Why are the Metropolitan Police not feeling Tory Lord Sebastian Coe’s collar and trawling his hard drives? I blogged recently about his involvement in awarding the World Athletics Championships without a vote to the hometown of his long term paymasters and sponsors, Nike. Plus the £12 million his promotions company made from VIP hospitality packages for the Olympics, the VIP tickets for which were allocated by the Organising Committee of which he was the £600,000 pa chairman.
Now we have this, from the person Coe works closest with in the IAAF and who he has now promoted to head the President’s office since Coe assumed that title:
« Dear Papa,
Following our discussion earlier I have already had some thoughts and believe that we need to do the following, in the strict confidence and control within a small circle of senior IAAF staff only. This must be very secret.
(…)4. Finally, as soon as possible, and ‘unofficially’ PR campaign to ensure that we avoid international media scandals related to the Moscow Championships especially in the British press, where the worst of the articles is coming from. This will require specialist PR skills (working only with me directly) from London, but I believe that if we consider using CSM we can also benefit from Seb’s political influence in the UK. It is in his personal interest to ensure that the Moscow World Champs is a success and that people do not think that the media of his own country are trying to destroy it. We can work extremely hard in stopping any planed ‘attack’ on Russia from the British press in the coming weeks.
5. Finally, I need to be able to sit down with the Anti-doping department and understand exactly what Russian ‘skeleton’ we have still in the cupboard regarding doping. I think that the time to have unveiled the various athletes was a long time ago and that now we need to be smart. These athletes, of course, should NOT be part of any Russian team for these World Championships and Valentin should be pressurised to make sure this is the case. If the guilty ones are not competing then we might as well wait until the event is over to announce them. Or we announce one or two BUT AT THE SAME TIME as athletes from other countries. Also we can prepare a special dossier on IAAF testing which will show that one of the reasons why these Russian athletes come up positive is that they get tested a lot !!! In the same way, we can make the point that the WADA laboratory is the responsibility of WADA not IAAF and that if WADA decides there really is a problem, we have a plan B to do the tests in Lausanne instead (Gabriel confirmed this to me yesterday).
Papa, as soon as I have an idea of the price of this unofficial PR campaign I will let you know, but I will do everything in my power to protect the IAAF and the President.
All the best Nick »
So what does the Establishment now wish us to believe?
a) As long-term Vice President of the IAAF, Coe had no idea the organisation was massively corrupt and the President was taking huge bribes to cover-up doping scandals.
b) Coe had no idea his close associate and now head of his office Nick Davies was writing to the son of the President proposing that Coe’s company and Coe’s “political influence” be used to keep doping scandals out of the British media.
c) Coe’s meeting, while Vice President of the IAAF, with executives of his sponsor Nike, to discuss awarding the World Athletics Championships to Eugene, had no bearing at all on the decision of the President of IAAF to award the games to Eugene without a vote.
All that is even less convincing than Sepp Blatter’s declarations of innocence. Yet there is an utter difference in the British media’s treatment of Blatter and of “Lord” Coe.
I wonder why?
@Alcyone, to me you appear more of a “drip” rather than a wave ! 😀
You silly jenny , I said “life” is waves.
“Fuck off Node, I have no need to. You are paranoid and demented because your mind has narrowed like a one-trick pony.
The Mods are at liberty to confirm this, though they have better things to do.
You really are such a pipsqueak in the scheme of things.”
What a nasty villager are you missing habby?
Fwl : Nope Node you are mistaken for I am not Villager nor Alycone, nor if anyone should wonder am I Node.
That was lucky – you just happened to be there in the background at the right time, reading but not posting.
O/T
Cases involving communications sent by social media
Harassment on open forums
This will form part of my response to Macky, but I have decided to give it to the forum first and independently, to avoid an onerously long response. Also, I think it will be quite likely to be of interest to everybody, including Craig Murray and his moderators.
Some of this information I have provided already, but I was fighting my own battles at the time and was unable to go into the matter as thoroughly. I had a good look at whatever online material I could find, on defamation, libel, slander, and harassment, but was unable to save and retain sources.
What constitutes harassment on the Internet? Is it possible for a person be harassed on an open forum such as Craig’s blog, and if so what kinds of things would be actionable?
I should say that it is remarkably difficult to find any sources on UK law specifically regarding harassment on open forums. Also, take nothing whatsoever that I say to be authoritative; I have no legal qualifications.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/
The Crown Prosecution Service “Guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media” is the starting point. I will summarise the main points which appear to me to be relevant as follows:
“A prosecutor must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. This means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury (or bench of magistrates or judge sitting alone), properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict.”
