Lawyers acting for the Barclay brothers, Withers, instructed the takedown to Acidity via mail last night, citing the Acceptable User Policy. The takedown will be bolstered by the Godfrey vs Demon precendent, where an order can be made and it will be done instantly. Of course, if the website was being hosted in the USA it would be much harder to order the instant takedown. You'd think though, that if the allegations were moonbat untrue there would just be a "point, laugh and call them ridiculous" strategy rather than ordering a takedown to gag Nadine from saying it. This is especially the case I would've thought because once Recess is over, Nadine would be free to say such things in the House and be protected by Parliamentary Privilege. By taken her down like this the Telegraph will have fed the very idea of some sort of hidden agenda. Suppression, whether it is of speech that is right or wrong, is usually counterproductive.
This reminds me of the Usmanov case where a Russian Oligarch had a British blog's site taken down by its hosts because it didn't like what that particular blogger was saying. The whole British blogosphere rowed in behind him to support his right to free speech. I wonder if the same will happen here.
As I made clear yesterday, I didn't agree with all of what Nadine was saying on her blog yesterday. But so what. I defend her right to say it, no matter how ill advised I think some of it might have been for her personally. Can it really now be illegal or libellous to question a newspaper's agenda and motives, or those of its owners? Is it really illegal to accuse someone of a witchhunt? I don't happen to think that the Telegraph is undertaking a witchhunt, but I can quite see why some MPs do. Those who believe Nadine's main accusation, which is that the Telegraph has an agenda to boost UKIP and the BNP, may, at first sight, have their views reinforced by this morning's edition which has a lengthy profile of UKIP leader Nigel Farage. Reading it, however, it's not quite the paen of praise it might first appear.
Internet Service Providers needs to develop some cojones in the face of legal threats from big companies. If this had been an American ISP they would have probably laughed at the letter sent by the Telegraph.
Interestingly, the rest of the media seems to have become a little more sympathetic to Nadine's stance - something which the Telegraph's action will only accelerate. She has an article in the Independent this morning, and that newspaper's main leader is headlined THE PURSUIT OF MPs IS BECOMING A WITCHHUNT. The Times's Danny Finkelstein agrees with Nadine that suicides are quite possible.
No doubt, more later...
Nadine is far too much of a loose canon for the tories.
Iain is there a podcast of yesterdays radio show? I missed last nights.
Yes, podcast will be put up soon. I will link to it.
I like Nadine, she does get some flack though. All women in politics do. I'm trying to think of a Conservative woman anyone on a Conservative blog site has been nice about? I'm struggling.
Nadie started off saying many valid things, and her blog rebuttal to the Telegraph made interesting reading.
But we all heard the Radio 5 interview - she was sounding a little manic by the end of it.
Its all cached by google
I have a copy and so do many others
The Telegraph may be able to take her blog down but not the cache
Actually, America's not much better (depending on the company). YouTube, for instance, took down hundreds of legitimate videos because some kid in Australia claimed he owned the copyright. The policy at gutless corporations is that nobody gets in trouble by taking things down; they get in trouble by leaving them up.
This, of course, is not true, but it's a superstition that is widespread. I've had threats about getting my blog taken down, but Automattic (parent company of Wordpress.com) just told me I had nothing to worry about. Not every company has that kind of courage. Or the good legal advice, either.
Nadine's just human. Maybe she's not the perfect hardened career politicians, but she says a lot of things that many of us think.
This legal censorship is a disgrace.
Its is also gutless and cowardly coming from a Newspaper that has been spraying accusations around with gay abandon for almost two weeks.
The Daily Telegraph has done itself a lot of long lasting damage today. People are going to start questioning its motives much more closely now.
I doubt very much you'll even publish my comment condemining your buddy Nadine. She's a disagrace. First this, then her stupid appearance on the tv saying 'feel sorry for MPs.' This is the same woman who also went on the news and told total lies about Watson - who has now been awarded damages according to his blog?
