Comments on: Stand up for Dave Osler http://www.chickyog.net/2008/12/05/stand-up-for-dave-osler/ The weblog of Brighton-based writer Justin McKeating Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:26:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Paulie http://www.chickyog.net/2008/12/05/stand-up-for-dave-osler/comment-page-1/#comment-43082 Paulie Sun, 07 Dec 2008 13:23:09 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=3900#comment-43082 Eye for detail as ever ;-) Eye for detail as ever ;-)

]]> By: ejh http://www.chickyog.net/2008/12/05/stand-up-for-dave-osler/comment-page-1/#comment-43080 ejh Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:46:05 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=3900#comment-43080 <i>Playing the ball and not the man is to be expected in the wider cut-and-thrust of public debate</i> I think you may have that the wrong way around. Playing the ball and not the man is to be expected in the wider cut-and-thrust of public debate

I think you may have that the wrong way around.

]]> By: Mike Power http://www.chickyog.net/2008/12/05/stand-up-for-dave-osler/comment-page-1/#comment-43077 Mike Power Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:32:19 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=3900#comment-43077 The apparent libel appeared in: May 2007 PE 1184 The apology appeared in: Private Eye, No. 1220, October 3-16, 2008 View the apology here: <a href="http://skitch.com/mikepower/72gp/private-eye-2.pdf-1-page" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> View whole page <a href="http://www.nuclearspin.org/images/d/d8/Private_Eye.PDF" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> I don't believe any settlement other than this 'apology' was ever made, but I can't be certain. The apparent libel appeared in: May 2007 PE 1184

The apology appeared in: Private Eye, No. 1220, October 3-16, 2008

View the apology here: HERE

View whole page HERE

I don’t believe any settlement other than this ‘apology’ was ever made, but I can’t be certain.

]]> By: Paulie http://www.chickyog.net/2008/12/05/stand-up-for-dave-osler/comment-page-1/#comment-43076 Paulie Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:04:44 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=3900#comment-43076 I think Will does a good job of explaining by Dave and Alex (no matter what you think of him) deserve support here: http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com/2008/12/04/bloggers-face-libel-action/ On Maria Gatland, I'm sorry to bang on about this, but for me it's the way that an *elected* representative was subject to personal bullying with a view to making her change a policy makes this (with all due respect to bloggers) a significantly worst case than Dave & Alex's travails. I think that it's something of a sickness that our political culture doesn't regard this as being similar to jury-tampering. Playing the ball and not the man is to be expected in the wider cut-and-thrust of public debate, but there comes a point at which it debases on of the most fundamental aspects of a democratic constitution - and the Maria Gatland example illustrates this with unusual clarity. It's quite telling as well that low-level politicians would not be able to look anywhere for the kind of solidarity that Dave and Alex will rightly get because they are well embedded in the blogosphere. I think Will does a good job of explaining by Dave and Alex (no matter what you think of him) deserve support here:
http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com/2008/12/04/bloggers-face-libel-action/

On Maria Gatland, I’m sorry to bang on about this, but for me it’s the way that an *elected* representative was subject to personal bullying with a view to making her change a policy makes this (with all due respect to bloggers) a significantly worst case than Dave & Alex’s travails.

I think that it’s something of a sickness that our political culture doesn’t regard this as being similar to jury-tampering. Playing the ball and not the man is to be expected in the wider cut-and-thrust of public debate, but there comes a point at which it debases on of the most fundamental aspects of a democratic constitution – and the Maria Gatland example illustrates this with unusual clarity.

It’s quite telling as well that low-level politicians would not be able to look anywhere for the kind of solidarity that Dave and Alex will rightly get because they are well embedded in the blogosphere.

]]> By: Tom http://www.chickyog.net/2008/12/05/stand-up-for-dave-osler/comment-page-1/#comment-43075 Tom Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:49:18 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=3900#comment-43075 Any idea which edition of the Eye contained their apparent libel? Any idea which edition of the Eye contained their apparent libel?