A prosecutor may decide in the public interest that a case should not proceed further.
There are four circumstances in which a person may be prosecuted for communications via social media. Two need not concern us, I think. They are:
Credible threats of violence to the person or damage to property;
Communications amounting to breach of a court order.
The other two are relevant. They are:
(i) Communications specifically targeting an individual and which may be offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997;
(ii) Other general communications which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false.
(i) I append a link to the Crown Prosecution Service Legal Guidance on Stalking and Harassment.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_harassment/
I will omit any discussion of stalking, as it seems to me that the only circumstance in which stalking as defined could conceivably apply (forcing contact through social media in a manner which causes significant alarm, harassment or distress to the victim) is very similar to “repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress…in any reasonable person”, which is harassment, except that it is presumably more extreme. I’m quite happy to be corrected on that.
Harassment is apparently not defined in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, but “can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person.” Prosecution requires “evidence to prove the conduct was targeted at an individual, was calculated to alarm or cause him/her distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable.” The offence is “a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another; and which the defendant knows, or ought to know, amounts to harassment of another.”
Does posting of messages on an open forum where the target can protect him or herself by simply leaving the forum, constitute harassment? I cannot see that it does. I could hardly find anything on it, but I looked at ways to protect oneself against harassment on line and found this on a legal website: “Avoiding harassment. Anybody who is being harassed is therefore recommended to take practical steps to avoid the chances that the harasser can continue to contact them. Simple steps such as changing email address, removing personal information from social networking sites and changing passwords can all assist greatly.”
http://findlaw.co.uk/law/criminal/other_crime_and_justice_topics/500321.html
That strongly suggested to me that one cannot claim harassment unless one leaves one forum and is followed to another, which I noted on 01/01/16 11:36pm.
I also found this regarding United States law which is suggestive but not authoritative: “If someone simply disagrees with you, however strongly or unpleasantly, that isn’t harassment. Someone who sends you a single email message that isn’t overtly threatening probably hasn’t harassed you. Spam, while very annoying, isn’t harassment. And messages posted to any open venue, such as a newsgroup, a web-based board, an AOL discussion forum or a chat room, are seldom truly harassing unless they’re forged to appear to come from you or contain direct threats or libelous statements. The same goes for things said on someone else’s web site. Harassment usually involves repeated communications via email or some sort of instant messaging program after the harasser has clearly been told to go away.”
http://www.haltabuse.org/help/isit.shtml
I suggested to Nevermind… in the same posting that a defendant could argue that simply leaving the forum would be the best solution all around. One needs to consider whether forcing someone to leave an open forum is sufficiently material to constitute an offence under section 1 (1A) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (please see the Guidance on Stalking and Harassment link above). In the light of all that I have presented here, I would not have thought so.
(ii)How about communications which are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false? I do not think indecent, obscene or even grossly offensive material has commonly been posted. The only category I can see that is relevant is false. There is no doubt that information has been posted that has been false. I have discovered that for myself, and pointed the matter out, although it did not seem to me to be particularly damaging.
The first thing to say about this is that the Guidelines on communications linked to above say that this category has a “high threshold”, i.e. the offence has to be very serious indeed to even get off the ground, and “in many cases a prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest”.
There are also, and crucially, very significant protections for freedom of speech regarding matters posted on the Internet and the Guidelines give extensive information regarding this. I don’t think that I can do better than cutting and pasting the Guidelines on this because I believe they speak for themselves. They include the High Court legal opinion that I linked to in one of my previous postings. Everyone on the forum is very welcome to read these guidelines and reach their own assessment as to whether a material breach of them has occurred. To avoid excessive length, I will cut and paste separately.
Finally, there is the question of whether or not engaging with the person you wish to say is harassing you, whether in the third person or no, and sometimes initiating contact, presents them with strong defences against a charge of harassment. I have now taken legal advice on this matter myself, and it accords exactly with what I said earlier, or is even stronger.
I wanted to go into this matter in some depth, because I wanted the forum to get a better sense of why I gave the advice that I did, so I have gone back and found the sources that I looked at before and posted them so that everyone can see them. I trust that my motives will be better understood now.
So do please expect one more posting tonight. I will be posting my full response to Macky at a later date, but it might not be until next week now, I’m afraid, as I have deadlines to meet.
Kind regards,
John
In 19 pages of thread, no one cold be bothered to say anything about the nice Mr Coe.
Now like a dog that has arranged the various miscellania that make up their bed, coats, chewies, newspapers, woolly scarves etc to perfection, she’s reluctant to get up for a last minute wee before bed.
