2 June, 2004: More threats

So I am having an exciting week. Today's bit of wannabe-barratry comes from one C. Constable, presumably Christine Constable, one of the English Democrats' candidates in the North-West England region, and reads as follows: (typos as in original)

Subject: English Democrats Party - comments which are offensive

We advise you to remove offensive statements relating to the English Democrats Party. We have downloaded the offensive copy from your web-site and intend to prosecute you directly and your ISP if you do not remove the slanderous comments that you have published on your site.

We give notice that should the offensive material not be deleted from your site by 10.00am 4th June, we will instigate proceedings. against you.

C. Constable
English Democrats Party

It's sad that in a party as small as the English Democrats, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing:

I think that your latest Posting gives a far more `Balanced' view of the situation, and we will not now be taking any sort of action against you.
-- Steven Uncles (from the English Democrats)

Oh well. As Anthony has pointed out, political parties can't sue for defamation anyway; in any case my statements are certainly fair comment. So I shall take up the second part of Anthony's advice: while it would certainly be unladylike for Ms. Constable to fuck herself and the horse she rode in on, I take no hesitation in suggesting that she do so.

(Oh, and I should add that I am now very bored of the English Democrats. Giving them publicity of any sort -- even bad -- makes me slightly queasy. But there we go.)

(And before I pop out to the pub, I'll add a statistic, since my readers probably expect that. I've just counted the number of words on my web site; there are somewhere in excess of 120,000 in this web log alone. The English Democrats, by objecting to one of them -- `quasi-fascist' -- have made themselves and their behaviour a prominent -- and altogether negative -- topic of discussion around these parts. Not to claim that the readers of British political web logs form a substantial constituency -- but then, neither do supporters of the English Democrats.)

Comments

Posted by Backword Dave, Wednesday, 2 June 2004 19:58 (link):
And if you want it, I've got a screenshot of the Google cache of their site with Bobby Charlton. Eventually this page will be replaced by a copy of the new page, so I've got a copy on my box to keep it safe.

Reply to this.
Posted by Nick, Wednesday, 2 June 2004 20:46 (link):
Not that I was planning to vote for them anyway, but actions like this are what helps to make an individual or a political party look silly and make people think twice about voting for them.

Reply to this.
Posted by Laurent Bossavit, Wednesday, 2 June 2004 20:46 (link):
And then there's that classic mistake - it's not "slander" but "libel" they want to accuse you of.

Reply to this.
Posted by Chris Brooke, Wednesday, 2 June 2004 21:53 (link):
I think this is an example of passing up the spade.

Reply to this.
Posted by Anthony, Wednesday, 2 June 2004 23:24 (link):
What is with these people? If Mr Uncles' colleagues really do include "a Solicitor, a QC (Queens Council) Barrister" perhaps one of them can explain Goldsmith v. Bhoyrul to them.

Incidentally, while I don't have access to the full text of the judgement at the moment (I'll get it on Friday if I remember) there's a detailed report here (about half way down).

Reply to this.
- Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Wednesday, 2 June 2004 23:47 (link):
  Right, this is my web log, so in contravention of the comments policy I am going to quote at length from the relevant judgment: (emphasis mine)
  
  The court held that in a democratic society those who held office in government or were responsible for public administration had always to be open to criticism and therefore it was contrary to the public interest to permit them to sue in defamation because that would place an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech. That principle applied also to political parties seeking power at an election and putting themselves forward for office or to govern, since defamation actions or the threat of them would similarly constitute a fetter on free speech at a time and on a topic when it was clearly in the public interest that there should be none. The court was of the opinion that, since it was of the highest public importance that a democratically electable political party should be open to uninhibited public criticism and since the threat of a civil action for defamation would place an undesirable fetter on the freedom to express such criticism, it would be contrary to the public interest for it to have any right at common law to maintain an action for damages for defamation.
  
  (Please imagine that being read out in the portentous and final tones deserved by a judgment of the High Court. Imagine, if you will, the hopes and ambitions of a hopeless cause being crushed utterly by an authority which they claim to revere. I was hoping not to have to say this, but here goes: There is no part of Englishness which consists in suppressing dissent by threats, and no-one who does so has any claim to speak for England. I make no claim for English exceptionalism; the same, I believe, could be said for almost any country. But we are faced with an ugly crowd who do not belong here, and yet purport to speak for me and fifty million and more others while what they have to say would disgrace a pigsty.)
  
