This is not the most earth shattering post, but I have something of a tradition of publishing legal threats and other warnings against this blog.
Four days ago in a post about Lutfur Rahman’s latest legal developments I mentioned that he had hired eminent QC Ben Emmerson to fight his proposed judicial review against the Election Court judgment.
In the following two paragraphs I wrote this:
He has also engaged another lawyer of (a slightly different) note to help him fight the cost and freezing order: Saghir Hussain (right). He’s also a lawyer specialising in human rights and is based in Whitechapel. He’s also listed as a board member of Cage (formerly Cage Prisoners) and among his former clients was a certain Mohammed Emwazi, aka “Jihadi John”.
He represented Emwazi from 2009 and before he became one of the world’s most wanted. The full details are here. You’ll remember from the controversy earlier this year that Cage claimed that MI5’s hounding of Emwazi was a catalyst in him becoming Islamic State’s poster boy executioner.
Alongside those paragraphs I published this photograph:
That’s Saghir Hussain.
Yesterday, I received the following email from Cage:
Dear Sirs
We are writing in relation to a blog post recently uploaded to your site, the post in question can be seen here.We note that you have used an image from our site, which contains our logo on it, without seeking permission prior to posting. Furthermore, the source of the image has not been adequately referenced, if at all. In any event, we have not and do not authorise the use of said image on your site.
We therefore request that you immediately take down the image and refrain from using our images in the future without seeking our express written permission beforehand.
We hope that this matter can be resolved amicably, without further escalation.
Kind regards
CAGE
I emailed back to ask which image they were referring. I followed this up a few minutes later with this:
Further to the below, I presume you’re referring to the image of Saghir Hussain.
If so, that’s a screen grab I took personally from a video already posted/published on YouTube. I’m not aware of any permissions I need from you for that.
If I hear no more from you, I’ll consider that the end of the matter.
Many thanks.
Ted Jeory
There was a clue to the source of the image in the URL for the photo (https://trialbyjeory.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/screen-shot-2015-07-19-at-21-58-55.png) but for Cage’s benefit, it was from this YouTube video published last year of a public event at which they had unfurled their banner.
I haven’t heard back. Perhaps they have more important things to do.
As they were busy writing to me yesterday, they were also reportedly considering defamation action against David Cameron for branding them ‘extremist’ in his speech on Monday.
Bigger fish to fry.
Trial by Jeory 
I think they’ve got a point.
Strictly speaking there are two copyright issues – one relating to the video (since they produced and published it) and one relating to the logo (top right – which is a branding issue). Disney tends to send out very similar letters – and they take ‘no prisoners’! 🙂
I think you may well have ‘fair use’ copyright exemption – on the basis of reporting news – re the video. I’m not sure if that extends to the logo top right – included presumably to signify it’s one of their videos.
I’d add in the credit line to the YouTube video to the image at the very least. The credit line needs to be right next to the image (insert a caption with an embedded link) in that post – not in the next post.
Other options are to crop the logo out the image and/or isolate the image of Hussain from the background. Might be worth thinking about.
If they’re not happy with you they could ask Google to bury your post on the basis of copyright infringement.
Personally I’d recommend you find out from them what you need to do to keep matters on an even keel.
The simple option is to remove the image.
No they, CAGE, lack any point of any substance.
1. The logo is part of the picture; included in the picture by CAGE not by Ted.
2. CAGE allowed, and continued to allow, its logo and images to appear freely without specific conditions on Youtuve for literally any person to copy.
3. On my machines (i.e. computers) viewing such an item necessitates downloading the entire data entity, constituting the item, to the computer’s disks or RAM-disk memory.
4. The public have a realistic expectation that the CASE material, on Youtube, is free for the public to use without limitation because if CASE wanted to retain its IP (Intellectual Property) Right and © copyright it would not have consented to the universal dissemination of its material on Youtube without prominent declaration of any form of restriction.
5. Possessing a legal Right, that the Right holder has, but encouraging everyone in the world to abuse, misuse and/or circumvent that Right, clearly suggests in law that the Right holder has encourage others to use that material without limitation. This fact is emphasised by the complete absence of Right assertion on every frame of the audio-visual material.
6. Taking a screen print is similar to taking a photograph of the same material. Fair use is permitted. Please note, Ted did no reproduce on his blog the entire material but about 1/25th of a second’s worth. No court is going to find against Ted for that especially when CAGE or its cronies put the material on Youtube.