We got it just how we like it, no Craig, no trolls and no thread.
Alycone; “You silly jenny , I said “life” is waves.”
Yes I know, but you still remind me of a drip ! 😀
get the deckchair out Fred, its gonna be nice round your end. Put some wax on to the sledge, just in case you get a little snow.
OPEC has trundled the world with over production and through war in the Magreb regions, via their neocon pals who are also in the thrall of coal and oil money, cheap uncomplicated non polluting energy to the whole of Europe and beyond, without the silly Brent crude you are rabbiting on about.
OPEC will break up, it is obsolete as it does not regulate more than the sugar put into their mugs during meetings.
O/T
Cases involving communications sent by social media
Harassment on open forums
‘Guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media
The High Threshold at the Evidential Stage / Context and Approach
Every day many millions of communications are sent via social media and the application of section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 to such comments creates the potential that a very large number of cases could be prosecuted before the courts. Taking together, for example, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube, there are likely to be hundreds of millions of communications every month.
In these circumstances there is the potential for a chilling effect on free speech and prosecutors should exercise considerable caution before bringing charges under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. There is a high threshold that must be met before the evidential stage in the Code for Crown Prosecutors will be met. Furthermore, even if the high evidential threshold is met, in many cases a prosecution is unlikely to be required in the public interest (see paragraphs 46 onwards).
Since both section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 will often engage Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, prosecutors are reminded that these provisions must be interpreted consistently with the free speech principles in Article 10, which provide that:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers …”
As the European Court of Human Rights has made clear, Article 10 protects not only speech which is well-received and popular, but also speech which is offensive, shocking or disturbing (Sunday Times v UK (No 2) [1992] 14 EHRR 123):
“Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society … it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also as to those that offend, shock or disturb …”
Freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information are not absolute rights. They may be restricted but only where a restriction can be shown to be both:
o Necessary; and
o Proportionate.
These exceptions, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions convincingly established.
The common law takes a similar approach. In Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin), the Lord Chief Justice made it clear that:
“Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [section 127 of the Communications Act 2003].”
Prosecutors are reminded that what is prohibited under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 is the sending of a communication that is grossly offensive. A communication sent has to be more than simply offensive to be contrary to the criminal law. Just because the content expressed in the communication is in bad taste, controversial or unpopular, and may cause offence to individuals or a specific community, this is not in itself sufficient reason to engage the criminal law. As Lord Bingham made clear in DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40:
“There can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context. The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates.”
Context is important and prosecutors should have regard to the fact that the context in which interactive social media dialogue takes place is quite different to the context in which other communications take place. Access is ubiquitous and instantaneous. Banter, jokes and offensive comments are commonplace and often spontaneous. Communications intended for a few may reach millions.
As Eady J stated in the civil case of Smith v ADVFN [2008] 1797 (QB)
in relation to comments on an internet bulletin board:
“… [they are] like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out; those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or ‘give and take’.”
Against that background, prosecutors should only proceed with cases under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 where they are satisfied there is sufficient evidence that the communication in question is more than:
o Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or
o Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment; or
o The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.
If so satisfied, prosecutors should go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.’
Kind regards,
John
Thank you mods. I think I have found the lost comment on the previous page.
Goodness Me Mr JDS… Forensic Stuff.
” That strongly suggested to me that one cannot claim harassment unless one leaves one forum and is followed to another ”
I was wondering about that, thinking WHY would a Protagonist feel snug about finding a Victim elsewhere…
Reffer –
Habbabkuk (Cut One Weed And Another One Pops Up)
3 Jan, 2016 – 6:42 pm
MOST OF US would be Genuinely Pleased on encountering an old Craig Commenter…and Say hullo…hope you are Well… in Fact I did come across one of Craig’s infrequent commenter’s elsewhere… Not Surprising i reckon, that many of us Seek Truths…From Multiple sources.
Peace.
[ Mod: Caught up in filter, timestamp updated]
—
Andy, as Villager, if it is the same person and I suspect it is, if you clicked on its name it brought up some of the most racist stuff I have seen that would shame the National Front and its successors. Its endearment to Habbabkuk, and delusion that that contributor is a paragon of all that is good in the dissemination of information speaks volumes about its own intellect. Sorry about the use of its but I don’t know whether male or female.
Back to the reality of that nasty Mr Putin and the disgraceful way he has brought Ukraine to its knees.
https://www.rt.com/news/327923-ukraine-freezing-town-gas-supply/
John Goss
08/01/2016 2:00 am
Yes, Villager and “Alcyone” are undoubtedly the same person.