Nadine was ridiculous.
The Barclays are utterly absurd.
Can I say that the Barclay bros. seem to have pitifully thin skins, and an inflated view of their (non-financial) worth, or is that too risky ?
I also have concerns about the manner in which her blog has been taken down. I agree to a certain extent that the Telegraph has rather over-done it's story now and that they seem to be scraping the barrel a bit with some of their stories not being entirely accurate in recent days.
On the other hand, Nadine was ill-advised to say what she said at this time when the public anger towards politicians of all parties is at an all-time low. All of this, coupled with her performance on Question Time the other week and her "rebuttal" of the Telegraph allegations against her have lowered my opinion of Nadine as someone who I thought "got it" and truly came over well with the electorate. I agree with Guido, she needs a holiday to cool down and think before she opens her mouth.
To answer your question, Ian, I would have to say that, if false, the comments made by Nadine in relation to the Barclay brothers' supposed motives regarding the BNP could very well be libellous
While I think Nadine is shrill and rather hysterical, nothing justifies the Telegraph's actions over her blog.
How has the paper spent the last fortnight?
Hurling accusations at people. Many are justified, some are not, but that is not the point.
I know the government is snooping on all our communications, but add the papers bullying as well and we might as well go back to the pigeon post.
Iain, I agree that Nadine Dorries has the right to voice her opinion in any which way. However; I do not agree that the Telegraph is conducting a witch hunt over its exposure of greedy corrupt MP's.
The Telegraph deserves financial reward...(who dares wins). It could have gone the other way.
As in the real world (civvie street)only the guilty have something to hide. So let us cut the cancer out from the bone (as deep as is required), purge Parliament & those within the admin offices that have assisted in the blatant frauds.
Those within who have acted correctly will be rewarded at the poll's.
The guilty with thoughts of suicide should contact their nearest NHS DIRECT or The Samaritans (08457 90 90 90) for best advice.
Those that have vast independant financial means will obviously 'go private' (one would hope)!!!
Her comment were simply pathetic! Time to go deary, just like the rest of them!
The problem is, despite the fact that Ms Dorries is not taken particularly seriously by many, I think that it is almost certain that Telegraph do have a hidden agenda.
I think it possible that it may have something to do with Europe. They seem to have put particular attention on those who might have succeded Brown if the men in grey suits were to push him out after a disasterous EU election campaign.
Harriet Harman came out just before the original story broke and said she would never stand for leader, the Telegraph has left her alone. They have concentrated a huge amount of fire on Hoon, Blears and Purnell, all more Blairite than Brownite. Straw & darling have also been implicated.
So far however, nothing significant on Balls, Browns annointed successor.
I fear that the main point of this and the way it has been used is twofold:
One, to destroy the political system here, allowing the EU to become more credible in the electorates mind,
Two, to keep Brown in power long enough to see the Lisbon treaty ratified. If Brown were to fall, a new leader might feel forced to call a quick election, allowing Cameron to withdraw the articles if he becomes PM.
I might be totally barking, and I'm not the type that goes in for conspiracy theories, but something smells about all this and the way that the Telegraph has gone about this, the lazy journalism and targeting of particular individuals.
What are they really after?
Watch Mackay getting heckled: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8064689.stm
The man was trying pretend that he had 75% support from the public meeting until a helpful member of the public pointed out otherwise.
These creeps just don't get it do they. Cameron has to dump people like him overboard now!
Don't be absurd. The Telegraph detest UKIP.
Iain, I'm sorry but after the sickening words 'it was the system' which have polluted the airwaves now for days, we have MPs like Nadine and Steen making outrageous statements. The word on people's lips still is 'they just don't get it.' These two, and the pompous Mackay, Kirkbride and yes Shadow Ministers like Alan Duncan should ALL go! They are a disgrace and the Party needs cleansed of these people.
If you've cached Nadine's blog after about 0730 this morning check the last entry.
It was pruned of all April/May content then.
