Our Tories with their grubby, blood soaked hands in the till yet again. Next time we're at the ballot box we should just put the X right on our foreheads instead and save them a step.
Why do they need permission to publish pictures, which by definition are somewhat already in the public domain? More bollocks from Auntie.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
More evidence for what is largely already suspected: Johnson himself is going be implicated in the deal some way or another. Jenrick will be forced to go to take the flak.
It is indeed a sad state we are in.Who has the last laugh?
I’d say in 2020, Farage is more influential and more loved than Blair.
Imagine how you’d have to fcuk up from that point in 2005 to reach that point!
Does Boris Johnson ever consider any matters open?Just astonishing misbehaviour:
'Conservative MP Nicola Richards suggests it’s wrong for the opposition to criticise the actions of Robert Jenrick "during a global pandemic."''
'Downing Street said Boris Johnson now considered the matter "closed."''
(BBC)
The duty that a father has to look after his children? Pretty sure he must've thought his relationship was open as well when he fecked someone else whilst his wife was battling cancer.Does Boris Johnson ever consider any matters open?
Probably because the Conservative party either own the copyright on those pictures or the photographer signed something effectively saying any photos taken at what was a private event could only be published with consent of the organisers (presumably the Conservative party)Why do they need permission to publish pictures, which by definition are somewhat already in the public domain? More bollocks from Auntie.
And surely saying that you have pictures that show x, y and z is the same as publishing them?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Not a topic I know much about, but I was under the impression something could shared sans permission if it was in the public interest?Probably because the Conservative party either own the copyright on those pictures or the photographer signed something effectively saying any photos taken at what was a private event could only be published with consent of the organisers (presumably the Conservative party)
Such clauses are I think pretty standard at corporate events
So I don't think its bollocks from auntie i think its the law... and in that context I think saying they have seen pictures is not the same as breaching copyright by publishing
I just wish people would stop blaming the media. Corbyn is a Hitler hugger. I consider this matter closed. ;-)If theTorygraphBBC had pictures of Corbyn hugging Hitler in Brazil would they wait for permission, and go through the copyright channels.
Today is the first time you've ever heard the phrase publish and be damned.
We have been for a while. They can do what they want because they've orchestrated a culture war to pull a huge swathe of the voting public to their side. If you point out the blatant corruption at best you're met with whataboutism and at worst dismissed as a sore loser, antifa, leftie snowflake.We are in uncharted territory if ministers exposed for corruption don't feel the need to resign.
"Johnson considers the matter closed".
These people insult us time and time again.
Yep. It’s classic Trumpin politics. It’s been embedded in our society now since the Brexit referendum, you can just lie your way out of anything now and there will be a section of the moronic public will go along with it. It’s a sad state of affairs but we are deeply in this shit and it will continue.We have been for a while. They can do what they want because they've orchestrated a culture war to pull a huge swathe of the voting public to their side. If you point out the blatant corruption at best you're met with whataboutism and at worst dismissed as a sore loser, antifa, leftie snowflake.
There was some case law from Ashdown vs Telegraph many years ago.... I think the conclusion was possibly under some circumstances but rare...Not a topic I know much about, but I was under the impression something could shared sans permission if it was in the public interest?
Copyright and freedom of expression: Paddy Ashdown v The Sunday Telegraph
Copyright is a property right which by definition comes into conflict with a fundamental human right: the right of freedom of expression. The Court of Appeal decided this week that on rare occasions freedom of expression will “trump” copyright, giving a public interest defence to a copyright infringement claim.
The Sunday Telegraph published extensive extracts from a confidential record which Mr (now Lord) Ashdown had made of an important meeting at 10 Downing Street in 1997. Ashdown sued the Telegraph Group for copyright infringement and breach of confidence. The High Court awarded Ashdown summary judgment, dismissing the Telegraph’s defences including defences based on freedom of expression and fair dealing. The Telegraph’s appeal failed, but the Court of Appeal’s findings on the conflict between copyright and freedom of expression establish an important principle. The Human Rights Act can, in effect if not in legal theory, override the Copyright Act.
The circumstances in which freedom of expression will prevail over copyright are rare. Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. The public interest which newspapers serve in disclosing information such as the matters referred to in Ashdown’s confidential record can normally be protected without the newspaper copying the exact words. Copyright will not be an issue in such cases.
Occasionally, however, it is necessary for a newspaper to publish documents verbatim, for example to ensure credibility. The form of the document, on such occasions, is of equal importance to the content. Even then, a newspaper may still have a fair dealing defence under the Copyright Act itself. But what if there is no fair dealing defence? Can it still be right for a newspaper to publish substantial verbatim extracts from a document?
In the Ashdown case the Court of Appeal decided that the Sunday Telegraph need only have published one or two short extracts to establish authenticity. The Sunday Telegraph had gone further than this: “the minute was deliberately filleted in order to extract colourful passages that were most likely to add flavour to the article.” This was furthering the Telegraph Group’s commercial interests in a manner which was “essentially journalistic”. But in cases where the publication of longer extracts is genuinely necessary in the public interest, newspapers will now be able to rely on their right of freedom of expression.