Curious Cat
Not a lawyer but I am occasionally trying to think like one 🙂
Sorry. CASE should have been: CAGE
I take it you haven’t read the YouTube Terms and Conditions?
No.
Suspect many people don’t.
Impossible to see when the display is embedded in another web page – obviously you know about this ?
CC.
If you want to think like a lawyer I suggest you start with reviewing all the successful legal prosecutions of people using YouTube in ways not allowed by the terms and conditions!
The point is people do not lose copyright over their original creations simply because they choose to put them on a website which allows other people to view them. In other words making something public does not make it free for other people to use as they wish – or reproduce it on another website.
However for the purposes of Ted’s riposte…….
1) this is the government statement re. the copyright exemption re “fair dealing” https://www.gov.uk/exceptions-to-copyright#fair-dealing
2) …and this is the copyright exemption re “Criticism, Review and reporting of current events” – which is the one most relevant to Ted’s use of the image
https://www.gov.uk/exceptions-to-copyright#criticism-review-and-reporting-current-events
More hard work to awaken Mr Couldn’t’s thinking.
If you want to think like a lawyer I suggest you start with reviewing all the successful legal prosecutions of people using YouTube in ways not allowed by the terms and conditions!
How about you LISTING all the prosecutions in this jurisdiction (England) for the last 3 years. With so much free time, you’ll be able to display your research fairly quickly.
The point is people do not lose copyright over their original creations simply because they choose to put them on a website which allows other people to view them. In other words making something public does not make it free for other people to use as they wish – or reproduce it on another website.
You’ll never make a good lawyer if you don’t bother to consider:-
(a) Can’t claim exclusive copyright if its on Youtube because to view it the viewer must copy the material. Therefore the copyright holder has abrogated all or part of their original Right.
(b) The purpose of putting it on a web site, like Youtube, is to encourage unknown people to copy it potentially millions of times. Hardly an example of protecting one’s © copyright.
(c) Putting any material on a public web site inevitable removes some of the original exclusive copyright because to view it, even when it is textual only, the recipient has to copy it AND perhaps retain (intentionally or unknowingly) a copy on their computer system (which also includes devices like tablets and smart phones).
(d) The interesting legal thing is: what was the original extent of the copyright, whoops I forgot ©, that existed for this item and how much of that remained after it was intentionally placed on Youtube for viewing by possibly millions of people anywhere in the world.
(e) If a viewer wishes to repeat their viewing experience, are they prevented from using the source material possibly stored on their computer or must they re-download the crap again from Youtube ? Can another web site offer the identical material for the purposes of viewing or reviewing ? Can Youtube offer the material to the public from multiple servers either in its own name and/or in the name of its contractors ? And what is the position regarding Internet mirror sites ?
(f) When web crawlers download the material and possibly store some or all of it, then make available all or parts of that material to the security (or spying) authorities and/or the public, is the remaining parts of the no longer exclusive copyright © being unlawfully infringed ? I exclude the British Library crawlers.
If you want to be helpful, then find the recording on Youtube and view the notices attributable to CAGE then enlighten us here.
At least one of us is providing an interesting legal perspective of this case 🙂
Thank you.
Curious Cat.
I’m commenting on the grossly misleading statements being made by you about copyright – NOT Ted’s use of the image.
For your further education I suggest you read YouTube’s Terms of Use
https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms in particular paragraph 5 regarding General Restrictions
Your statements are the product of your overactive imagination and thought processes and NOT any law or any otherwise documented terms of use.
Dear Mr Couldn’t,
I do recommend you to read Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judgements to get a genuine flavour of the law you claim to be knowledgeable about.
(1) I looked at youtube.com
(2) At the bottom of the page I clicked upon ‘Copyright’
(3) On the next page I clicked on ‘Determine what happened to your video’
(4) Youtube then insisted I log-on to Google Accounts using a name and a password.
(5) I returned to youtube.com
(6) I clicked upon
“GETTING IT ON! — Catherine — Part 5
by PewDiePie
3,133,683 views 2 weeks ago”
(7) On web page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YswpifZJrUE
something started playing without my intervention. My sound was off, so I did not hear the audio.
(8) No © COPYRIGHT notice, warning or anything resembling a restriction was displayed before the video automatically began playing.