My copy includes everything up to 17:00 yesterday. I read somewhere else that there was another post during the evening which disappeared before the site went.
Lots of it is barking IMHO but guess the ****graph had to try it on once she splashed her *thoughts* all over the BBC.
Iain - I agree that taking it down just fuels the conspiracy theories - Nads should have said it in the HoC if she needed to say it at all.
And if I'd done even a micron of the stuff we're reading about - I'd be sh!t scared about losing my cushy lifestyle, reputation and maybe looking at an interview with the Plod.
Mackay and Kirkbride were minced on HIGNFY last night - as well as that lovely chap of Remembrance wreath fame.
There is a difference between innocent bloggers being unjustly taken down and Nadine Dorries being taken down.
As for MPs committing suicide, I suggest that we give them enough rope...
The Times's Danny Finkelstein agrees with Nadine that suicides are quite possible.
One can only hope. One also wonders that, if MPs are so thin-skinned and pitifully weak that they're reach for the razor blades when their wrongdoing is exposed, are they really mentally fit to take the hard decisions that a part and parcel of government?
It's a bit strange that the people who claim the right to control our armed forces, our warmaking capacity and our nuclear deterrent are all suicidal as soon as someone points out what they've been doing.
Your agenda of trying to turn your political friends into the victims here is failing miserably, Iain.
Scamalot. This show will run and runBy the way, interesting that Nadin'es blog was taken down. There seems possibly to be a DOS attack...
Have you got a copy of the html source code of your blog Iain? Maybe you should!
So, the Telegraph shoots itself firmly in the foot. Yes, Nadine is a little manic - paranoid, even - but her views are valid, nonetheless, if only to allow one to challenge them. Maybe the Telegraph should muse on Voltaire: "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
As with the Usmanov affair, it is unlikely that Withers were instructed to have the entire blog removed. The takedown notice would request the removal of specific posts, referenced by url, title and date. Given that her hosts - Acidity - have no AUP on their site, it is probably safe to assume that contact was made with Coreix who provide the dedicated server that hosts Nadine's site in addition to that of Acidity themselves. They would also have been given a "reasonalble" deadline. In the Usmanov affair, this was typically 24 hours, though a Bank Holiday weekend would provide extenuating circumstances, so Withers wouldn't check again until sometime Tuesday morning.
Coreix would then contact someone at Acidity and pass on the request. Acidity have a couple of options here. Firstly they can try to get hold of Nadine and ask her to remove the relevant post(s). If they can't get hold of her, or if she refuses (unlikely but not out of the question), then the one think they can't do is remove the offending posts themselves. Were someone from Acidity to do that, then they'd compound their liability by demonstrating editorial control over the blog.
So, if they can't get hold of Nadine (or she tells them to take a hike), then options are to close the site or hide the blog. Given that her main site is still up, I'd guess that Acidity couldn't get hold of Nadine, so took the option to simply remove the Blog.aspx page from her site, thus hiding the live copy.
The real problem here, as some of us have been saying for a couple of years, is the damn stupid libel laws. Hosts should be treated as carriers, not publishers. That simple change would make running a UK-based hosting business so much easier.
Join the dots here for hypocrisy, which is astounding. Mahmood was sleeping with her under assumed names and then didnt want to know. I suspect he's toast once the local imams find out.
Few of us commoners will shout in her defence. We have lived been treated appallingly by the political classes for far too long, under the guise of political correctness and not a squeak in our defence from those on the opposite side of the house. What goes around, comes around.
A member of the public was so outraged about the porn scandal, he wrote to Jaqui Smith, in anger, complaining about the restriction of our liberties and called her a communist. A few weeks later, he got a letter from his GP, saying he had to go for mental health assemssment, because the Home Office was using an obscure law,invented by them, to protect the political classes and VIPs.
Who speaks for us commoners? You are all getting what you deserve and we're all enjoying it.
So stuff the corrupt Nadine, who is protected from prosecution and stuf the rest of Parliament.
