What is illegal offline should be illegal online” has been the sensible mantra of prime ministers and secretaries of state for a number of years. The aim has been to toughen regulation on social media, in particular over threatening language, … Continue reading
A Point of View: Why we should defend the right to be offensive Free speech can make for uncomfortable listening, argues Roger Scruton, but it needs to be defended even when it gives offence. To people like me, educated in … Continue reading
An email dropped in my inbox Friday evening from P.J. Cawkwell, Rotherham Community Champion, Labour Party member, buddy of the Deputy Leader of RMBC Jahangir Akhtar and denizen of Conisborough, Doncaster, it read:
You are excluding me from Rotherham Politics simply because I don’t follow in line like xxxxxx and the other people you have on their, all back slapping and cheering each other on as you bully and harass the Borough Council and/or its Officers. That continue’s to this day as I refuse to fall in line.
Actually, my letter in the Rotherham Advertiser was correct. The website address was correct, the content was correct, your view on Chris was correct”
Firstly, You are not banned from Rotherham Politics, it is online for everyone to read.
As for making a comment, the reading of all three pages of About Rotherham Politics is advised, before making comments, as comments will not be published if adjudged to be outwith the spirit of basic etiquette that this blog subscribes to, along with most blogs of our kind. Having comments published, is not a right, but a privilege which recently yourself and others have abused.
The key to getting a comment published is for it to genuinely add to the debate or contribute new information on the subject matter under discussion. In your case, none of your recent comments pass any of the criteria above and consequently they have been rejected. You are very welcome to comment further in the future and hope you will enjoy greater success, as a result of reading this advice.
Secondly, your defence of my criticism of the falsehood contained within your ‘Tiser letter still contains a falsehood that I simply must challenge. I quote from your email; “your view on Chris was correct” This is simply an outrageous distortion of the truth!
I draw your attention once again to the post in question: The Bank of Rotherham – From the Taxpayers Alliance, please read it very carefully. This story, was free of opinion from either myself or on behalf of Rotherham Politics. We also have a disclaimer, I quote, “We are not responsible for the views of contributors, nor for the content that this site links to.”, that means we do not endorse the opinions found through links provided on this blog.
So It seems incredible, that you should continue to state that Rotherham Politics and/or it’s editor Rik, are opposed to Mr Chris Hamby or his project to revitalise High Street and it is offensive to us that you continue to repeat your undoubted libel, safe in the knowledge that ordinary folk have no chance of redress!
I will deal with the other element of your email separately as it appears to be dealing with another issue.
Yesterday, 15th September, has broken all previous records by a country mile. We exceeded 300 hits on a single day for the first time with 309. The previous record day was back in July with 264 hits. Thanks to all of you that made this possible.
Our record breaking post, Gerald Smith case goes international – Swedish ‘Kristdemokraten’ picks it up!, has surged past the 500 mark with a total of 546 hits to date and attracting a record number of comments at 63!
Thought readers would like to see this from Index on Censorship about law breaking local government bullies trying to silence criticism. Outrageous!
The government’s draft defamation bill — presently under scrutiny from Parliament’s Joint Select Committee — contains measures to exclude such bodies from bringing defamation actions.
This springs from a 1993 court decision now referred to as the Derbyshire judgement. This ruling established the principle that public bodies such as councils, local authorities and government departments may not sue for libel. Read on……and weep!
Date: Monday, 8 August, 2011, 12:27
FOI 2011.08.08 – £25,000 LOAN TO ROTHERHAM UNITED IN 1986
As an active and empowered citizen with an interest in the costs and activities of those who are elected and paid very well to govern our town on our behalf with our consent, I have lately become acquainted with the following story from “25 Years Ago”, p40 of the “Rotherham Advertiser”, Friday 5 August 2011″, and which I reproduce with their consent below:
August 8, 1986
“Rotherham councillors who sanctioned a controversial £25,000 loan to the town’s football club have no idea what interest will be charged. The embarrassing admission was made at a full meeting of the Council this week, when Conservative councillors demanded more details of the loan made four weeks ago.
“We want to know if the loan is secure, when is the deadline for repayment and what percentage interest we are getting from Rotherham United”, asked Cllr Tony Flynn, leader of the Conservative Group. But Cllr Eric Manns, vice-chairman of the Policy Committee which sanctioned the loan, said the details were locked away with the director of the club, Mr Syd Wood.”
Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act I require you to provide me with the following information in relation to the above loan that was made with public funds to Rotherham United:
(a) what interest rate was applied to the loan
(b) was the loan secured, and if so, please describe such security
(c) when was the deadline for repayment
(d) was the loan repaid in full and within the agreed term
(e) please supply a copy of the loan agreement
Please supply the above information in electronic format and within the timescale prescribed in the Freedom of Information Act.
Donald H Buxton
“Carmarthenshire County Council’s Chief Executive, Head of Law and Head of Resources now have delegated powers to commence and fund (with taxpayers money) libel proceedings against the public and the press on behalf of themselves and other officers. The council as a governing body, has now enabled itself to bring and fund illegal libel actions under the cloak of a private claimant. This is the only council in the UK to have granted themselves these powers. This is unlawful, open to abuse, a threat to free speech and a grave misuse of taxpayers money.” Pinched from Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more.
This approach from a public body is quite outrageous, illegal and just plain wrong in a democracy. Free speech under attack indeed!
Bloggers who receive this kind of treatment are advised to refer to Arkell vs Pressdram, in their response.