You really ought to grow-up and stop behaving like a naïve young man.
All your ‘well-meaning’ outbursts about © is divorced from reality. Until you grasp that fact, you will be wasting your time because law is not about abstract absolutes, it is about the application of law – and that is something you have failed, so far, to understand.
You also failed to undertake any due diligence before pronouncing your faulty verdict.
I know you mean well, but stop being blinded by absolutes and start thinking much more in practical terms. Don’t forget about enrolling for the OU law course.
Curious Cat
They don’t have a point except to say that we are embarrassed by the whole affair and wish we hadn’t written to Ted Jeory and remembered the maxim of stopping digging when you are in a hole, except if the object of the exercise is to deepen the hole of course.
Ted should stand his ground, which it seems he has, and see what they do. If they take this any further then of course it’s national and international news. It could be however that even Cage are don’t want to be associated openly with Lutfur so toxic is he.
I was at a very lavish Bangladeshi wedding yesterday afternoon and as these events are neutral ground I was in conversation with a number of people from both sides of Tower Hamlets politics one of the topics of conversation being Lutfur Rahman. Even some of his most ardent apologists are now moving away and a number of his councillors are it seems making approaches to Labour to take their whip. The consensus of opinion was that this would bring about a Labour split or at least a revolt at a time when the party nationally and locally doesn’t need one.
They’re not going to take this any further. If they wanted to they would have done so by now.
Interesting views being expressed re the prospects of a “return to the fold”.
I’m looking in today’s papers at all the comments and articles flying around at the moment relating to the leadership election and a prospective coup. It would appear that the Labour Party has been asleep again re. membership surges by people from the far left (How long ago was the last time this happened?) .
Don’t you think that the Labour Party is now going to be on high alert with respect to “infiltration” whether it’s by the Far Left (re. Corbyn) or by councillors who theoretically were not elected properly and are only in office due to a fluke of timing?
The expressions”Rats” and “Sinking Ships” comes to mind.
Can’t tolerate arrogant and nasty bullies, in my opinion.
CAGE can’t be very skilled as lawyers otherwise they would have secured, and confirmed, the material facts before uttering a single word. Seems very sloppy to threaten a member of the public without concrete proof of genuine wrong-doing. The email did not resemble ‘a Letter before Action’.
http://www.cageuk.org
Tut, tut, Ted. What on earth have you done to get mixed-up in the ‘War on Terror’ – please don’t be shy, just tell us why 😉
What is your connection to ‘state policies’ ? Are you secretly a Tory government minister ? Or the head of SIS (MI6), SS (MI5) or even GCHQ ?
– BUT no clues or links to discover who they actually are.
Curious Cat
Well said, Ted, love reading your posts. Keep it up!
Colin Mitchell E1W 1UG
Thank you!
I’d have thought that any minor breach of use of its logo was the least of CAGE’s problems.
I think that Cage UK are fools for going after Ted.
Anyway, my response, if I was Ted, would be to write a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (https://ico.org.uk) that you are being threatened by a group through digital communications, that in my opinion is supporting known terrorists.
But more importantly; that this group is running a website http://www.cageuk.org that appears to be storing cookies on your computer, without asking for your permission or informing about this action. And that the information stored by these cookies may be used for future passive aggressive action.
Not withstanding that they have no documentation for fair usage or copyright statements on the website.
When that is said and done: Didn’t a research director from Cage make himself very unpopular with the media back in Feb/Mar when he made a bold for defense “Jihadi John”?
Having said all of that; my opinion is that suppressing anyone from speaking their mind will only fuel acts of terror. Maybe Cage UK should look at their own manifesto, before turning Ted into raving-mad-lunatic, as a result of asking him to remove parts of his blogs that doesn’t fit their world view.
Sorry, that was a lot of big words from a small man – I shall be more careful in the future…
There is no requirement in law to have any statements about copyright. It’s the law and it applies to all original creations.
There’s lots of laws we don’t have to be warned about but still apply to what we do. Copyright is just one of them.
I haven’t looked at their website. However if they don’t have the mandatory EU warning re. storage of cookies then they are indeed in trouble should the Information Commissioner ever take a look! 🙂
Whilst it is not stated in UK Law or English Law or even in British Law (what a confusing mess we endue) never-the-less the disinterest of the copyright holder NOT to re-affirm their claim to copyright amid the farce of giving, or permitting, the copyright material to appear on Youtube from where it can be freely copied millions of times may persuade a court of law, the copyright holder had no intention – at the material time – of asserting copyright either partially or completely. In fact a court may determine the copyright holder gave the copyright item to the world FREE of all, or most or even some, of the copyright restrictions.