The court also considered the meaning of “reporting current events”, one of the fair dealing defences under the Copyright Act. It confirmed that a liberal interpretation should be put on the word “current”. A matter could be of current interest to the public even if it concerned events which had taken place some time ago. Current events do not always have to be recent events.
Revolution, comrade.Serious question : How do we remove Boris and his cohorts?
Let’s say we want to do it before Christmas.
How would that be achieved?
Other than assassinating him I reckon your best bet is to have credible political opposition that the public will vote for. Might have to wait a bit past Christmas for that thoughSerious question : How do we remove Boris and his cohorts?
Let’s say we want to do it before Christmas.
How would that be achieved?
Huge media coverage of a corruption scandal met with massive public protests and collapsing polling numbers. If the Tories couldn’t distract from it and it looks like genuinely damaging their electoral prospects, then they’d replace him themselves. Which would do nothing about a lot of the other wankers in the party, and you’d probably just end up with PM Gove or similar.Serious question : How do we remove Boris and his cohorts?
Let’s say we want to do it before Christmas.
How would that be achieved?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Starmer at his forensic best. Glad we finally have an opposition back!Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
God he is a bit rubbish
Boris doesn’t have to answer a single question, but Keir must fully comment on every single issue?Starmer at his forensic best. Glad we finally have an opposition back!
What I find so amusing isn't just that his actions are clearly at odds with Parliamentary standards.Just astonishing misbehaviour:
'Conservative MP Nicola Richards suggests it’s wrong for the opposition to criticise the actions of Robert Jenrick "during a global pandemic."''
'Downing Street said Boris Johnson now considered the matter "closed."''
(BBC)
He is absolutely right to put the focus on Boris.Starmer at his forensic best. Glad we finally have an opposition back!
Why the rush.Serious question : How do we remove Boris and his cohorts?
Let’s say we want to do it before Christmas.
How would that be achieved?
This strategy worked great with Cummings. It stopped it becoming a party political issue and made it easier for Tory backbenchers to start to criticise him. Not a surprise he's doing it again.Starmer at his forensic best. Glad we finally have an opposition back!
The bloke still in the job whilst the Tories continue to poll in the 40s?This strategy worked great with Cummings. It stopped it becoming a party political issue and made it easier for Tory backbenchers to start to criticise him. Not a surprise he's doing it again.
Are you suggesting he'd be gone and they'd be polling in the 20s if Starmer had called for his head?The bloke still in the job whilst the Tories continue to poll in the 40s?
Of course not... only if corbyn hadAre you suggesting he'd be gone and they'd be polling in the 20s if Starmer had called for his head?
Starmer isn't my preferred leader but I thought it was the right move seeing as Corbyn had to go. If people are dumb enough to need a leader who doesn't scare them then give them one. Starmer is good at what he does too.The bloke still in the job whilst the Tories continue to poll in the 40s?
It is futile debating with Dobba.Are you suggesting he'd be gone and they'd be polling in the 20s if Starmer had called for his head?
Ah, of course.Of course not... only if corbyn had
Completely different scenarios. Cummings is much more powerful and his case was high-profile and had significant cut-through with the general public. Jenrick’s scandal will generate less interest and it’s perfectly plausible he is compelled to resign. Taking a backseat on this is not the best move morally or strategically, I believe. He’s the LOTO and this is an open goal to be scathing and earn some attention, not just about Jenrick but about how the government conducts itself.This strategy worked great with Cummings. It stopped it becoming a party political issue and made it easier for Tory backbenchers to start to criticise him. Not a surprise he's doing it again.
No, I'm just wondering which bit worked great? Boris is still in the job, his handpicked man he stood behind throughout is still in his job, the polls still have them leading and nobody outside of a Twitter hashtag gives a shit about the story anymore. Actually forget great, which bit of the strategy worked at all?Are you suggesting he'd be gone and they'd be polling in the 20s if Starmer had called for his head?
And yet you and sun feel obliged to put on the performance rather than just using the ignore function. It's almost flattering.It is futile debating with Dobba.
Just tie a £50 note to a piece of string attached to a bicycle - they'll follow you out of Downing Street.Serious question : How do we remove Boris and his cohorts?
Let’s say we want to do it before Christmas.
How would that be achieved?
Well, he said that he would have sacked Cummings if he were PM, but not til long after the row had erupted.Completely different scenarios. Cummings is much more powerful and his case was high-profile and had significant cut-through with the general public. Jenrick’s scandal will generate less interest and it’s perfectly plausible he is compelled to resign. Taking a backseat on this is not the best move morally or strategically, I believe. He’s the LOTO and this is an open goal to be scathing and earn some attention, not just about Jenrick but about how the government conducts itself.
And I just recalled Starmer did explicitly say he’d have sacked Cummings. The tweet suggests he did not even give his own judgement this time round. Like Labour’s policy on schools re-opening, it’s weak and fails to resonate at all. You can’t say ‘it’s up to Johnson’ but not say what you would do in his position.