Electronic Intifada…
Blair is close friends with Bernard Arnault, the chairman of the luxury goods conglomerate Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy Group (LVMH), and has refused to publicly disclose whether or not he accepted a paid post as adviser to Arnault, as reported in the media. LVMH has been implicated in benefiting from Israel’s occupation through its subsidiary, the cosmetics retail chain Sephora.
…
Blair’s friendship with Arnault, LVMH’s chairman, dates to his time as UK Prime Minister. Arnault is one of the richest men in France, with an estimated net worth of more than $27.5 billion. Blair’s three eldest children studied in France while he was prime minister, and often stayed at Arnault’s mansion in Paris. Indeed, the Daily Mail reported in February 2007 that Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament Norman Lamb warned Blair “It is very dangerous to take hospitality from very wealthy individuals who may be seeking to wield influence” (“Cheri’s pride graduate girl”). Blair’s friendship with Arnault continued after he stepped down as premier and accepted the position as Quartet envoy.
In January, the Daily Telegraph revealed that Blair was to be appointed as Arnault’s personal advisor. Although the announcement was repeated by Agence France Press, neither Blair nor LVMH have officially confirmed or denied the appointment. When asked for clarification in a written request from The Electronic Intifada, the office of Tony Blair remained silent. The lack of transparency on Blair’s position stands in stark contrast to his portfolio as Quartet envoy which tasks him with teaching Palestinians how to build up transparent government institutions.
There’s too much to just excerpt, so just go and read the whole thing and be reminded, if you need to be, why Tony Blair is a shister.
This is getting fucking ridiculous.
Surely an opinion is not legally fucking actionable? Calling someone or something stupid is subjective and so not a fact.
When Councillor John Dixon called the Scientologists stupid, that was his opinion. If you put Scientology up against, ooh, I don’t know, any religion I could come up with, then it doesn’t look quite such a stupid thing to be dicking around with. Compare it to atheism and yes, it’s fucking stupid.
The same goes for design. The old addage of beauty being in the eye of the beholder is true. Take a look at this site. It’s Gordon Browns’ place on the web. Y’know, the ex-prime minister.
What do you reckon to it? I think it’s a bit shit and agree with this chap, Luke Bozier…
I apologise if I’m blunt, but this website is not befitting of a former Prime Minister. It has an unprofessional feel to it, and doesn’t portray the image of a statesman and one of Labour’s biggest figures.
Some other people think differently, like Tangent One who make the template for it. In fact they like it so much they are threatening to try and find a judge that likes Gordons’ site and fuck Luke for all he’s worth in a libel suit.
What the fuck has happened to make these people and entities think that a subjective opinion is actionable? Isn’t libel supposed to be about the mis-representation of facts? How can a design be factually good? Like hasn’t tried to present Tangent as trying to con Gordon Brown or any of they’re other customers, he’s just stated his opinion that they’re website template isn’t suitable for an ex-prime minister. Luke even states that Tangent make “some brilliant websites for the likes of Levi’s, Channel Five, Cadillac & Borders…”.
Tangent PLC’s executive director…
I really don’t like the prospect of either a public slanting match or legal action, but if I need to protect my company’s business and reputation, I will.
May humbly suggest two ways of protecting Tangents reputation, and hence business…
- make better websites
- do not threaten spurious legal action over opinion, especially on the internet. It has a habit of er, not going as planned
This is exactly why law should not be made from religious beliefs.
Lord Justice Law (do you reckon he changed his name just to be that cool?)…
In the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.
read the whole post from Heresy Corner.
I’ve just had this comment left that, after checking with Tyrone about it’s accuracy, deserves a post of it’s own…
Groucho –V- Murphy
The Groucho –V- Murphy case is now at an end as the Groucho Club pulled out at the very last minute. The Club issued a discontinuance notice on the 3rd November 2009.
This move came just 5 days after a manager from the Groucho Club came forward and made a statement to support Mr Murphy’s case. The lengthy and revealing statement with attached exhibits that included internal e mails and CCTV footage from the club was immediately lodged with the Courts. The manager’s damming statement totally refuted the Groucho Clubs statement of case. Murphy is now chasing the Groucho Club for his costs.
Another interesting development in this case is that the Groucho Club have issued a Bankruptcy petition against Murphy for costs of £5000 on the very same day they issued the discontinuance notice for the failed libel action which will allow Murphy to claim his costs which are over £50,000.
This raises some very serious questions about the Groucho Club’s tactics and overall conduct throughout the duration of this case. The Groucho Club would of course have know that Murphy is entitled to claim his costs (£50k) so why would they then would they make such a dubious move and issue a bankruptcy petition for a much lower amount of £5k . Was this nothing more than an underhanded tactic that was merely done to avoid paying Murphy’s costs in the failed libel action? If so, is this an abuse of the legal process? If not, what other possible reason or motive could the Groucho Club have to make such a dubious move?