So CAGE’s indignation and assertion is time-wasting bollocks.
Absence of the EU Cookies Directive notice is hardly a crime punishable with life-long imprisonment. Most likely the “guilty” entity will be politely reminded of their legal obligation.
Curious Cat
You couldn’t make it up!: “There is no requirement in law to have any statements about copyright. It’s the law and it applies to all original creations.
There’s lots of laws we don’t have to be warned about but still apply to what we do. Copyright is just one of them.”
It is true about the actual legal requirements, but for an organization that is throwing their weight around they should have better notices on their website for using their content. Although this is a moot point, as Ted took the picture from YouTube, and not their website.
However, like with everything else placed in the public domain, such as buildings (think architects as the creator) you can in English law not protect those from being photographed and exploited by the photographer – unless you put a big trade marked logo on it. Even so the logo have to be the carrying element in the picture in order to obtain “protected status”. Question is whether this point ever has, or will be tried in the courts when it comes to taking screen shots of a website placed in the public – I am guessing that we will not find this out anytime soon…
In any case, Ted is not making money from the picture in question, so even if Cage were stupid enough to go to court – the sum of nothing, is nothing. Like others have said, I too believe that this is a poor attempt to throw mud on Ted for when Lutfur arrives back in court.
No – you still misunderstand
The absence of a copyright notice does not mean copyright does not apply!!
There is NO REQUIREMENT for a copyright notice in UK Law.
Anybody wanting to study the law should reference the Intellectual Property section of the government website and study the copyright section
https://www.gov.uk/topic/intellectual-property/copyright
Re Logos – the trademarks section can be found here https://www.gov.uk/topic/intellectual-property/trade-marks
I think that my message is perfectly clear but that you are on purpose ignoring it.
One last time: If you do not in public assert your rights to a piece of work, then you will have a hard time to make the same assertion in court. There may not be a legal requirement for you to do so, but the word “entrapment” comes into force if you later make legal claims based on something that was previously shared in an open space, without clarity of ownership.
I have actually previously made and won in this argument in a case between a client and a large image library, who has some of the most heavy weight lawyers that you will ever find in the world of copyright law.
The other part you ignored, was that Ted did not take a picture of the picture (video) and then offered it up for sale, he merely used it as a part of a story. Whereas your old friend Lutfur, is still using pictures produced, and IMHO paid for by the council, in order to sell himself and promote others.
Now, can you please find some one else to pickety-pick on, because I am done discussing the semantics of copyright 🙂
I don’t know which image library you dealt with but in UK law there is absolutely no requirement to state that something is copyright protected.
That’s because the DEFAULT position is that all original creations are copyright protected automatically and there is no requirement to register them or state that they are protected.
Please stipulate the UK law and paragraph which you relied on for your assertion that every image needs to contain an ownership of copyright statement.
The laws vary in other countries – notably the USA. Don’t ever assume that what applies in law in the USA applies in the UK.
Making money from an image only relates to the recovery of damages. It’s irrelevant to a cease and desist action. The vast majority of correspondence about copyright never ever gets near a court!
I’m only writing about copyright in these comments because of the many errors and misleading statements being made.
Finally I find it laughable that you suggest that the ex-Mayor is a friend of mine! For the record he is no friend of mine and if you were a regular reader of this blog you would know that!
And I still think that you are taking life a little bit too serious, in particularly on the point of Lutfur 😉
And no, I am not going to share any of my workings with you and/or in public, added that you are posting under an assumed name, which I am not – and proud of not doing. But Ted knows of me and where to find me, and should he want to know or need help, then I am always at his service.
As said, I’ve got good practical experience on this, with winning results – so no need for you to continue to counter claim on that as you are wasting your time and precious space.
This is the point is where we will need to agree to disagree. I suggest again, that you read through my posts one more time, and you might find that I never disagreed with you, only pointed out that the practical world works in a different way than the one you are trying to promote.
This part of the conversation is now finished – I really have nothing further to add.
To: Couldn’t (as in Couldn’t Understand)
Madvis is the lawyer. Take his good and sensible advice. Do have a re-look at his remark about .
