Against Lack Of Clue


Open Rights Group - Fighting For Your Digital Rights

Don’t Disconnect Us – battling Lord Mandelson’s filesharing proposals

Don't be a guinea-pig — Stop the ID Card Con



free debate

Flickr Feed

Roy Tanck's Flickr Widget requires Flash Player 9 or better.

Get this widget at roytanck.com

SouthEastern Trains - The Private Police State

SouthEastern and the British Transport Police have some serious questions to answer over their use of Railway Enforcement Officers.

From You’ve Been Cromwelled:

Last night I had the “pleasure” of being detained against my will not by the police but by Rail Enforcement Officers who operate on the South Eastern rail services. What did I do wrong? I took a picture of these Rail Enforcement Officers and when they asked me to see and then remove the pictures from my phone I refused. Apologies for the long-winded post below, however it raises some very serious questions.

Here’s the story…

Making my way back from a BBQ yesterday I had the need to use the services of South Eastern Rail from Gravesend. When I arrived at the station I noticed two men in hi-vis vests and wondered whether they were the infamous Rail Enforcement Officers I’d heard stories about:

http://garyallanach.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-was-trying-to-exit-chatham-station.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-479607/Cub-Scout-leader-court-putting-feet-train-seat-just-seconds.html

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Musician39s-gig-list-deemed-suspicious.6159440.jp

Read how Railway Enforcement Officers care nothing for the law of the land, how they think they have powers they do not actually have and how they seek to bully and intimidate innocent people.

SouthEastern and the British Transport Police have been asked some serious questions.  Do they have the balls to give honest, serious answers?

It is time to put an end to uniformed thugs stomping around bullying people, whether the thugs are in the Police or are “wannabe Police” who think they have powers just because they wear a uniform.

Say A Website Is Poor, Get Libel Threat

That’s right.  Luke Bozier voiced his thoughts about Gordon Brown’s website and found himself on the receiving end of a libel threat from Tangent, the company responsible for the former Prime Minister’s site.

Let’s look at what Luke said in a Tweet:

Gordon Brown’s WebCreator website is not befitting of a former Prime Minister. Tangent should be ashamed. http://gordonbrown.org.uk

And what he said on his blog:

I apologise if I’m blunt, but this website is not befitting of a former Prime Minister. It has an unprofessional feel to it, and doesn’t portray the image of a statesman and one of Labour’s biggest figures.

And you know something? He’s right.  The site looks like it’s a scrappily filled in template.  Let’s put the politics to one side here.  This is a former Prime Minister we’re talking about.  One would have expected his website to be slick, smooth, eye catching and vibrant.  The Fife Labour site to which Mr Brown’s site links is a whole lot better.  I’ve seen vastly better templates available in various places around the web.

The tone of Luke’s Tweet is not abusively critical.  The tone of Luke’s article is constructively critical and something that Tangent should look at and learn from.  But they didn’t.

Instead they chose to threaten someone who has done nothing more than cast a critical eye over Tangent’s work and has found it to fall short of standards he believes should be achieved.

What in Luke’s posts has been illegal?  Perhaps Tangent will be so good as to enlighten me and everyone else now following this story.

Luke updated his blog and Twitter to reflect this heavy handed attempted bullying and now the hashtag #offtangent is trending in the UK.  And deservedly so.  More bad news for them is that the well known legal blogger Jackofkent has got wind of this.  So if Tangent do decide to go ahead with their legal threat they can be assured of more publicity

I would strongly urge those responsible for Labour’s internet presences to review Tangent’s involvement, overall standard of websites they have created for Labour MPs and their conduct in this issue.

Just like Paperchase, Phorm, the British Chiropractic Association, Jan Moir and others Tangent will now find themselves getting plenty of adverse publicity for their attempt to bully Luke.  People are talking about Tangent and spreading the word about their lack of Clue.  Tangent should apologise now for their threat and they might be able to stop any reputational damage from spreading.  Tangent’s brand is taking a real slating.

There is nothing illegal about saying a website is poor.  In my opinion the website at gordonbrown.org.uk is poor.  I’d be hard pressed to describe it as anything beyond basic.  I have seen one or two worse sites in my time but I have seen many that are much much better.  I’m sure that Tangent can and should do better than this current effort.

Other blogs discussing this story include

All I Hear Is Phorm

Like a nasty strain of venereal disease that just won’t go away, Phorm somehow seems to keep hanging on and showing up somewhere that hasn’t encountered its unpleasantness.  Kent Ertugrul’s company is said to be looking at China (a nice match that as China is no fan of privacy) and is trialling in Brazil.  Of course what Kent calls trialling and what you or I would call trialling may well be two very different things.

Let’s be honest here, veracity isn’t something Phorm have a very good track record in.  There has been some discussion on internet forums in Brazil about Phorm and its invasive (and illegal under UK and EU law) product. Then of course there’s the smear campaign website.  In short there’s nothing about Phorm to indicate that they are trustworthy in any respect.

Continue reading All I Hear Is Phorm

John Howard: Woe Is Me!

The ICC (supposedly cricket’s governing body) has found itself in the spotlight with the rejection of former Aussie PM John Howard from the post of ICC President.  World cricket has its factions, at least when Lalit Modi isn’t throwing a strop and the boards are falling into line like good little sheep (and I could use a far stronger word here), and Howard’s rejection has opened up some debate on those factions and the reasons for it.

The reactions themselves are generally predictable but there are two which deserve highlighting for their crass stupidity and one for its spot on analysis.

Continue reading John Howard: Woe Is Me! Updated

Wayne Rooney Biography

Biteback (the publishing company owned by Iain Dale) recently published a biography of Wayne Rooney called Rooney’s Gold.  It’s by investigative journalist John Sweeney.  It is also the subject of a very very poor front page story (even by their sewer standards) on today’s Daily Star.

Stay calm folks, this post isn’t about football.  It’s about bullying and threats.

From Schillings.

You know, the “reputation management” people whose clients include that well known bastion of ethics Phorm. Now some of the people involved in the anti-Phorm and anti-DPI campaign can tell you a  bit about Schillings.  Here’s one example.  Threats over information already in the public domain.

Read Iain Dale’s response to the pathetic Daily Star, about WHSmith’s capitulation and Schillings’ attempts to bully Biteback into censoring the book by intimidating their customers.  One point in particular highlights another reason why this country needs libel reform:

If publishers accede to threats like this it effectively means that no one can write a celebrity biography any longer unless it is a complete hagiography. Our libel laws are allowing the likes of Schillings to threaten, bully and intimidate authors and publishers into abandoning perfectly legitimate books for fear of their whole company’s existence coming under threat. This cannot be right and any reform of the libel laws must surely encompass this aspect of the law.

I’m not a football fan but I may well buy the book to support Biteback and spite Schillings.

FT Lacking Cojones, Ethics, Both?

What’s up with the FT today?  It refused to publish this advert from Amnesty International.

Metro and The Evening Standard were happy to run the advert.

Why did the FT cop out?

I’m sure the editorial board of the FT have a perfectly cogent reason to explain this decision.  One based on ethics and standards rather than being afraid of challenging the way a company works.