Sim-O

Daily Mail…

The father of James, Ralph Bulger, 43, said it was a ‘disgrace’ that his family was still in the dark about why Venables had been sent back to jail. ‘It is one more kick in the teeth for James and his family,’ he said.

Mr Straw said it was ‘not in the public interest’ to reveal how Venables, now 27, breached his parole nine years after he was controversially released from custody.

Yet hours earlier, Home Secretary Alan Johnson had declared on TV that he believed ‘the public do have a right to know’.

Do we? Really? Why do we have the right know why John Venables has been locked up again. In fact it could be said that we already know. The reason being that he violated the terms of his license.

He was given a second chance, unlike my son, but he has blown it and now he deserves for those same human rights to be revoked and for the Government to reveal all.

We, as a society, do not revoke human rights just like that, like criminals do*. As a society, i would hope, we are better than that. If Venables has blown his second chance then he will be prosecuted for any new crimes that he may have comitted and be suitably punished for them.

I’m not saying thatBut why do we have a right to know, apart from the shrill, emotional ‘because he’s a killer!’?

*Although some MPs think we should

Should Sky be hosting a debate of the three main party leaders?

Sky may be a big name, but they’re not exactly a national broadcaster, are they? They have what? Ten million subscribers (and expected to lose about 17% of them) and the whole of the Sky owned channels have about 7% of the nations viewers. They are not open to everyone like the terrestrial channels are.
For example, if you hardly ever watch the BBC, you could still switch over for and watch the debate about domestic issues, but if you want to watch the debate based on international affairs, which is the one Sky will be hosting, you can’t unless you subscribe to Sky for 12 months. Big important football games are shown on terrestrial and not just satellite channels, so why is this debate restricted to such a small audience?

Many people not only do not want Sky, but cannot justify the expense. In these days of everyone having to tighten their belts and the nature of these debates, being part of the general election campaign, should such a massive amount of people not be able to see it?

The Scots may be moaning about the way that there will be no representative from their major parties (aren’t they having their own debates now?) but with Sky showing one of the debates, it is like one of the terrestrially broadcast events being shown only on STV.

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.

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

(Click to enlarge.)

Get your own here.

via Chicken Yoghurt

The #kerryout campaign to unseat Bristol MP Kerry McCarthy is hotting up, but it’s a load of old bollox, really.

Tory-Politico…

Tomorrow [that’s today, now] will see the launch of the #KerryOut campaign, which is being coordinated by some of the top Tory bloggers, and is designed to support Conservative PPC, Adeela Shafi, in her battle to unseat the disgraced MP.

I’m at work at the moment and because of restrictions on my computer can’t show you how those top tory bloggers are showing the nice side of the Conservatives on Twitter. I may do later if I remember/can be bothered.

There are a coup of things about this campaign that make it stand out as shit. The first is that Kerrys’ Bristol seat is a safe one, I gather, and so is unlikely to be lost, making all the effort and money spent wasted when, as the Tories should be concentrating their efforts on seats they have a chance of winning.

The second load of crap about this campaign is, what the fuck is it actually about? As far as I can tell, it’s about the way Kerry has embraced social media…

Labour’s self appointed ‘Twitter Tsar’, Kerry McCarthy, believes in the power of online media, so much so that following the Sun’s endorsement of David Cameron she tweeted “Labour doesn’t need the Sun – we’ve got Twitter!”

‘Self appointed Twitter Tsar’? Don’t give me that shit. Kerry is Labours’ online media capaign co-ordinator (or somesuch title). Last time I looked ‘online’ encompassed more than just fucking Twitter and the very fact the she is Labours’ campaign co-ordinator rules out the self appointed comment as, I’m fairly certain, Kerry isn’t the only member of the Labour Party.
That comment about not needing the Sun? For fucks sake. It’s tongue-in-cheek, a bit of rabble rousing. With a sense of humour failure like that, these cunts could pass as lefties.

Kerry has apparently been spending £400 a month on food, and I think, £400 on a new bed. Whoopy fucking do. Because of that Kerry is labelled ‘disgraced’. I’m not commenting directly whether it is right or wrong, but how about these petty Torie fuckers going after they’re own party memebers that have been feathering their nests.

The Independent…

Kerry McCarthy registered second home in Bristol in 2005. Claimed £117 hotel while claiming £600 in rent, refused by fees office. Bought house in London, claimed £3,657 for stamp duty and moving costs

Ok. That might seems a bit dodgy, might not look to good. How about removing ‘disgraced’ Tory MPs that have been troughing? Removing Theresa Villiers might make the Tory bunch of cunts more electable…

Theresa Villiers claimed almost £16,000 in stamp duty and professional fees on expenses when she bought a London flat, even though she already had a house in the capital.

or David Davis…

David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, who grew up on a council estate, spent more than £10,000 of taxpayers’ money on home improvements in four years.

or Greg Knight…

Greg Knight, an MP with a collection of classic cars, claimed £2,600 in expenses for repair work on the driveway at his designated second home as part of a £21,793 bill to the taxpayer for maintenance and security.

or James Clappison…

A shadow minister who owns 24 houses claimed more than £100,000 in expenses, including thousands for gardening and redecoration.

or… well, you get the picture.

The thing that is missing from this campaign is real reasons for getting rid of Kerry. Has she bolloxed up her constuency? Has she spouted a load of shite in commons debates, like her arch nemesis Nadine Dorries? I don’t know because #kerryout won’t tell me.

It’s just a childish, vindictive load of shit.

Fucking grow up you bunch of twats.

Louise Bagshawe, Conservative PCC for Corby…

@Placepot oh i think it’s totally a class issue. If Labour cared about animal cruelty why allow battery farming or cosmetic experimentation?

David Cameron…

“My own view is the hunting ban is a bad piece of legislation, it hasn’t worked, it has made a mockery of the law, a lot of time was wasted on it, and I think we would be better off without it. That gives you a clue to how I will vote.

Using the same logic as Louise, David Cameron doesn’t give a shit about animal cruelty. After all, if it’s alright to rip a fox to bits using dogs, which is undeniably cruel, then why is it wrong to kick the face off a dog, or to throw a cat in the river with only a couple of bricks for company in a bag or to make lame a horse with a blade in the middle of the night. Presumably by the logic that Louise forwards, the RSPCA should be a proscribed organisation.

The ban on fox hunting may be a poor piece of legislation, but that is no reason to repeal it, modify it instead. The Tories claim that they don’t like animal cruelty, who would claim otherwise? Are they going to ban battery farming or the use of animals in cosmetics manufacturing?

Nice bit of ‘whataboutery’ there, Louise.