There is yet another episode to this dark and lengthy saga – Murphy who at all times has represented himself as a litigant in person (LIP) had taken an action against the Groucho Club in a Wales County Court This was a Data Protection Act case, Murphy’s statement of case was that the Groucho Club had not complied with the Data Protection Act and failed to supply him with CCTV he requested from the evening of the 12th June 2008 . Murphy’s case also stated that the Groucho Club had more than 2 CCTV cameras at the Club on the evening and he was seeking the additional footage from these cameras
The Groucho Clubs position in the case was that they did supply Murphy with all of the footage he requested and that the club had only ever had 2 CCTV cameras, 1 camera in Dean Street and 1 camera in the reception. The Groucho Club stated they had complied with and adhered to the Data Protection Act and provided Murphy with footage in response to 2 separate subject access requests under the Data Protection Act.
Murphy also stated that the Groucho Club CCTV system was not registered with the Information Commissioners Office until a year later 25th June 2009 and any footage that was recorded before this time would have been recorded illegally. Murphy also stated that the CCTV system had no signage in place or a trained or licensed CCTV operator
The footage supplied by the Groucho to Murphy was alleged by the Groucho Club to be from the 2 CCTV cameras in the club, (1) Dean Street and (2) the main reception of the club. This was the Groucho Clubs official position for over a year and the same line was also stated by the Groucho Club in their statements before that were put before the Courts.
The Groucho Clubs Defence to particulars of Claim also stated clearly that the Groucho Club had only 2 CCTV cameras (1) Dean Street and (2) the main reception of the club and that they had supplied Murphy with the footage from those 2 CCTV cameras. In addition a solicitor within the firm of Devonshires, who represented the Groucho Club also stated to Murphy over and over again when he inspected the footage at the firms London offices, “this is the camera from (1) Dean Street and this is the camera (2) the main reception of the club”.
During the case Murphy lodged evidence with the courts that suggested that the footage supplied to him by Groucho club was not at all from the main Reception CCTV camera of the Groucho club but was footage from an obscure doorway at no 42 Dean Street, the other end of the building.
This is where the Groucho Club story changes; they put forward a new version of events that totally contradicted their earlier version. This new and different version that came very late in the case had now stated that the Groucho club did indeed have more cameras than the 2 CCTV cameras as Murphy had asserted, but they said that the 3rd camera was not working on the evening of the 12th June 2008, the footage from the night that Murphy had been seeking.
Murphy maintained throughout that he viewed himself on the CCTV monitor in the main reception of the Groucho Club on the 12th June 2008 and sought an explanation from the Groucho Club as to why he was supplied with footage from a CCTV camera from an obscure doorway at no 42 Dean Street instead of the footage from the CCTV camera in main reception. He did not get a satisfactory answer
Yet another twist in the case, Murphy had managed to procure the old CCTV system from the Groucho Club and he had brought it to the Court as evidence. This included the Video Recorder, Video tapes, a CCTV Switcher and the original CCTV cameras from the club. The CCTV system also included the CCTV camera from the main reception. This CCTV camera is still in good working order
Margaret Levin the managing director of the Groucho Club was in attendance in Newport along with a specialist barrister and a very expensive legal team. The court denied an application made by the Groucho legal team to dismiss Murphy’s case on the grounds it was totally without merit. Although Murphy did not succeed with his application he did however lodge crucial evidence with the Courts that will be used in another action that Murphy is planning against the Groucho Club
When the issue of costs was addressed the Groucho Club sought £21,000 in costs. In addition Margaret Levin the managing director was seeking first class rail tickets for her trip to sunny Newport, Murphy strongly objected to this and stated to the court that he, as a litigant in person and could not afford first class. It was during this stage of the proceedings that the managing director, Margaret Levin lost her temper and blew a fuse. She shouted to the Judge “Don’t be so bloody cheap”
Margaret Levin’s superior demeanour towards the Court and the proceedings was obvious to all who attended. Although they sought £21,000 in costs the Court answers was to award the Groucho the poultry sum of £220 in costs. This was a severe kick in the teeth for the Groucho Club as Margaret Levin’s haughtiness had now cost the Groucho Club dearly
I think what we all forget is that Murphy is one man, a litigant in person who has taken on a very powerful media club and its owner corporation, He has succeeded in the libel case where others have failed and has had he guts to see it through to the bitter end and never back off.
I feel honoured. I feel like my application to a gentlemans club has been accepted. Although membership isn’t as exclusive as it once was, I feel I’ve worked for this and earned it – without being rude or abusive either.
If you’ll excuse, I am now going to don my smoking jacket and settle into a high-backed leather armchair with a big cigar and fine single malt.
Tory Politico has received a Nasty-O-Gram from an organisation calling themselves Politico…
(click to enlarge)
The letter then goes on to explain how people are going to get confused between an American “media company covering national politics and Washington governance” and a British blogger that talks about British politics from a Conservative angle.
Oh, they also want Tory Politicos’ domain name.
First of all, who the fuck uses Alexia to gauge a website? No fucker I’ve heard of.
Secondly, 57.3% of TPs’ visitors are from the UK, according to Alexia. So, the vast majority then, and even more so for visitors of TPs’ site that get routed through a foreign country for some reason, like AOL. As TP points out…
While I can understand why they are saying only 57% of visitors are from the UK this is a wholly false claim. According to Google Analytics, which has been tracking traffic since the site launched, 85% of readers are from the UK with only 5% coming from within the United States.
