Now remember, children; Stop Cyberbullying Day is about standing up to bullies and standing up for their victims. It is not designed as a propaganda device for bullies* who play the victim when someone stands up to them. (*The same……

flounce (verb): To walk or move with exaggerated, affected or unnatural motions expressive of self-importance or self-display. When I first raised an objection or twelve about the way Paul de Laire Staines conducted himself as a blogger, I made……

Secondly, I think the links between Policy Exchange and The Cameron camp are probably deeper than you think. A friend of a friend’s son was briefly Cameron’s Chief of Staff and I’m sure had been involved heavily with PE.

RS

PS - Unity’s analysis of libel laws is correct.

Secondly, I think the links between Policy Exchange and The Cameron camp are probably deeper than you think. A friend of a friend’s son was briefly Cameron’s Chief of Staff and I’m sure had been involved heavily with PE.

RS

PS - Unity’s analysis of libel laws is correct.

Secondly, I think the links between Policy Exchange and The Cameron camp are probably deeper than you think. A friend of a friend’s son was briefly Cameron’s Chief of Staff and I’m sure had been involved heavily with PE.

RS

PS - Unity’s analysis of libel laws is correct.

1) Actually, RS, it’s always been the ‘done thing’ as a sanction against those who are dishonest in their on-line dealings with others.

Without naming names, there’s a Tory blogger out there who’s identity I recently helped to conceal, so it cuts both ways. If someone’s straight with me and I notice that they’ve left themselves exposed, I’ll happily advise then on how to cover their tracks, but if someone goes in for trolling or behaves dishonestly then I’ve no great qualms about removing their anonymity in order to push them into being a little more honest in future.

2) In terms of charity law there is little material difference between the two - both attract considerable sums of money from donors who believe that one way or another they’re buying themselves the inside track on future policy decision.

The bottom line is that both parties are at it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article658414.ece

2) Even if it isn’t, surely you can see the rather large difference between the Policy Exchange & the Conservatives and The Smith Institute & Labour… is that the Labour Party are in power.

I don’t deny that there are links between Policy & the Tories, they are very close but I have more of an issue with what is going on between the government and a think tank than the opposition and a think tank.

Surely that is the issue?

RS

In essence, yes, libel can reside in matters of interpretation of factual statements.

Say, for example, that posted an article in which I stated that I had seen you going in to a pub that was well known as a meeting place for football hooligans.

Factually that statement could be perfectly true - you did go into a pub and the pub is known as meeting place for football hooligans, yet you could still claim to have been libelled because the juxtaposition of two facts could be interpreted as suggesting that were seen going into that particular pub because you are football hooligan, in which case I would then have to prove either that you are football hooligan, which is why you went to the pub, or that the inference that you are football hooligan is not one that reasonable person would make from that statement.

You, on the other hand - would have to prove nothing.

I find it very hard to believe.

This is precisely one of the reasons why I got annoyed at UKIPHome a couple of months back.

A good post, Unity, and I echo your comments about a variable blogroll. You, Justin, etc. who I mentioned are still in my RSS feed and will continue to be (unless the actual quality of your writing and investigation diminishes), as are Guido and Iain. That doesn’t mean to say that I won’t disagree with anyone (and I have certainly attacked Iain as a hypocrite before: not least here: http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2006/11/iain-dale-and-ukip.html).

Personally, the only person that I agree with totally is me (and I have changed my opinions over the years, becoming more and more towards the minarchist libertarian side)! However, I am always honest by my lights; I declare my interests and the only party that I utterly agree with is the Devil’s Kitchen Party!

I don’t particularly like Tim Ireland’s blog but then that’s partly because I don’t find his writing particularly compelling and, as I said last night on 18DS, because I am happy sitting on my arse and he’s more of a “doer” (perhaps he makes me feel guilty? No…).

Time is rather relative here, eh? I have been doing this only a little over two years and I feel like an old man of blogging!

DK

Dominic, your bluster means nothing here… stop wasting it.

We all remember how you behaved when you were last thrown to the mat.

Do excuse me for having accused you of achieving something with your life. It’s not a mistake I’ll make again.

>>> You won’t control me. Thanks for admitting that you try to.

Fuck me, PT.

Look I know you teach ESOL, but I think you should take a bit of break as its seems you’re starting to adopt rather too much of your students’ command of English.

I should say, having thought about it, that I do recall seeing Tom mention blogrolling Susanne’s blog in passing and even commented on the post - words to the effect of ‘are you planning a boring category?’

Sorry, but I’ve never quite seen Susanne’s appeal - matter of personal taste that all - and I can’t say I paid much attention to what Tom had posted.

I will own up to one mistake. You’re not a twat - you’re sanctimonious, whinging, twat.

I know what the various allegations are, thank you very much, but you’ll also note that I’ve chosen not to comment on them myself because it’s none of my business.

I’m not bashing Suz at all - if you bother to read my comments properly, what I’m saying is that this is between her and the LDs and she should be allowed to deal with this herself, without outside interference from rubbernecking Tories, like I would guess, yourself given that your email address includes the words ‘libdem’ and ‘watcher’.

Now do try an read what I’ve actually said, rather that what you’d wish I’d said.

Oh, as you’re obviously rather naive in these things, let me just point out one thing - Suz has far more of a prospect of being taken seriously in her concerns if she can do what she feels she needs to do without having a bunch of politicking Tories crawling all over her.

An an independent voice, the worst that can be thrown at her is that she’s a disgruntled ex-member - with twats like you around she stands a very good chance of being labelled a Tory stooge and getting her concerns blown-off on that basis alone.

The whole issue surrounds Haringey Cllr Fiyaz Mughal who in Sept 06 sent out some vile fanatical muslin emails to around 70 people. The women reported it but in the light of day he claimed his email box was broken into and it wasn’t him. He claimed there was/is a police investigation but nobody has seen any outcome. Haringey police don’t seem to know anything about it.

He reported her for passing on the mails as if she was the one who sent them out in the first place. Everybody know he wrote them but as they are so horrendous there has been an emergency covered up.