I have disagreed with the majority what Nadine has had to say recently. With regard to her own claims, she acted to the letter of the law, but I don't think she acted within the spirit of the law.
Having said that, she has an unassailable right to express her views. So has the Telegraph. It appears as if the Telegraph thinks it can do anything it likes, but not give the same freedom to another person of organisation.
The Telegraph has had my admiration of late. Not today. It is as bad as New Labour, trying to repress freedom of speech and expression.
"There is a difference between innocent bloggers being unjustly taken down and Nadine Dorries being taken down."
No. There isn't.
You learned nothing from your own experience, did you?
I think its interesting that Nadine was getting a lot of flack for some of the rather silly things she had been saying.
The DT legal action has now focussed everyones attention on the brothers Grim and made more people aware of Nadines allegations than ever.
Err - I would call that an "own goal".
Mind you- I rather thought the DT had become just another arm of government of late, although the expenses scoop had me wondering...
I want Nadine's Blog reinstated - today!
Nothing wrong with a few MP's commiting suicide. In the old days we would already have had a crop of whisky and revolver sessions in the library over such disgraceful behaviour with public money.
Just what is the Telegraphs agenda.
Given the animal activist threat in Huntingdon, Jonathan Djanogly's £5,000 for security gates seems reasonable.
I wonder what the Telegraphs response would be if its response to accusations was blocked.
Free speech is important - it is right the MP expense issue is exposed.
But there seems to be bias and misrepressentation here.
What is the game and who is pulling the strings?
Very funny. Ms Dorries has been censoring comments on her own site. Anything with is not wholeheartedly in support of her viewpoint is likely to be censored, and now she gets a dose of her own medicine.
I agree that the action of the barclays is indefensible. As with Sark they like to throw their weight around.
Craig Murray has defended the right of Nadine Dorries to blog over on his blog.
Suggesting the Telegraph owners are pro BNP is a serious allegation. Off the rail Nads states that this as a fact.
Those supporting her right to liable are either ignorant about the law.
If the Telegraph owns the blog they are entitled to take it down, regardless of the reasons. Their property, their rules.
Ignore my last comment, I thought you were referring to a blog run by the Daily Telegraph.
No longer anonymous, The Telegraph do not own her blog. She hosted it independently.
Surely a foolish move by The Telegraph to draw attention to the utterances of Nadine. As somebody who knows very little about Nadine (other than that she is more attractive than the average female MP)I am now agog to read her blog. No smoke without fire perhaps?
"There is a difference between innocent bloggers being unjustly taken down and Nadine Dorries being taken down."
No, there really isn't. That's the entire point. It was a damn silly article but she had the right to say it.
When Usmanov attacked me, what defeated him was the willingness of other bloggers not only to object, but to repost the article.
Tou can find Nadine's on my blog, as well as elesewhere. It behoves all bloggers to put up, at the very least, a link to the google cache.
Otherwise your expressions of support are just hot air.
Iain, her conspiracy theory about the Barclays giving tacit support to the BNP is equivalent to suggesting they are backing a party that supports the forced repatriation of non-whites from the UK. Would you let such an allegation go unchallenged about yourself?
I share your concerns about censorship of the internet, but if you are going to suggest high-profile figures support racists you can't be too surprised if they call the legal heavies in.
Unfortunately for Nadine I doubt she's heard the last about this
Iain, trying to suggest the ISPs should grow a pair ignores the legal situation. They are liable as publishers under uk law, and the uk defamation laws are so skewed that it's not worth the risk since they WILL end up losing money. Fix the uk libel laws first!
Do they really believe the people-without-pants will once again run riot, a drooling ochlocracy hell bent on decapitation and properly audited accounts?
Am I allowed to say the the Barclay twins are weirdos?
Whatever the rights and wrong of all this - don't people think "press Barons", especially weird ones who try and take over islands should be subject to some scrutiny?
I hope I've kept my comments within the law.