I never waste my time with Villager, who now posts under the handle “Alcyone”, but even if I were inclined to, I would refuse to do so until I was satisfied that he or she had acknowledged to the mods and to the forum that he or she used to post under the handle Villager, which received a complete ban by the mods in early to mid 2015, and was therefore on this forum under the handle “Alcyone” legitimately.
I suggest that anyone who currently interacts, whether in a friendly manner or not, with the contributor currently calling himself or herself “Alcyone”, who previously posted under the handle Villager, asks him or her the following direct question. “Did you previously post under the handle Villager, which received a complete ban from this forum in 2015?”
Refuse to interact further until you have received a direct answer to that question.
You will get diversion, jeering abuse, or silence, but what you will not get is a direct answer.
Kind regards,
John
Dear John
I don’t know who posters are nor much about them and I do not seek to keep careful records profiling posters into categories of good or bad left or right establishment or anti establishment. Whilst I can sympathise if posters have grievances with another poster, who then changes his / her user name Node recently suggested I am Alcyone, which came as some surprise. Alcyone then posted a slightly humorous post to which I have not responded. I am somewhat puzzled by your post above at 7:12 am. In any event this is only an anonymous blog on which everyone seems to take themselves and their views far too seriously and I reserve the right to interact with whoever I wish, but so I know why do you say Villager was banned?
Regards,
Fwl
Node,
I don’t know much about Villager/Alcyone but I have read John Goss’ comments above (2am but delayed by mod)a dn I do not know if they are correct. Without taking myself too seriously why did you suggest that I am Villager/Alcyone. Fwl would be a fool to be upset, but if John Goss is right you seem to have formed the impression that I might have some pretty terrible views, or you are quick to fire, or is it because if I have taken no sides you may have adopted the George W Bush tactical approach of “your either with us or against us”?
This “your either with us or against us approach” is one of the worst features of modern life and destructive of individualism and democracy.
Regards,
Fwl
Fwl
08/01/2016 9:01am
Because he or she was. We all saw it. The relevant postings are still on the forum. He or she got into a row with somebody and then posted some stuff which the moderators did not accept on to the forum. They posted a warning on a truncated posting of his or hers which said something like: “Any more of this, and you will be banned.” He or she promptly posted a comment to the moderators saying “Don’t you EVER fucking threaten me,” yadda yadda yadda, and although they truncated the posting, they permitted that to remain, and posted their own comment saying “Fine – you’re gone.” And he was gone, for about six weeks or so I think, until he weaselled back on as “Alcyone”.
I think this happened in April 2015. The postings will without question still be on the forum.
Kind regards,
John
JSD; “I think this happened in April 2015. The postings will without question still be on the forum.”
There’s a lot that was deleted, so the full story isn’t apparent, including posts from Villager threatening police action, and posts from Villager showing that he had been badgering Craig directly about the Mods.
That he/she is now “Alcyone” is without question, which is why it has never been denied.
Yes, the weasel manner that Villager started posting again is not too dissimilar to the Habba-Clown’s own re-appearence after being banned by ex-mod Jon, who then shortly resigned & thus allowed the Habba-Clown an opportunity to start posting again.
And he was gone, for about six weeks or so I think, until he weaselled back on as “Alcyone”.
First, thanks for your elaborate sleuthing of the law John Spencer, a forest of if and buts, with not very much that is really precise, typical lawyers, as Brian said, you have to be followed from one blog to another before anything would happen.
What makes you think Alcyone is a ‘he’?
I always felt from his/her posts as if it was a she.
Macky
08/01/2016 11:09am
Thank you, Macky. I never saw the whole of the postings before the moderators edited them, so I can’t confirm what you say, although I am sure you are right. What I have described is what still remains on the forum for everybody to read, and it is more than enough to prove that Villager received a complete ban from the forum.
J
Nevermind…
08/01/2016 11:12am
Apologies. I do not know whether Villager is a he or a she. My typing was just habit – I forgot to add the other gender on a couple of phrases.
Kind regards,
John
@Villager/Alcyone/Fwl : why did you suggest that I am Villager/Alcyone.
Because you mixed up your identities a couple of months ago and Fwl ‘did a Villager’, calling Habbakuk “Habby” and spouting drivel about free thinking.
@JSD. For the record, it was me that ‘outed’ Alcyone as Villager and at the time he was so mad that he admitted it.
Node
08/01/2016 11:46am
Regarding Fwl, fair enough, although I have not seen these mixed-up postings, and I do not think it would be just to accept what you say without assessing the evidence for myself. Obviously what you saw was good enough for you.
