After it was discovered at the St Ann's Labour Party selection candidate selection meeting that there were people present and voting who should not have been, I came home from the pub (where I'd heard about it) and wrote this article. It has subsequently been edited by site admins to remove the names of people who were embarrassed or in the final case where a journalist said it was potentially libellous. Well here I will attempt to summarise what we have subsequently found out and hopefully take people's attention away from my original appalling rant.
*An individual has asked that their name be replaced with their function in this post on the grounds that they are not seeking public office. This has been done.
Tags for Forum Posts: election2014, labour, st ann's labour, stanns
Your second bullet point isn't quite right Alan. You may see the tweets of someone who you don't follow if they get retweeted by someone you do follow. E.g. if Nick Clegg said something nice about you, and you don't follow him on Twitter, you wouldn't see it. But if someone who you do follow sees the Clegg message and retweets it, then you would see it.
I don't think so but don't forget, every word I uttered on Twitter was being monitored heavily, they wanted to see what I was saying. My followers include Diane Abbott, Tom Watson and Douglas Alexander. People know.
Occasionally, Mark, people do say nice things about me. Though not Nick Clegg. Or not yet.
But you're right that sometimes kind words come from an unexpected corner. And this evening that very pleasant thing happened. You may have seen a letter which was posted very briefly on HoL.
But for anyone who did read the letter before it vanished, I must correct the inaccurate impression it may have left. Because I cannot accept the praise lavished on me as the person who "primarily developed" the campaign on the St Ann's branch Labour Party selection meeting.
I wish that were true. But like everything else in this campaign, factual accuracy is vital. And the fact is that the campaign has been a cooperative effort in the best traditions of community organising and people power. Of course, John McMullan's work has been outstanding. But many dozens of other people are involved. Some are named on HoL; others unsung heroes.
And more people are involved all the time as the campaign becomes more widely known.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
Yes, I saw the letter before it vanished. I wonder why did it vanish? Was its deletion requested by someone? This affair keeps adding dimensions.
John's partner contacted the site admin and insisted, I understand. Quite right too. Shameful. Harrumph. Scandalous.
I have a copy because I am another person John Blake has complained about and it was copied to me. Sadly there's a long, long queue of people stretching through history who have upset John Blake. It was my turn once, and I'm not rash enough to hope that it won't happen again.
The doorbell just rang. That's probably the police. Do come and visit me in prison.
Thanks for that information, Julie. Probably important that we also show some solidarity for the site admin who may be having to make some difficult decisions. There can be no doubt that if site admin puts a legal foot wrong there would be consequences.
I am sure the members of this site will set up a rota for you and John, and the site admin to be visited. I suppose it would not be possible for you all to share the same cell as that would be much more convenient?
No Julie, the letter didn't disappear because someone rang me up and insisted. I chose to take it down because I feared it would expose me to legal action. Any of those objecting to its removal should feel free to publish it themselves. It's a free web.
Things only ever get removed from HoL if they're out of line with our policy which is freely available to view; part of that policy is that we don't host things that break the law.
To remind you all, Liz and I are personally liable for anything on HoL that breaks the law. And if you look at libel law it's a tough one to defend. Whilst it's never been tested on a hyperlocal site yet, the best interpretation of the law is that it's okay to have a non-premoderated site, but that the hosts become legally liable for content once it has been drawn to their attention. So, if something is drawn to our attention which probably could land us in court, of course I'm going to take it down. Some readers will remember the vet posting that nearly landed us in court. Through it I learned a lot about libel and, not wanting to end up in court for the content of a local website, I'm now more cautious than I used to be. However, if any of you feel strongly about republishing the email, the web is a free place, feel free to publish it on your own site.
Thanks, Hugh.
Nobody, as far as I know, objects to its removal.
© 2024 Created by Hugh. Powered by
© Copyright Harringay Online Created by Hugh