Keep up the good work Mr Dale.
You have to laugh Ian,
Politicians have been complaining for years that the public were disconnected from politics, now they have the public’s full attention it seems most have changed their minds.
Funny old world.
My guess is that this all boils down to 'Godfrey vs. Demon Internet', a court case regarding libel which established that Internet Service Providers that deliver content to users are liable for the content - even if they did not originate the content.
Someone at the Telegraph probably thought they could be held liable for something the slightly dotty Dorries had to say.
Former South Korean president facing corruption allegations jumps off a cliff.
The Bangkok Post carries a report of what Nadine Dorries wrote on her blog about MP's expense claims.
"suicides are quite possible"
Doubtful with no new expenses payouts allowed what are the chances this lot would pay for their own pills, rope, gun, petrol to do the job?
What seems to be missing from any of the discourse is Dorries's other substantive complaint.
This was that, not only was the ACA - with the stress on "allowance" - regarded as a salary increment (and thus an entitlement) but that most journalists in the Westminster loop knew that to be the case. Thus, she complains that the media is misrepresenting the ACA as "expenses" when they know them not to be, and have known for a considerable time.
That successive governments since 1971 have resorted to disguised payments, to avoid having to declare overt (and contentious) pay rises (and that they have been made tax-exempt), and that MPs and the media both have colluded in this process, is a significant story - but it is of a completely different order from the way it is currently framed as "expenses abuse" - which it is not.
There are three parties to this issue - successive governments, starting with the Heath government, MPs and the media.
One wonders, therefore, what the real agenda is behind this flood of iconoclastic stories focused exclusively on MPs. These are essentially destructive in nature and serve - unwittingly perhaps (or not) - to weaken the authority of parliament as an institution and thereby strengthen the executive.
One wonders, also, whether the speed with which Dorries's blog has apparently been closed down relates more to this substantive complaint, than it does the others. A "backlash", based on an appreciation that the Telegraph campaign is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of the position, would be dangerous to the paper and raise questions which some would prefer not to answer.
The Daily Sport has some interesting posters:
OK. I'm no political friend of Nadine's, but I have been calling out the Telegraph for weeks.
The Barclay brothers are nasty right wing nutcases.
Craig said... Tou can find Nadine's on my blog, as well as elesewhere. It behoves all bloggers to put up, at the very least, a link to the google cache. Otherwise your expressions of support are just hot air.Hmm. Craig Murray's site is presently down.
I can very well believe that the Barclay Brothers are using the law and the pusillanimity of ISPs and hosts to suppress views they don't like. It is all in keeping with their dictatorial behaviour in Sark. I can very well believe Nadine Dorries MP's expressed view that they would use their power and wealth to try to steer the next election to benefit UKIP and the BNP. Nadine Dorries MP is right about this.
The more the Barclay Brothers try to suppress this view the more people will believe it.
Having Dorries' blog removed gives her the oxygen of publicity for all the wrong reasons.
People might now be tempted to subscribe to her ludicrous conspiracy theories, regarding alleged support for UKIP and even the BNP on the part of the Barclay brothers.
The woman clearly doesn't like the truth, not does she react well to be found out, hence her objection to The Telegraph's public interest story. Her whining to the press, about the press, came across as pathetic and I believe it did her cause more harm than good.
The blog should have been left alone. She can now lay claim to being some sort of martyr and victim of censorship, when in actual fact she's nothing but an overpaid, out of touch, liability to the Tory party.
'Tory tigress'? Don't make me laugh.
This reminds me of the Usmanov case where a Russian Oligarch had a British blog's site taken down by its hosts because it didn't like what that particular blogger was saying. The whole British blogosphere rowed in behind him to support his right to free speech. I wonder if the same will happen here.The killer in the Usmanov affair was that Schillings had no intention of ever letting the matter go to court. My understanding is that Withers contacted both Nadine and Coreix (the upstream hosts for Acidity), asking for specific actionable posts to be removed. Coreix then contacted Acidity (Nadine's direct hosts) and they took down the blog to protect both themselves and Coreix until such time as Nadine can ammend the content. As Withers have contacted Nadine, she could retain lawyers herself and have her day in court.