Me, not the lawyer, will argue that offering the material (meaning the © item) to the entire worldwide population via Youtube has encouraged, and necessitated, potentially millions of people from all around our world to make a COPY of the item.
I question what actually remands of the © protection after the massive giving away of at least some of that © protection.
With such blatant action by the © holder NOT to maintain ALL its © Right(s), yet fail – presumably by deliberate intent – to state what, if any, of the original and now diminished © Right(s) it wishes to retain will inevitable puzzle the courts while confusing those to whom the © holder shared its © Right(s) when it freely gave its item to the world.
If CAGE sues, CAGE would be the financial loser as its legal costs would would dwarf what it might be awarded. The court would consider CAGE’s use of ADR (alternative dispute resolution, popularly known as mediation).
One thing you, Couldn’t, did not consider was as the CAGE video appears to have been made in front of an audience; any one of them might have snapped the speaker. No © on those photographs. So has CAGE really suffered a genuine loss ? I would argue it has not. It gleefully abandoned its exclusive © (using Youtube) and now it seeks to punish all those who engage in free speech and self expression when those utterances differ from CAGE’s apparently (in my honest opinion) pro-terrorists beliefs and principles.
Admit defeat gracefully Couldn’t and do consider doing the OU law degree course. You will benefit from it.
Curious Cat.
On my keyboard, © = (press singularly) ALT c o
Hey Curious Cat,
Thank you very much for your kind words.
I should state that although I am involved in giving advice, and sometimes leading negotiations on complex issues, I am not a lawyer. However, there are many who have encouraged me to consider a career path in law as a result of my positive results.
One thing I have learned, is that once you go to court both sides loose. In the specific case of Cage UK, they would as you too correctly point out, gain absolutely nothing from taking Teds blog to court for taking a picture of material already in the public domain. In any case, they are very likely to loose the argument, as they themselves have released the footage in question onto third party websites of which they have no control over and which is specifically used as a tool of distribution to a wide/large as possible audience.
I ought to modify my penultimate paragraph to:
… when those utterances differ from CAGE’s apparent (in my honest opinion) support for people engaged in terrorism.
© = ALT-GR c o
Alt-gr = right ALT
Mr Madsvid,
You will make a really great lawyer.
Once you are established perhaps you could employ Couldn’t as a trainee – he certainly needs guidance.
🙂
Nice words from a Big man 🙂
Bunch of apologists for violent Islamists.
pwei34. Could you be a little more specific? I can’t stand people who mince their words!
To write what may be in some people’s minds would seriously degrade the pleasant nature of this blog.
I think the whole thing simply shows that Cage are looking for an way to harass anyone who is a threat and it is clear that they regard Ted as that. Or rather one of the many they face.
The sensible thing would have been to do nothing, words like holes and digging come to mind here. All that is happening now is that there is now more attention being given to them at a time when they could have done with less.
If the worst comes to the worst and there is a fine to pay then let’s do what Christine Shawcroft is doing for Lutfur, raise a fighting fund forTed’s costs. Put me down for £100 quid straight away. I don’t think that when the more sensible heads at Cage/Lutfur/Livingstone and partners get together over this it will go much further.
Incidentally the said Ms Shawcroft has been re-admitted to the Labour NEC as it has been found that there was no wrong doing by her in supporting Lutfur Rahman against the official Labour candidate and generally bringing the party into disrepute over the whole corruption case. Labour really are the pits now.
Think Ted has nothing to worry about – me neither for plonking a copy of the infamous picture at the top of one of my postings on this web page.
Curious Cat
I think that’s a more accurate assessment of the situation.
It’s clear that they don’t understand about the ‘fair use’ exemptions in copyright law and they could certainly do better when it comes to writing a ‘cease and desist’ letter.
There is also a fair amount of confusion on this page about
* what the law on copyright is and
* what the public think is reasonable
– a lot of which amounts to statements which are both ignorant and misleading.
Let’s be very clear – “what the public think should happen” and “what the law is” are two completely different things – as the ex-Mayor has found out to his cost in relation to another matter.
I think there’s a fair amount of evidence that the Labour Party at a national level is in the pits right now for reasons other Ms Shawcroft. I’m not sure creating a good impression amongst the electorate is one of their highest priorities…..
