Peterborough for Labour

I must say I like it that Labour won Peterborough ahead of the Brexit Party. It is a clear indication that people voted against Brexit in an area that previously was predominantly pro-Brexit.

Now, that most of the lies and rumours about how glorious Brexit is, have been dispersed, people vote for remain.

I think Brexit was all along a red herring to keep people’s attention on a right-wing nationalist agenda for the purpose that the Conservative government could re-create Victorian values in Britain.

The Conservatives lost many councils in the recent council elections for the reason that people are fed up to the teeth with the cut-backs they have to suffer to do with care for the elderdy, children, schools, rubbish collections and so forth.

Councils are running out of money and its this Conservative goverment that is responsible for it.

Whilst the government keeps on saying people didn’t vote for the Conservatives because the Conservatives failed to deliver Brexit, the reality is that people didn’t vote for the Conservatives because of the severe cut-backs on local council spending and overall policies.

Policies, which saw the wider introduction of Benefit cut-backs for the disabled, the Universal Credit, that left people queueing for Food banks to be able to survive, Zero hours contracts and a reduction in overall wages value by 6%.

Obviously Nigel Farage was very deflated about the second place in Peterborough but I think it indicates the line of pro and against Brexit voters in favour of the against.

Yesterday’s D-Day 75. Anniversary, saw veterans in tears over Brexit planning because they fought for freedom in Europe and want to keep it that way.

This article is not meant to be a blank cheque of support for Labour, who have many faults but it just shows that on the political strategy people voted tactically for the party that could counter the Brexit party in that local by-election.

Added on 7/6/19, the newly elected MP Lisa Forbes was caught into questions over alleged anti-semitic behaviour.



Hail strategy

I think the “Hail the excellent Robert Dougans” strategy doesn’t help the UK in the determination of the libel laws. Such propaganda only helps him to get extra work and provides free advertisement for him but in essence would have been fit for a Roman emperor or other dictatorial persons. I think it is a real shame that law  firms can exploit the pro bono procedure to make free  advertising for themselves.  This ruling will never stand up before the ECHR as it is and Robert Dougans knows it. Dougans now thinks it is generous to drop all costs in the case for a paltry £2.000 when his firm is due to make many, many thousands out of the free advertisement.  Even Justice Eady remarked on the on-the-spot-offer as not being correctly made. I will not sell my right to a fair trial and fair determination of the issue for any price.

It also jeopardises a proper determination of the law if newspapers tint judgments in a particular light. The law is not as simple as just to say one thing or another. It is very complex and calling on Ken Clarke to find a solution to lower costs is basically a good idea but where is the call for free legal advice to go with any suggestions. The Defamation Act of 1996 asks for a determination of issues per jury trial, and the only way to reduce those costs is by an application for summary judgment. 

These lawyers are trying to use me as a guinea pig to push through new legislation and that is beyond reasonable doubt. A determination of content by a single judge on the defamation  is against the Supreme Court Act and the Jameel  doctrine has never been tested on in the ECHR, simply because it was used in proceedings, that involved 2 foreign, non EU litigants on either side of the case. To say a claim is an abuse of process when that is judged in an unfair hearing is itself an abuse of process. There must be a lawyer on either side of the argument to make any decision fair.

It is also quite disturbing, from a sexist point of view that as soon as Robert  Dougans with male client David Osler wins a hearing the press gets mad and falls over themselves to support the 2 blokes, but when I won an earlier hearing before Justice Stadlen, that contradicts the very outcome of the Eady hearing, the press kept it as quiet as possible, including my local rag.

Lets just face it, ultimately a case is  not over before it has been processed by all instances of a UK court and then also by the EU courts to make it really, really clear and I think that Justice Eady knows that I can come up with some very good arguments and he has respect for this and I thank him for that. However the judgement is rather polemic and not properly founded and I shall point out my exact reasons why I say that in my permission to appeal application.

This quite unusual Eady ruling is a set back for all those victims of terrorism who now have to watch how terrorism is jokingly trivialized by the press, the results of which we have seen already.  I am just posting that to assure all those victims of terrorism that I shall take up their rights under the article 10. And then to say that I was arrested during the Baader-Meinhof hysteria in Germany puts this case into a huge quantitative  frame and if I asked now each and every person, that was arrested in Germany during the 70s,80s and 90s, when Baader-Meinhof were active, to come forward, we would come up with a huge number of persons, so that frame of mind is very unpractical, it was  merely dictated by the press who exploited that. I feel victim to that as well and I do not like it one bit. I refused an offer from Der Spiegel to purchase the copyright for the sickening and untrue story they printed about me in issue 39/1975, currently before the European  Court of Human Rights and I shall refuse to drop a case for a discount price. Mr Osler could consider allowing his pro bono lawyer to pay his costs when he loses the case in the end.

Mr Dougans should be ashamed to ask me for £2,000 knowing that I have lost my business due to the immense amount of work I had to put in this case over the last 2 years. He should in penance, immediately donate £2,000 to the Great Ormand Street Hospital instead.

Independent’s Day

In for a penny in for a pound is a very old English saying. Mr Lebedev is in for quite a few of the pounds, in total 9.25 million of them in liability payments from the previous owners of the paper.

What impresses me totally about Mr Lebedev is his attitude about publishing. He does not treat newspapers as business but as responsibility. He adds: “I think newspapers are the only instrument which, through investigative reporting, can ferret out everything about international corruption.”

This quote was taken from AFP news as published on Yahoo news today.

Quite right I agree, newspapers play with our minds a lot and have considerable impact on what we think and influence our decision-making process that goes beyond the purchase of our daily necessities, which of course is regulated by our budgets.

Mr Lebedev also co-owns at a 49% stake a Russian paper that is critical of the Kremlin, together with former Soviet leader Michael Gorbachev.  Hence he must know how powerful the media can be in building people’s perception of their political leaders. I now start to understand why the UK leftwing press denounces Lebedev as right-wing because the UK’s left-wing press today is of couse pro-Kremlin.

I am glad that publishers still wish to rely on printed media as it is more reliable than online digital publications, though electronically published material – whilst available – has the wider readership.

The Times newspapers is soon to start charging their online readers and that brings the quality argument into online publishing. That it is not just about exercising power over readers by making them read something that is freely available but telling people, if you want to read quality content, then please pay for it, quality is important and not just quantity.

There are these two main strategies in publishing at the moment, either give it away for free and capture readers mind’s en mass or make them pay for quality reporting, an interesting development that still should not encourage some publishers to give out trashy untrue publications because they do have the opportunity to do so.

Another old saying is “We know where it comes from”. Yet the quality of truth in publishing is at stake as the press’s reliance on fact reporting has often spread out to pictorial phantasy stimulation. Maybe there is not enough market to carry a wide variety of publications and we will see a reduction in publications, yet that can have advantages as one has less to read to filter through the trash.

Blog Stats

  • 55,006 hits
%d bloggers like this: