Resignations From Liberal Vannin

[thesultanofsheight]

It clearly states it is the Manx charity for the homeless, so my guess is they'll spend it on helping the homeless.

You just have to lead some people to the answers at times.

 

A homeless charity is quite apt given the peripatetic nature of LV's members once they get elected.

[Whimsy]

Aye . . . I remember the days when a gentle forum discussion about where the Wurlitzer should be relocated was about as busy as it got.

 

 

 

Aye.... I remember the days when this forum was funny.

 

 

It's a fading memory though, like what used to be in Strand Street before Next moved in? sort of thing...

[pokerman]

Without knowing the reasons why it has been removed, IMO it seems reasonable to conjecture that this might have been at the request of pokerman/Nigel Dobson (given comments about not intending to 'do our dirty washing in public'). Moreover with regard to Mr Dobson's handling of party matters, both ai_Droid and oldmanxfella have very sensibly expressed surprise at Mr Dobson's claim that IoM newspapers edited his letter. Personally I'm a little sceptical about this, and find it hard to believe a newspaper would selectively edit a letter in this manner. But if that were indeed what happened, then I can only wonder why Mr Dobson did not take up the matter and insist on a correction rather than allow this to stand as it did. Should we assume IoM Newspapers refused to do this?

 

It looks to me like a fair amount of the upsets might be down to Mr Dobson perhaps not handling things quite as well as might be. It also strikes me that LV might not only be unwilling to 'do our dirty washing in public', but to do it at all. I don't think it is any excuse for the people who left to have spat the dummy and thrown the toys out of the cot, but clearly there are 'issues'. More incredibly to me LV seems to have done nothing to address these.

 

I'd have thought that for the sake of the party Mr Dobson might have fallen on his sword, made a public apology for the mistakes, and resigned his position in the party. I would think these mistakes coupled with the attitude of keeping muck under wraps would raise questions over his position in LV, especially if taken in conjunction with what might appear to be his seeking to have material removed from MF and making what appear to me to be veiled threats of legal action for libel. However with the benefit of open disucssion, perhaps pokerman/Mr Dobson might clarify these matters and why he does not think such resignation in order, and why he still enjoys the confidence of the LV leadership.

 

I am happy to clarify certain matters.

 

The email posted by John Faragher was a personal email from me to him. I asked for its removal and the moderator agreed.

 

Elsewhere in this string I have already said that I may (I do not recall the conversation but it wouldn't suprise me as it would be along the lines of how I would have done things) have said there would be an election to the Executive at the conference. That was due to my ignorance of our rules and I have already apologised. I was wrong

 

I have no intention of taking legal action against Steve Babb or anyone else, but I do not like any suggestion that I am a liar.

 

Read the letters page in next Mondays newspaper and, I am hopeful, Isle of Man newspapers will explain their edit/error.

 

Finally, sometimes the best thing to do with 'muck' is to clean it up in private and I make no apology for this. I, and others, have made mistakes and probably will do so again. Part of human nature I suppose. But whatever I do, it is with an honest heart. If I have offended, I apologise but, at my age, I aint gonna change much.

 

Nigel Dobson.

[Mission]

You really don't need to clarify anything, I think skeddan's just on a windup tbh.

 

The T&C clearly state what's what, if people have a problem with that, they can always stop using the forum.

[pokerman]

You really don't need to clarify anything, I think skeddan's just on a windup tbh.

 

The T&C clearly state what's what, if people have a problem with that, they can always stop using the forum.

 

Thanks for that, I'm happy to explain anyway.

 

Nigel.

[thebees]

Oooh isn't Nigel nice? what a nice man, thanks for pointing out what a nice man you are, saying thanks, obeying forum rules ooh almost too good to be true, which, I suspect, is the truth. I've mentioned previously what I think of politicians, don't come your 'butter wouldn't melt' with me mister pokerman As far as any communication goes...the way I see it, once you have sent it thats it, it becomes someone elses property for them to do with what ever they choose, so be careful what you write (....oh please Grant, dont publicise my PMs ) I think John Faragher has shown a bit of passion - is that such a bad thing?