That said there’s a lot that could be done at a local level to rehabilitate their reputation. Having a Mayor who walks the walk around the noise and litter of Lovebox and then answers questions in Council is a good start!
These are the people who called jihad john a beautiful young man? One of their number is also the disgusting John Rees. Lutfur and Rabina supporter.
Enough said really
John Rees was also a longtime member of the Central Committee of the SWP who was involved in covering up the rapes and sexual harassment of young women members of the party.
His partner Lindsey German was responsible for dropping the party’s support for gay and women’s rights when they went into Stop the War and Respect with various Muslim groups. Absolutely disgusting people.
Ted, don’t take any notice. You are an excellent investigative journalist. Cage are obviously frightened of you. Watched a program last night about vile Americans spreading homophobic hate in as many corners of our world as possible. They use huge amounts of money to promote and protect their name. Scientologists do the same.. Sounds like Cage are playing the same game. World bullies – all of them!
CAGE doesn’t have huge amounts of money. Its 2 main funders, were instructed to cease giving grants. It may of course, have other sources of income that are less well known.
My long posy about this was deleted for some reason. In brief Cage have been granted a Judicial Review of the Charity Commission’s decision to ask funders to stop payments to it. The two are The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust which has a history of funding extremist or dubious race equality groups and The Roddick Foundation which I assume was the one set up by Annita Roddick.
On the other hand it may well be that the JR finds that the Charity Commission acted within its remit and the request is with the powers of the Charity Commissioners with the Charities Act 2011. I’ll have a check around and see what else is funded by Rowntree.
Something’s wrong Ted. I’m not e ear graet who ever they are and who ever they are their last post has been moderated.
My posy above should have been post of course! Some more information on this. http://www.jrct.org.uk/userfiles/documents/JRCT media statement 23 July 2015.pdf If that doesn’t work just go to the site and the statement about the High Court is on their home page.
According to them they stopped funding Cage in March of this year and are making no statements about the whole matter. Very strange.
Rabina Khan cut a pathetic figure at the council meeting this week. Deluded and still thinking the old regime was in charge. Does anyone with better know how than me know how to flag her wikipeadia page for deletion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabina_Khan
What exactly was she doing?
There is an interesting post on http://www.here-here.com from fellow Libertarian Guido Fawkes about Ohid Ahmed and driving whiles on a mobile. Should be worth a few points on the licence. There is a picture of Lutfur and Ohid with that vile piece of shit Ken Livingstone.
That should have been of course http://www.order-order.com.
Mark Baynes has been doing sterling work over at Love Wapping – lots of posts relating to the petitioners seeking recovery of costs from the ex-Mayor and the freezing of his assets
Leading up to the one yesterday – ‘Lutfur Rahman and the Election Petition costs – latest episode’
http://lovewapping.org/2015/08/rahmans-and-election-petition-costs-latest-episode/ based on the Judgement handed down yesterday.
Very definitely “a good read”!
It also appears Andy Erlam has more “fish to fry”
Anti-corruption ‘public inquiry’ launched to expose Tower Hamlets council affairs
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/anti_corruption_public_inquiry_launched_to_expose_tower_hamlets_council_affairs_1_4182846
Interesting post on http://www.huryupharry.org about a boycott of Shadwell McDonalds because it is Jewish owned.
http://www.hurryupharry.org.
Sir Eric Pickles rises again – and it’s all down to the ex-Mayor
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/eric-pickles-to-lead-electoral-fraud-investigation-into-rotten-boroughs-after-tower-hamlets-scandal-10452270.html
After much digging I found the formal announcement which is here https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sir-eric-pickles-to-examine-electoral-fraud
It states
(my bold)
and a bit more
Very stupid of central government.
The Law Commission is busy on making recommendations of electoral law changes.
The Cabinet Office and the DCLG are both guilty of incompetence relating to elections. Its time the deadwood was thrown-out.
Curious Cat
The difference being that the Law Commission can only recommend whereas a government-run enquiry into electoral fraud – that includes the Solicitor-General – can present changes in law to Parliament.
Which do you think might happen faster……
Mr Couldn’t
Election fraud has ALWAYS been a feature of predominantly LABOUR controlled local authorities. In the last circa 20 years, men (because it is never sensible women) with South Asian connections have jumped on the corruption bandwagon.
I refer you, and everyone else reading this, to these, in my opinion, very revealing yet immensely worrying statements.