Thirdly, what sort of fucking lawyer uses the word ‘presumably’? This smells like a fishing expedition to me.
Fourthly, the word ‘politico‘ is a word that is in common usage, as opposed to a word made up especially for a product or brand, and so is not copyrightable.
This isn’t the first time Politicos’ lawyers have surprised someone…
The College Politico has received a cease-and-desist letter from lawyers for Politico, demanding that he stop using the word “Politico” in his name — and that he give them control of his domain.
It doesn’t look like Politico have won that one (yet) as The College Politico is still going.
But there’s more. And it’s quite shitty too…
Dear Reader:
Faced with a trademark legal challenge and protracted litigation by the publishers of the newspaper and website ¨Politico,¨we have reluctantly chosen to change the name of our publication, from“La Política” to “CandidatoUSA.”
Politico won that one. The letter continues with how it happened…
The publishers of Politico – launched in January by Washington D.C.-based Allbritton Communications, also owners of seven ABC television affiliates and three other news channel outlets – claim La Politica infringes on their trademark.
The name change odyssey began,without our knowledge, on July 11when Jim VanderHei, Politico’s co-founder and editor, called me.
He had heard of our plans to launch La Política and wanted to know more. I gave him details of
our preparations to launch an electronic trade newsletter on the business of reaching Hispanic voters.
At his suggestion, we agreed to talk again after the launch of La Política on November 5 to explore avenues of collaboration between Politico and our publication.
It sounds promising for La Politica. Not even launched yet and already someone backed by a big news company is interested in working with them.
We did launch on November 5. But next day, instead of a call from VanderHei, we received a two-page aggressive and threatening letter from Politico’s attorney demanding that we “cease and desist” from the use of the La Política name because they hold a registered trade mark in the term “The Politico.”
This is Jim VandeHei. I would post a picture of him but, well, given his history…
The chap behind La Politica wrote to Jim and even offered to go to Washington to talk about how they might resolve this nicely, but no. That didn’t work.
Anyway, because of the money behind Politico, La Politica capitulated and La Politica now points to Politico.com.
I have no idea how this is going to play out, whether TP being British based is going to work in his favour or he will just end up being extradited, or if Politico are gonna leave it and are just trying their luck, but what ever happens, I wish you the best of luck with it, Tory Politico.
What I like about this country, is that for those most in need, those that can’t afford it themselves, there is legal aid provided for them.
A Belgian couple are sueing some magazines for infringing copyright on a photo of themselves. Only not all of the magazines they are suing published the photo some only mentioned it.
Tech Dirt…
‘a mere reference to an image should be considered a reproduction of the image’!”
WTF?
via 21st Century Fix
The BBC caved in…
[Claimant] In September 2009, a joint statement was agreed and issued by Trafigura and the solicitors representing around 30,000 Ivorian claimants who had brought personal injury proceedings in the English High Court. The statement (which was endorsed by Mr Justice MacDuff, the Judge who had been due to hear the trial, as “100% truthful”) recorded that the experts instructed in that case had been unable to identify any link between exposure to the slops and the deaths, miscarriages and chronic and long-term injuries alleged.
Following Trafigura’s complaint over Newsnight’s story, the BBC carried out a detailed further review of the available evidence and of Trafigura’s detailed response in its Reply in these proceedings. The BBC accepts the conclusions reached by the experts in the personal injury action and reflected in the Reply. The BBC therefore acknowledges that the evidence does not establish that Trafigura’s “slops” caused any deaths, miscarriages or serious or long-term injuries. Accordingly, the BBC has withdrawn those allegations and has agreed to broadcast an appropriate apology on Newsnight, to join in the making of this Statement in Open Court, and to publish the Statement on its website.
Defendant
My Lord, on behalf of the BBC I accept everything my friend has said. The BBC withdraws the allegation that deaths, miscarriages or serious or long-term injuries were caused by the waste and apologises to Trafigura for having claimed otherwise.
The BBC hopes that by the joining in the making of this Statement it will assist in setting the record straight.
via BaldyWilson Index On Censorship
From a comment left a Matt Wardmans’ place…
The pre publication test case for libel the famous Groucho Club instigated against award winning filmmaker and writer Tyrone D Murphy is now at an end
The Groucho club, after nearly a year has issued discontinuance notice just a week before a case management conference was to take place where an order time for standard disclosure would have been made
The notice was issued shortly after a witness came forward. The statement was lodged with another Court in Wales in relation to a Data Protection Act case that Tyrone D Murphy issued against the Groucho Club
The witness who was a manager from the Groucho Club had just left his employment at the Club recently. His detailed statement not only refutes the Groucho Club statement of case but is a detailed statement of the events at the Groucho Club over a five year period.
The case now being at an end, no deal was done or no deal will be done. The book “The Groucho Gate Affair” is going ahead.
www,g-book.co.uk
The Groucho Club didn’t really have much to say on the matter.
Background here.