  I am also going to announce a new policy. Only an idiot would imagine that this policy were not already in operation, but that's what we're dealing with here. Sorry. My other readers will, I hope, humour me:
  
  If you send me a threat of unjustified legal action, I will not respond to it; but I will post it here, or elsewhere, at my option, for the derision of right-thinking people.
  
  (Sorry. I am now quite angry. Normal service will resume once I have calmed down. This may take a while.)
  
  Reply to this.
Posted by Chris Kav, Thursday, 3 June 2004 15:37 (link):
Re: the screenshot offer, I have the "priceless" video and the Charlton photo saved, and ready to send to Mastercard, to ask whether use of a Mastercard is, indeed, endorsement of the EDs, or whether -shock horror- these legal experts may have infringed certain intellectual property rights.

What do people reckon to sending the e-mail? it's already written.

Reply to this.
- Posted by Anthony, Thursday, 3 June 2004 16:15 (link):
  They already know. The Financial Times told them.
  
  "The English Democrats "were using this advertisement without the permission of MasterCard", say media minders for the US payments group."
  
  Now there's a surprise!
  
  The original FT story is here. I think Dave Weeden beat them too it actually.
  
  Reply to this.
  - Posted by Backword Dave, Thursday, 3 June 2004 16:46 (link):
    I'm not so sure. I posted at 10:49; the FT story was published at 15:19. It could easily have been written earlier. Since the Mastercard link came off the site very soon after I wrote my comment, it must have been.
    I wish them well -- with any luck they'll take votes off the BNP and UKIP.
    
    Reply to this.
Posted by Chris Kav, Thursday, 3 June 2004 16:44 (link):
As recently as a few hours ago, the video was still there (I checked), which is post the Mastercard disapproval being mentioned in the FT, but it has now gone, to digital hell I suppose. Well done the FT.

Reply to this.
- Posted by Steven Uncles, Thursday, 3 June 2004 21:43 (link):
  Just for the record then 'anyone' can purchase the Mastercard advert from
  
  http://www.visit4info.com/details.cfm?adid=15244
  
  Or I can send you it 'free' if you wish.
  
  We actually had taken it off the site, before the FT published their article, they then published a second article to act is if they had made it happen - this is of course not true.
  
  Mastercard refused to be drawn as to whether Sir Bobby Charlton believes in a United England rather then 9 Regions dispite the fact that he has said it 64 times since St Georges Day on National TV - is that a bit of a give away.
  
  Certainly putting the MasterCard (legally purchased) copy of the video up on the site has caused a lot of interest, we don't expect 'everyone' to agree with our policies however we do think it is only fair that the public is made aware of the choices available at an Election - and thanks to the video clip our name has been posted all around the internet - Chris's comments have also helped with the Hits to our Website - this has made up for the total lack of coverage on the English Democrats from the BBC.
  
  We have also picked up a couple of hundred members, ironically quite a few paying via Pay Pal with their MasterCards.
  
  - Oh, just the last thing - Sir Geoff Hurst, was going to launch our party - unfortunately McDonalds - yes the Hamburger people, put a stop to that - looks like we have two USA corporates inteferring in English Politics.
  
  And Finally
  
  I guess you all know that Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh - I guess that makes him Scottish ?
  
  Michael Howard - yes dear Michael was born in a little Welsh Village - I guess that makes him Welsh ?
  
  and we all know that good old Charlie - the Liberal Leader - well he is a proud Scotsman.
  
  It is no surprise that the English get Fleeced in the UK Parliament !
  
  VOTE English Democrats on 10 June 2004
  
  www.EnglandUnited.com - its priceless !
  
  Reply to this.
  - Posted by Pete Stevens, Friday, 4 June 2004 09:55 (link):
    When you say purchase the advert you did read the terms and conditions didn't you ?
    
    7.1 Visit4info offers advertising information as a service to consumers and other Users. The intellectual property rights relating to such materials may belong to individual artists, writers or other companies. All such materials are for research and reference purposes only. The copyright remains the property of the copyright owner and the material may not be reproduced in any form whatsoever without the owners consent.
    