*** The Government statement quoted by the Tower Hamlets Election Petition Commissioner (at paragraph 715)
*** The Tower Hamlets Election Petition Commissioner (at paragraph 716)
Now Mr Couldn’t despite all your misplaced enthusiasm – a symptom of a young and energetic youth – those words appeared not in 2015 but 10 years earlier in 2005 at the infamous Birmingham Postal Voting election petition hearing.
Afterword (paragraphs 714 – 717)
http://law.slough.info/law44/law44p072.php
Judgement delivered 4 April 2005.
Inquiring minds, and I do include your’s, will wonder why – when the then status quo was so dreadful Labour waited 5 years and did nothing and the Tories waited 5 years before thinking about doing something yet remain unclear exactly what they really want to achieve apart from giving Eric an income and some work in a socialist-style job creation attempt to reward one’s buddies (political nepotism as regularly practised by both Labour & Tories ?)
Mr Couldn’t, instead of naïvely expecting cumbersome and crap central government to take action instantly, in 2015, the reality is don’t expect anything before 2018-2019. Reason ? HMG is certainly NOT going to legislate whilst The Law Commission is considering English Election Laws
Do take my excellent advice and sign-up for the Open University Law Degree course. You will, I believe, increase your knowledge of how your country works.
Curious Cat
You’ve obviously never heard of professional associations being told to get a move on with their deliberations and being given a deadline to respond – because a government wants to legislate!
Dear Mr Couldn’t,
I respectfully suggest you gain more knowledge of how your country operates before making assertions which are, in my opinion, unsustainable.
Yours sincerely,
Curious Cat.
I’m speaking from experience. It appears you are completely ignorant of the methods used by government to speed up consultation and input from relevant professional bodies on policy change. Deadlines are a very effective tool.
Mr Couldn’t,
Whatever ‘experience’ has persuaded you to write something which is fundamentally different from reality is obviously your own personal affair.
I would prefer not to prolong this senseless thread. Unlike you, my experience of how HMG actually works, in the ‘flesh’ as it were, robustly suggests you are manufacturing to satisfy your depleted ego.
Remember the phrase: Perhaps that is apt because a few isolated facts taken from the British media, whilst devoid of significant context, is neither a truthful nor accurate representation of how HMG functions. Fairy Tales are best left to the entertainment of young children whom appreciate them much more that informed adults do
Please no more invented .
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
🙂
and here are the members of the Inter-Ministerial Group on Anti-Corruption: members https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inter-ministerial-group-on-anti-corruption-members/inter-ministerial-group-on-anti-corruption-members
Local Government Chronicle on the topic http://www.lgcplus.com/news/pickles-to-lead-tower-hamlets-electoral-fraud-review/5089601.article
I think I tend to agree with the person who left a comment suggesting we can’t be far off having a National ID card – especially given the crackdown on illegal immigration.
Maybe this new Inter-Ministerial Group on Anti-Corruption will be collecting the evidence which suggests that radical intervention is required to stop the perpetration of fraud and corruption?
Can’t read LGC because I don’t have a council-paid subscription to it.
Neither do I. So?
As regards the discussion in the last few posts can I give a personal view as to why nothing was done about electoral corruption after the Birmingham events and others featuring ethnic minorities.
There are two reasons I think, inertia by local government and political correctness. To recognise that the system has flaws means that someone has to report the fact for others to do something about it. Given that both those responsible for the running of the electoral system and the inspection and governance of it are unlikely to criticise and or investigate themselves, the situation continues until some event makes the situation become so glaringly obvious that central government intervenes.
The second reason is of course that now well in retreat social phenomenon, and of course terribly passe and retro, so eighties darling, political correctness. It was simply unacceptable for ethnic minorities to do any wrong because they were oppressed by capitalism/colonialism/slavery or any combination thereof. No Labour Party meeting or North London dinner party was complete without a total denial that there was systematic grooming of young white girls by gangs of, mainly, Pakistani men in many northern and midlands towns and cities.
Ten years ago Anne Cryer the MP for Rotherham spoke out against what was going on in her and other constituencies and was roundly denounced by the left, both liberal and loony, as well as by Al Gruaniad and the usual suspects.
