TENTH FLOOR)
60 YORK STREET
Company No. SC426693
Status: Active – Proposal to Strike off
Date of Incorporation: 21/06/2012
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC):
Accounting Reference Date: 30/06
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 21/03/2014
Last Return Made Up To:
Next Return Due: 19/07/2013
Date of changePrevious Name
31/07/2012RFC 2012 LIMITED
22/06/2012RFC 0712 LIMITED
whats your take on the above alex o and the international added to the list of new companys whats green up to with the deeds would you not be better dealing with the facts of sevco rather than trying to point score on here why dont you do a post about it who owns the deeds and why ???or dont you know lol