This wouldn't change the fact that Godfrey vs Demon still stands as a precedent, making ISPs and hosting companies publishers rather than carriers.
Internet Service Providers needs to develop some cojones in the face of legal threats from big companies.ISPs and hosting companies operate on high volume, low margin business models. Given that defending a case like this, in light of legal precedent, could cost tens of thousands of pounds over an hosting account worth maybe £100 per annum, then where is the sense from the ISPs' perspective?
If this had been an American ISP they would have probably laughed at the letter sent by the Telegraph.That's because under US law the ISP is a carrier, not a publisher.
More interesting is the update Dizzy has posted. Having been notified of the Telegraph's legal complaint, Nadine went off for the weekend, leaving Acidity to deal with the situation. Such actions don't make for a very considerate customer.
In complaining about a witch hunt, are you implying that MPs are not witches?
"He supports the BNP. Burn him."
Come on Ian - Dorries is a national laughing stock and you damage your credibility by impliedly defending her.
@ May 23, 2009 11:41 AM , Blogger Clive said... cut...
Hosts should be treated as carriers, not publishers. That simple change would make running a UK-based hosting business so much easier.
Although I agree ISP's should be regarded as just carriers but with the possible introduction of carriers injecting adverts within the data stream that it intercepts, this may never again be the case. (Check out Phorm / Webwise)
From Dorries's blog....
"Enter the Barclay brothers, the billionaire owners of The Daily Telegraph.
Rumour is that they are fiercely Euro sceptic and do not feel that either of the main parties are Euro sceptic enough. They have set upon a deliberate course to destabilise Parliament, with the hope that the winners will be UKIP and BNP.
A quick online check of the Barclay brothers and their antics on the Island of Sark is enough to give this part of the rumour credence.
That goes well beyond 'questioning'....and yes Iain, it is libelous!
It is also unsubstantiated...no supporting evidence provided at all.
This from a woman who seems a little too keen to deflect from her own expenses embarassment - and is starting to protest just a little too much!
I disagree with Nadine Dorries. I don't take her all that seriously. I think she is a liability and during elections it will be exploited.
But I strongly disagree with our libel laws, having seen them used again and again to silence debate or as a chilling effect. It's wrong. We are among the most draconian.
Here in the UK Positive Internet have repeatedly provided havens for people under these circumstances. They have good lawyers and don't scare easily (even if some lawyer is trying to abuse their ToS). They have hosted for free when they get some positive publicity. If I were Nadine I'd have someone contact Positive Internet on my behalf.
There are some very good pro free speech US ISPs, such as Dreamhost, but I'd try Positive first. Might get a freebee.
I am becoming increasingly disgusted by the behaviour of the Telegraph and its owners.
The current political story is no moving to the integrity of the media (who have long colluded with the political class) and about time too.
If the political class are destroyed the journalist class are naked and they have much to answer for.
I will say no more in case it results in our convivial host suffering at the hands of an arrogant and authoritarian media outleto seem to have taken on the role of being the sole judge and jury of the political class.
Funny, I thought that was the role of the electorate.
All newspapers have an agenda, some just hide it better than others.
Your theory as to the EU angle is very believable.
I am sure that those this Government have waged negative media campaigns against - police, teachers, social workers, firemen, postal workers and doctors - have little sympathy! 'Live by the sword' etc. Perhaps you might point that out to your friend.
All the Bloggers should show solidarity and organise a week long boycott of the Telegraph and Spectator.
Whatever Nadines comments and actions she is a democratic representive silenced by people who tried the same on Sark.
Democracy is under threat by the greedy people in the system and from forces outside.
"The Telegraph is pursuing a pro- BNP or UKIP agenda"?