[slinkydevil]

As far as any communication goes...the way I see it, once you have sent it thats it, it becomes someone elses property for them to do with what ever they choose, so be careful what you write (....oh please Grant, dont publicise my PMs ) I think John Faragher has shown a bit of passion - is that such a bad thing?

 

As far as you see it doesn't make it right in the eyes of the law. It might be arguable but a good lawyer could probably make a case against you:

 

E-mail is a written work that once created is copyright protected by the author. This means you cannot post publicly an e-mail sent to you privately. You cannot post private e-mails to your site, to message boards or to your blog without the author’s specific permission to do so.

 

Just because an e-mail was sent to you as a private communication does not mean you then own it and can do with it what you like. In addition, e-mail that is posted to a group of people, on a mailing list or Newsgroup does not make the e-mail available for reposting, copying, or any other use - not without the express and written consent of the author.

 

Best just not do it eh? Especially when you're in a position such as JF.

[pokerman]

Oooh isn't Nigel nice? what a nice man, thanks for pointing out what a nice man you are, saying thanks, obeying forum rules ooh almost too good to be true, which, I suspect, is the truth. I've mentioned previously what I think of politicians, don't come your 'butter wouldn't melt' with me mister pokerman As far as any communication goes...the way I see it, once you have sent it thats it, it becomes someone elses property for them to do with what ever they choose, so be careful what you write (....oh please Grant, dont publicise my PMs ) I think John Faragher has shown a bit of passion - is that such a bad thing?

 

So you agree with my Mother. She thinks I'm nice aswell! As for John showing a bit of passion, that's no bad thing. I only hope he shows the same passion next time he sorts out my insurance quotes

[thebees]

Slinky, thats great news, ooh hoooo I can send whatever emails I like now and never worry that anyone will ever share the content.........

 

 

/contempt for pokerman

[pokerman]

[John]

Insurance was my first love

And it will be my last

Insurance of the future

And Insurance of the past

 

To live without my Insurance

Would be impossible to do

In this world of troubles

My Insurance pulls me through

 

 

Thankyou to John Miles for my inspiration.

[Skeddan]

As far as you see it doesn't make it right in the eyes of the law. It might be arguable but a good lawyer could probably make a case against you:

 

E-mail is a written work that once created is copyright protected by the author. This means you cannot post publicly an e-mail sent to you privately. You cannot post private e-mails to your site, to message boards or to your blog without the author’s specific permission to do so.

 

Just because an e-mail was sent to you as a private communication does not mean you then own it and can do with it what you like. In addition, e-mail that is posted to a group of people, on a mailing list or Newsgroup does not make the e-mail available for reposting, copying, or any other use - not without the express and written consent of the author.

 

Best just not do it eh? Especially when you're in a position such as JF.

slinkydevil - the issue of copyright isn't as straightforward as you make out. You are more likely to have infringed copyright by quoting from netmanners.com site without giving any attribution - assuming you did not get the express and written consent of the author. In any case, this is not a very good guide to the issues of copyright.

 

For written works there is copyright protection for 'literary works'. I don't think anyone would claim that JF was pirating a literary work by Nigel Dobson which diminished that work's value for commercial exploitation - a kind of 'trespass on chattels' which is the underlying principle of copyright law.

 

In addition there is 'fair use', and I'd think there is every reason to consider this being under fair use exemption of protection. Channel Four recently quoted and copied text from a confidential letter from UK Treasury. They were not infringing copyright. However the person at Treasury who leaked the letter may well have been in breach of terms of employment or the like, but that does not mean that Channel Four would be infringing copyright or themselves doing anything unlawful. (As for JF, he may well have been in breach of LV Constitution and contractual agreement had he posted this while a member of LV, but he did so after he resigned his membership).