It was an attempt to demonise Muslims, clearly a policy of outflanking the BNP, “pandering to racism” said one Sabby Dhalu a full time ” anti racist” activist on Ken Livingstone’s payroll. Only one thing was wrong with all of this, the grooming was a fact and as time went on resulted in a whole series of prosecutions which have now seen more than a couple of hundred Asian men sent to prison. We have now for some time been treated to a deafening silence on the subjectfrom the assortment of Trots, cafe latte Guardianistas and the race relations industry that have now been proven wrong.
Not content with a massive defeat of their support for child rape the same group of suspects erupted once again in righteous indignation at the mere suggestion that Lutfur Rahman and his merry band of Islamists and crooks had in any way misused the democratic system by buying votes and using the Mosques and Madrashas to influence Bangladeshis into voting for Rahman.
Once again it was racism and Islamophobia and the desire of the establishment to bring down a populist successful Asian Mayor and administration who were fighting for the poor and the oppressed in the face of a massive attack on the working class and immigrant communities. ( That’s enough poor, oppressed, working class and immigrants. Ed)
The left have always been guilty of political myopia and rampant and rabid wishful thinking but nowhere has this been more apparent than in the blind unqualified support for Rahman in the face of the most compelling evidence that he was guilty of massive electoral and financial malpractice.
It would or could have been thought that after the verdict that the assorted loonies and Trots would have folded their tents and slunk away in the night but no! They held yet more meetings to defend the indefensible and to declare Rahman’s innocence. It was all a stitch up guvenor, he was fitted up good and proper. A group of people whose allegiances have always been to mass murders like Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Mao were now outraged at the democratic will of the people being overturned by an unelected judge. Stinking hypocrites would be an understatement to describe them.
Rahman was hoisted by his own petard. If he had played the game, put some white people in his administration, spent a bit of time kissing white babies and appearing at non Bangladeshi events he could have survived. His failure was that he thought he had created a personal fiefdom like a third world cacique or Asian political Goonda. He simply went too far and took the piss out of a political system that will not have the piss taken. In the words of Winston Churchill ” Up with this we will not put “.
Nice posting.
Are you claiming Tony Blair & Co. never invited you for dinner ?
CC.
In English, please. And I really mean that!
Well said. It could do with repeating!
*** TED, I would prefer the BLACK not pale grey text on your new-look WordPress Blog.
And, if possible, a slightly larger font size in the “textarea” containing the posting.
Thank you.
==============================================================
To Dave,
As an incredibly knowledgeable person with experience and insight into the parts of the Labour Party most of us have not got a clue about, one usually acknowledges the quality of your postings and the often accompanying revelations that stun many of us.
Since Tower Hamlets is in North London, and Tony Blair and many well-known Labour Party personalities live or have lived in North London, I inevitably wondered if you have ever been to any of their dinner or supper parties or social occasions.
En Anglais s.v.p. In engels a.u.b. Bitte in Englisch …………………….
Curious Cat
Thanks. Font size increased. Can’t seem to change font colour in this theme. Am experimenting. Feedback v welcome
Black font colour is:
(in CSS) color:black;
(in CSS) color:#000000;
(in HTML) (left angular bracket) font color=”#000000″ (right angular bracket) ……….. text ……… (left angular bracket) /font (right angular bracket)
CC.
I much prefer the old style blog. The one thing I do know is that you get more readers who read more with maximum contrast. While I’m happy to leave black on yellow (the most readable colour combination) to the emergency services I would like to see you lose the grey background which is depressing as well as making the blog much more difficult to read
Black on white and a much larger font PLEASE.
There are lots of WordPress themes out there which work a lot better than this one.
PS You can change the colour of the page and the size of the font in the html in the template – but sometimes it’s just easier to change the template.
For what it’s worth, I don’t have a problem with any of the new layouts or the photos which I sense are a little mischievous. If I was going to make a criticism it would be that the search facility seems to have disappeared. I found this useful. Thanks.
All is now clear, well, clearish! How you work out that because Tony Blair and I inhabit or did the same part of North London I don’t know. And if I had why I should have been invited to his dinner parties I find equally perplexing. It seems he was a councillor in Hackney and lived in Middleton Road but I never moved in those circles.
I’m also not sure about the new layout Ted, maybe we’ll get used to it.
Seems to me that CC just likes to meddle and patronise. Problem is he’s so frequently off beam with his “knowledge” (I use the term loosely) and assumptions that it can get very tiresome at times.
Have a good night’s sleep.