Nonsense - The Telegraph has saved Brown. The Editor is mates with Balls.
A bad result for Labour is now an "anti-politics" vote not an "Anti-Brown" one.
"...not quite the paen of praise it might first appear."
Iain, is there an HTML code for understatement?
Even the title referes to "...fact and fiction on planet UKIP"
If the Telegraph supports UKIP they have a funy way of going about it (my italics):
"Essentially a single-issue party, given to bouts of vicious infighting, Ukip has threatened to implode on a number of occasions, only to carry on. Now, like the British National Party, it seeks to benefit from the expenses scandal engulfing Westminster and the general disillusionment of the electorate."
The piece generally ridicules UKIP and frequently compares them with the BNP.
In the Times today Caroline Flint is given extra special treatment. Front page photograph and two pages of an interview with rachel sylvester and alice thomson.
Flint's own expense scandal is limited to four sentences, one paragraph! It is dealt with in an almost matter of fact manner!
Then you look at the way Ann Treneman (she is no richard littlejohn)treats David Cameron's meeting with his constituents!
and the report on Dorries and Mackay.
Now, I have been hardline on Cameron and all the ones that have had their hands in the till.
But it certainly is looking like the media are turning all this on the Tories in a big way.
As for the Barclay Brothers. They have never liked criticism, and perhaps, Ms Dorries has hit on something.
Look at the past behaviour of the political correspondents of the DT, and especially what Guido has reported, in relation to McBride, The Telegraph went running to Number 10, despite signing a non disclosure agreement.
So, is all this designed to destroy the Tories far more than Brown? Only time will tell.
OR, are the Barclays could be on a mission to destroy our democracy! Are they backing the BNP?
But the best way Cameron can deal with it is to ensure that everyone in the shadow cabinet is beyond reproach and any,like any backbencher named and shamed, including Mackay and his wife, are shown the door.
But certainly the Telegraph has done itself no favours at all.
Iain, Do not forget that Wheeler has placed a full page ad in the telegraph in favour of ukip!
could have wangled an article for ukip for the cost?
When you make the sort of serious allegations that were made without evidence to justify the publication you libel them. Dorries made serious allegations in her post without any concrete evidence. It was based on rumour as she said. So she got off lightly by having the statement purged. (In fact the Barclays might even have a case for malicious falsehood.)
Some of your correspondents have argued that if the site was hosted in the States then Dores would have been able to shelter behind the First Amendment. However, this might have been a worse outcome. The ISP might have refused to take the offending article down. In those circumstances Dores would have undoubtedly found herself on the wrong end of a defamation action in the High Court because of the rule in Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849). The High Court would have jurisdiction.
>>The Barclay brothers are nasty right wing nutcases.<<
Please present evidence for the "nutcase" appellation (I'll take the rest on trust).
Lord Ashcroft took similar action in an attempt to gag a Turks and Caicos website from discussing his activities. I hope you send him a copy of your article.
It is one of the two primary tenets of Socialism/Communism (essentially the same thing, as Stalin openly declared to his party faithful) that their intent is to control what the people can say, do, or (as far as possible) think.
Neither this nor the Usmanov case is thus any kind of surprise.
Just for the sake of completeness: the other prime tenet is "I want to take what you've got, for myself and my buddies".
All Socialists have this huge chip on their shoulder (sometimes well camouflaged) a=nd these are the two principles that bind all of them together, and always have done as far as I can ascertain.
I agree with Alex.
I have left several mildly critical comments on her blog and not had them published.
When Nadine learns too defend everyone's right to free speech she might get a bit more sympathy.
This is an outrageous attack on free speech. Guido was served with a high court writ but ignored it as he is hosted in Ireland(Eire) and published regardless. Her ISP is a craven coward. I hope more bloggers are hosted in the USA. There freedom of speech still counts and is protected by their WRITTEN constitution.