 

Regardless of rights or wrongs of JF posting, there is a separate issue about removal of this once posted. UK Treasury could have asked Channel Four not to broadcast the contents of this letter, and C4 might agree. That is up to C4. Similarly if Nigel Dobson asks MF to remove the post quoting his letter, that is up to MF. I'm no aware that there would be anything unlawful if MF did not do so - or any reason why there would be 'legal trouble'. However if MF mods want to censor what is posted, the rules are quite clear about what's what - they can. Journalistic integrity and the like simply isn't a consideration. I accept MF Mods need not even explain why they remove or censor material, and I wasn't disputing that - only asking if could know the reasons why it was removed. In any case it seems one can surmise the reasons - this was done as a favour to Nigel Dobson and/or Liberal Vannin Party (though perhaps in fear of a paper tiger of 'legal trouble').

 

Suppose the UK Conservative Party contacted The Independent and asked them to remove a leaked email from from their website, but which was perfectly legitimate to have published. What would you think if they agreed to do this?

 

Here the issue isn't about Manxforums and their policy, but with the conduct of the Liberal Vannin Party. I'd have thought openness and transparency were important principles, and IMO it seems somewhat hypocritical to be seeking to have published information censored in this fashion when there is no valid legal reason to have it removed. A free and independent media which is not subject to unwarranted political interference ought to be a basic principle. Would an LV government (if ever such a thing) request and perhaps even pressure other media to not publish 'fair use' material that they might find inconvenient? Since this is what the Liberal Vannin Party have done with MF with regard to this copy of the email, IMO this doesn't reflect at all well on LV.

 

I don't think it insidious, but probably simply ill-judged by Liberal Vannin to have done this. To Nigel Dobson's credit he has clarified that he made the request for this to be removed. What I really would like though is to understand how LV might justify or explain their apparently unjustified interference with freedom of speech by obtaining the suppression of fair use material which was published. My hope is the Liberal Vannin Party might review its actions, and perhaps change its position - otherwise IMO it does it very little credit indeed.

 

I also think the comments that thebees has made are worth taking note of. At a guess I'd think these reflect core traditional 'liberal' values (sorry if that's presumptuous thebees). You don't need the fancy long winded explanation to feel the conduct isn't right. If anything this seems to be taking a kind of leaf out of NuLabour - and one might suspect LV are not so much Liberal but a 'NuLiberal' party. (with gang of one, media manipulation, spin, unsavoury political links, hollow promises and pedalling aspirations it is not committed to - all of which may well make many very disillusioned with it).

[jehovah]

Insurance was my first love

And it will be my last

Insurance of the future

And Insurance of the past

 

To live without my Insurance

Would be impossible to do

In this world of troubles

My Insurance pulls me through

 

 

Thankyou to John Miles for my inspiration.

 

So, you kept all the e-mails then?

[Albert Tatlock]

I hope the letter in the examiner today now draws this to a conclusion.

[Skeddan]

I hope the letter in the examiner today now draws this to a conclusion.

I expect it might in a sense, but it seems extraordinary that there has been no real in depth examination of the issues in the media - only bland reporting.

 

As reported, the LV executive are unelected, and they haven't yet had their first conference, despite being formed in 2006. Looking at their Constitution it seems that this is simply being ignored and instead of complying with contractual obligations , the people running LV seem to make the rules up as they go along. Hardly the stuff which inspires one to think they are fit for government when they can't govern themselves according to their own rules.

 

On the other hand I don't think those leaving have really done all they could and should have. At a last resort they could have taken legal action against the individuals on the 'unelected executive' and sought an order to require these members to comply with the Constitution by holding a conference and holding elections for the National Executive Committee and Party Leader as per the Constitution.

 

So in the long term I doubt it will be a conclusion - I'd imagine it will come back to bite Karran and the others on the LV NEC in any contested elections. Breaking a contractual agreement in this cavalier manner as seems to have happened here, and appearing to take people for a ride isn't generally very good for political reputations.

 

Given calls for those resigning from LV to resign their seats, I'd also wonder if the same shouldn't be true for those remaining in LV. After all, they stood on a platform for a party with a given Constitution, and have completely disregarded that Constitution.

 

Naively I'd like to think LV might do the sensible things to salvage the sorry mess and get its act in order. If not, then pretty much anything else the party does is just rearranging deckchairs. It's a sad sorry mess and will all probably just end with no more than a bumbling whimper.