Regarding Villager, very interesting, thank you. I did not identify Villager as “Alcyone” for a little while, so I must have missed what you say. However, as “Alcyone” he or she has pestered me a great deal about things which he or she first began to pester me about as Villager, even referring back to stuff he or she posted as Villager and bringing it up again in his or her new identity, so there is no question whatever that he or she is one and the same person.
He or she also changed his handle temporarily a little while back and posted one posting (which was subsequently deleted by mods) containing both Villager and “Alcyone” in the title.
Kind regards,
John
“Regarding Fwl, fair enough, although I have not seen these mixed-up postings, and I do not think it would be just to accept what you say without assessing the evidence for myself.”
It isn’t impossible to post under two different names without being detected. You would have to disconnect your router and connect again to get a different IP address then find and delete cookies for the site or the mods will know.
It isn’t impossible but when I see two posts on different threads posted in different names within three minutes of each other either someone has gone to one hell of a lot of trouble, in which case I would wonder why, or they are two different people.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/01/feminism-a-neo-con-tool/#comment-572658
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/12/coe-better-protected-than-blatter-by-corrupt-national-authorities/comment-page-19/#comment-572655
It isn’t impossible to post under two different names without being detected. You would have to disconnect your router and connect again to get a different IP address then find and delete cookies for the site or the mods will know.
Most people would have a far easier method available to them – no IT knowledge required. Think about it, Fred.
It isn’t impossible but when I see two posts on different threads posted in different names within three minutes of each other either someone has gone to one hell of a lot of trouble, in which case I would wonder why, or they are two different people.
If you were trying to disprove a sock-puppetting accusation, of course you would do that. And it will be quick and easy. I won’t even start writing it till I’ve posted this one. If the MODS can be bothered, they will confirm it has a different ID to this one.
^ I meant IP address.
Oops, made a hash of my post at 1.26pm. The final paragraph should read :
“If you were trying to disprove a sock-puppetting accusation, of course you would do that. And it will be quick and easy. I won’t even start writing it till I’ve posted this one. Check the post under username “Done” on the ‘Locked In’ thread. If the MODS can be bothered, they will confirm it has a different ID to this one.”
Thanks John and Node for your clarifications.
Drivel? The residue after fermentation?
Fool on the Hill Fool, Fwl, Twpster, Fat Fingered Fwl, Fat Fingered Salamander (which was perhaps a little too cryptic, but was made in reference to the closing words of a Times obituary, which I was referring to in that particular post). I change name only to amuse not to deceive. The fat finger is simply an apt description of me when posting via a mobile my posts are full of typos.
Have a nice weekend and Node it is always best not to jump to conclusions. Embrace the drivel not that which is dressed up to make obvious initial sense. Turn everything on its head and you will see what is foolish and what is not.
Node, incidentally it was the same ‘your either with us or against us’ approach that I found objectionable in Habby’s postings immediately after Paris and which appeared somewhat intimidating (i.e. person of interest etc). No one seems to have commented on it but it appeared to me, albeit possibly wrongly, that it may have contributed to KOWN posting less frequently. We are all in this together.
—-
[ Mod note: Fwl is not Villager/Alcyone ]
FwL
Hmmm, OK, you’ve persuaded me you’re not Alcyone. I apologise for the grave slur. Actually, I’ve enjoyed a few pieces you’ve written as “Fool” so I’m doubly contrite. Also, I used to live in N. Wales so I should have got the pronunciation of Fwl.
I suppose I grudgingly owe Villager an apology too, so he can consider this it.
I don’t accept the bit about ‘you’re either with us or against us’, though. My problem with Villager/Alcyone isn’t his opinions, it’s that he’s deliberately disruptive and a vindictive disgusting ingratiating sneak (example). If he agreed with everything I believe, stood shoulder to shoulder with me in picketing Thatcher’s funeral, and supported Ross County, I would still wish him far away from this blog. Same goes for Habbabkuk. His primary purpose here is destructive. Not long after he arrived, I pointed out in a friendly way the disruption he was causing. He stated outright that he didn’t care.
If you created a Venn diagram of the opinions on this blog, some of my favourite contributors would be in circles that barely graze mine. I’m on record several times praising the contribution Resident Dissident, Kempe, Fred and others make by being an argumentative opposition. So, no, I’m not intolerant of other opinions, but I’ve seen too many threads ruined by deliberate troublemaking to encourage yon two nyaffs.
Fwl : just so’s you know. I replied to you a couple of hours ago but it’s stuck in moderation. I wonder will this one be too.