Nadine says what many of us think. I dont think she says the things the political nerds who spend their day on political blog sites say.The mood in the pub last night was that we have had enough. There is something David Kelly like about watching all of this. I think Cameron got it wrong too. He came over as though he had joined the mob. Sorry if this isn't a popular view
In the thirties did not newsppaer proprietors flirt with Nazism?
Just a thought!
Have the Barclays any link with Common Purpose?
In the Indi article she reckons that the graph have lumped serious, which she thinks should be punished, and mistakes, to whip up more of a storm. She also mentions this has been going on for 15 days. I think she has made a fair comment that the graph are pushing votes to other parties. Everyone knows it's a Eurosceptic paper. The profile of Farage the morning after they take her website down i think bears out her theory. Will everyone say sorry to her when the graph lose interest in expenses on June 5th?
I'm a litle confused.
haven't the Lib/Lab/Con, in a conspiracy with most of the media and political commentators been conducting a witch hunt against the BNP and UKIP for weeks. Its a bit rich claiming witch hunt now when it impacts on one of the MP's implicated in the expenses scam. You can't be selective about freedom of speech, you either accept it warts and all or it doesn't exist, as many of us have been blogging for some time. Perhaps the Barclay Brothers looked at blogs like this, and decided that freedom of speech seeemingly can be ignored with impunity when it is politically convenient and acted accordingly. On the general freedom of speech topic, has anybody any thoughts on the pictures of Lib/Lab/Con/Greens standing four square in Bath last night with a skinhead draped in the hammer and sickle, now that would make some coalition.
I totally disagree with Nadine's latest rantings.
Yes, she censors which comments appear on her blog (but it's her blog - so she can show whatever she likes).
But, IMO the Barclay's best strategy would have been to leave her rantings up. Afterall, they were mocked by the majority of commentators.
The fundamental issue is freedom of speech and whatever she believes she has a right to post. Taking down a website is a paranoid overreaction and as someone has already said it the best boost Nadine could hope for with regard to her blogging. She is a good brave independent soul and her blog site has a big following. Well done Nadine. Remember 'Nil illegitimus carborundum' [Don't let the bastards grind you down]
The law in this country, making the ISP the publisher of everything on their servers and such, is absolutely crazy. Is there any way of changing this stupid rule?
I never realized the Barclay Bros were Tories. They have done the Conservative party a great service.
Dave will be pleased.
Maybe one day we'll be lucky enough to have a witch as an MP. Might see a bit of commonsense and homespun wisdom about the place
Guido was served with a high court writ but ignored it as he is hosted in Ireland(Eire) and published regardless.I believe Paul's blog is on a server in the states, though the images are on a server in Ireland. Furthermore he is - I believe - an Irish citizen, and the family assets are in his wife's name. In short, bloody tough to sue.
Her ISP is a craven coward.Nope. Her host is pragmatic and realistic. Given Godfrey vs Demon, is it worth any business gambling tens of thousands of pounds in costs for a couple of hundred quid a year?
I'd love to see UK hosts treated as carriers rather than publishers, but doubt it'll happen in my lifetime.
Host in the states if you like. Your site will stay up, but if you're worth suing and you're domicile in the UK then they can sue you directly.
The communication from Withers was direct to both Nadine and her upstream host. Given her inability or unwillingness to address issues raised in the mail, her host really didn't have many options.
According to the People newspaper, it looks like Nadine is on the way out anyway. I'm a celebrity star is going Esther Rantzen - Van Day is going to stand against Nadine.
"Ex-POP star David Van Day plans to run as an Independent candidate in the next general election because he believes the public will prefer him to "money-grabbing MPs".
David, 52 - half of Eighties duo Dollar - said: "This expenses scandal is outrageous. People want a parliament that they can have faith in and respect."
Has no one checked the cached page on Google?
On Friday she added the following comment:
"I'm taking them off for the Bank Holiday weekend. Sorry!"
I don't know if this is because she is away having said in her blog:
"I am about to go away, however, I will say nothing different to what I have just said on BBC News. "
Post a Comment