    I believe the principle is similar to other copyrighted materials, you may buy a copy for personal use but distributing it to the whole internet is probably copyright infringement. I really suggest you speak to the QC on your party and ask for some basic advice about copyright law.
    
    However, it does hint that your party would be against software patents if they knew what they were.
    
    Reply to this.
Posted by Steven Uncles, Thursday, 3 June 2004 21:24 (link):
As you won't be voting for the English Democrats, - who will you be Voting for on 10 June 2004 ?

Reply to this.
- Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Thursday, 3 June 2004 21:36 (link):
  Well, strictly it's between me and the ballot box. But in the European Parliamentary Elections, so far it looks likely that I'll vote for Martin Bell, as explained in my previous post on the subject.
  
  Reply to this.
  - Posted by Steven Uncles, Thursday, 3 June 2004 21:46 (link):
    That's unfair - not much to take the piss, on this one out of you - apart from the Dodgey Suits that Martin Bell wears of course !
    
    Good luck in your Voting
    
    (If you do Vote for us the the lead Candidate- Eastern - Robert Jervis Kay - really is a QC - Barrister)
    
    Reply to this.
    - Posted by Tim Jackson, Friday, 4 June 2004 18:45 (link):
      If one of your lead candidates is a barrister, why didn't you - or Ms. Constable for that matter - seek his advice before making groundless, mindless and stupid legal threats?
      
      I'm guessing your election pledges won't include strengthening the legal system to prevent abuse by morons whose first reaction to seeing/hearing/reading anything they don't like is "sue"? Or discouraging a descent into US-style litigation culture?
      
      Reply to this.
Posted by Watching Them, Watching Us, Tuesday, 8 June 2004 00:01 (link):
It is no suprise that mentioning the English Democrats on this web site increased their site traffic.

Obviously not the whole picture, but www.Alexa.com gives some interesting results about these European Election political parties websites:

For comparison:

Traffic Rank for bbc.co.uk: 36 (7)
Speed: Slow (80% of sites are faster), Avg Load Time: 3.1 Seconds (what's this?)
Other sites that link to this site: 84,792

Traffic Rank for spy.org.uk: 605,412 (248,977)
Speed: Not available
Other sites that link to this site: 168

Traffic Rank for ex-parrot.com: 2,773,558 (2,472,113)
Speed: Not available
Other sites that link to this site: 48

--------

Site Stats for jimnaisbitt.co.uk:
Traffic Rank for : No Data
Speed: Not available
Other sites that link to this site: No Data

Site Stats for prolife.org.uk:
Traffic Rank for : No Data
Speed: Not available
Other sites that link to this site: 101

Traffic Rank for englandunited.com: 5,621,729
Speed: Not available
Other sites that link to this site: No Data

Traffic Rank for bellforeurope.org.uk: 4,572,538
Speed: Not available
Other sites that link to this site: No Data

Traffic Rank for ukip.org.uk: 2,398,398
Speed: Not available
Other sites that link to this site: 3

Traffic Rank for respectcoalition.org: 308,684 (681,394)
Speed: Slow (78% of sites are faster), Avg Load Time: 2.9 Seconds (what's this?)
Other sites that link to this site: No Data

Traffic Rank for greenparty.org.uk: 283,941 (209,785)
Speed: Not available
Other sites that link to this site: 1,480

Traffic Rank for libdems.org.uk: 225,246 (37,161)
Speed: Average (55% of sites are faster), Avg Load Time: 1.8 Seconds (what's this?)
Other sites that link to this site: 1,636

Traffic Rank for labour.org.uk: 128,557 (29,920)
Speed: Slow (62% of sites are faster), Avg Load Time: 2.1 Seconds (what's this?)
Other sites that link to this site: 2,432

Traffic Rank for conservatives.com: 70,050 (13,588)
Speed: Average (51% of sites are slower), Avg Load Time: 1.6 Seconds (what's this?)
Other sites that link to this site: 1,318

Traffic Rank for bnp.org.uk: 24,347 (2,125)
Speed: Average (55% of sites are slower), Avg Load Time: 1.5 Seconds (what's this?)
Other sites that link to this site: 336

A suprise "win" for the BNP - are they always under Denial of Service attack or is their website boosted by page range tricks ?

Reply to this.

Post a new comment.

Comments copyright (c) contributors and available under a Creative Commons License. See also the comments policy.