]]> By: Mike Power http://www.chickyog.net/2008/12/05/stand-up-for-dave-osler/comment-page-1/#comment-43074 Mike Power Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:48:49 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=3900#comment-43074 <i>"Her youthful mistakes have no bearing on the case in point. Her repentance and redress for those mistakes it total and she deserves to be chaired through the streets of Croydon for her courage rather than to be hounded out of elected office."</i> Absolutely! Well said, Paulie. “Her youthful mistakes have no bearing on the case in point. Her repentance and redress for those mistakes it total and she deserves to be chaired through the streets of Croydon for her courage rather than to be hounded out of elected office.” Absolutely! Well said, Paulie.

]]> By: Nosemonkey http://www.chickyog.net/2008/12/05/stand-up-for-dave-osler/comment-page-1/#comment-43073 Nosemonkey Sat, 06 Dec 2008 11:34:17 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=3900#comment-43073 Another case of the British libel laws being stupid, perhaps - although the only descriptions I've read of this case come from people sympathetic to the defendants, and I'm still not sure what the full facts are. However, the fact that Private Eye, of all publications, has settled out of court would tend to suggest that there may well have been a libel - that publication has very experienced lawyers when it comes to this sort of thing... I also can't help being reminded of another recent incident, <a href="http://nevertrustahippy.blogspot.com/2008/12/this-is-not-minor-skirmish-in-local.html" rel="nofollow">amply summed up by Paulie</a>... Another case of the British libel laws being stupid, perhaps – although the only descriptions I’ve read of this case come from people sympathetic to the defendants, and I’m still not sure what the full facts are. However, the fact that Private Eye, of all publications, has settled out of court would tend to suggest that there may well have been a libel – that publication has very experienced lawyers when it comes to this sort of thing…

I also can’t help being reminded of another recent incident, amply summed up by Paulie…

]]> By: ejh http://www.chickyog.net/2008/12/05/stand-up-for-dave-osler/comment-page-1/#comment-43072 ejh Sat, 06 Dec 2008 10:43:18 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=3900#comment-43072 I thought the Gatland business was fairly shabby, not least because what-were-you-doing-all-those-years-ago is not a clever game for the left to be playing. I looked up the guy who blew her cover, by the way: he was candidate for the Communist Party. Does he really want to play tit-for-tat? Re: Dave Osler, he has my sympathy but I should say that I stopped posting on his site after he decided it was all right for a notorious Harry's Place troll to post lies about me. His comments boxes in particular are a snakepit: a bit more attention to quality control might have gone a long way. I thought the Gatland business was fairly shabby, not least because what-were-you-doing-all-those-years-ago is not a clever game for the left to be playing. I looked up the guy who blew her cover, by the way: he was candidate for the Communist Party. Does he really want to play tit-for-tat?

Re: Dave Osler, he has my sympathy but I should say that I stopped posting on his site after he decided it was all right for a notorious Harry’s Place troll to post lies about me. His comments boxes in particular are a snakepit: a bit more attention to quality control might have gone a long way.

]]> By: Mike Power http://www.chickyog.net/2008/12/05/stand-up-for-dave-osler/comment-page-1/#comment-43071 Mike Power Sat, 06 Dec 2008 10:02:22 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=3900#comment-43071 <i>So, how about Maria Gatland’s resignation?</i> A case in point, surely? She felt compelled to resign because of revelations about her past even though her resignation served no public good. (On the other hand the top guy in the Provos gets a cabinet post in NI :) Funny old world, ain't it? The point I make is 'what are the motives behind these revelations and how, if at all, is the public interest served'. It's a very simple test that most of us can grasp and understand perfectly well. I'm afraid, in many cases it ends up as nothing but good old fashioned shit stirring. Not very edifying. So, how about Maria Gatland’s resignation?
A case in point, surely? She felt compelled to resign because of revelations about her past even though her resignation served no public good. (On the other hand the top guy in the Provos gets a cabinet post in NI :) Funny old world, ain’t it?

The point I make is ‘what are the motives behind these revelations and how, if at all, is the public interest served’. It’s a very simple test that most of us can grasp and understand perfectly well. I’m afraid, in many cases it ends up as nothing but good old fashioned shit stirring. Not very edifying.

]]> By: Clive http://www.chickyog.net/2008/12/05/stand-up-for-dave-osler/comment-page-1/#comment-43070 Clive Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:40:56 +0000 http://www.chickyog.net/?p=3900#comment-43070 So, how about Maria Gatland's resignation? So, how about Maria Gatland’s resignation?

]]>