Advice A Call For Nigel Farage To Go!!

Aardvark · 01-08-2008, 12:29 PM

Bob FM,

If you did not read Whittaker's e-mail posted on the 'Annabelle Fuller Resigns from UKIP Thread' by Anthony Butcher at #12, 25th July 2008, 03.44pm, then why did you comment on it on the same thread at #30, 25th July 2008, 06.53pm? You also posted on the same thread at #3 11.19am (a particularly naive post in the circumstances), #23 06.21pm, #41 26th July 2008, 06.17am (up with the ****?), #43 26th July 2008, 10.02am, #52 26th July 2008, 06.36pm (up with the **** again?), #54 27th July 2008, 07.54am (and again?) etc etc.

Bob if you comment on something posted on a thread it would be useful if you'd read it first. To say now, having dicussed an issue at length and presumably read the postings of other people, that you had not read an e-mail fron the Chairman to the NEC and posted by Anthony makes you look very silly. John West is not to blame for leaks from the NEC or postings by Anthony Butcher. He is on record on this forum, in his last post, as being upset that his e-mail to the NEC went public (see John West 'MEP TV Interview' thread, #32 20th July 2008, 10.23pm).

progcon.org · 01-08-2008, 12:41 PM

"I repeat, if I am made aware of a crime I have a legal duty to report it"

Does that make those of us who watched John on the video, legally obliged to report his criminal interviewing skills to the police?

Bob FM · 01-08-2008, 12:49 PM

I didn't make a post at o6.53, perhaps your meant 05.53, I know what a stickler you are for accuracy. What I suggest you do is actually read my posts, on that thread, pre AB's posting and post AB's posting and a man of your superior intellect will I am sure will conclude I make no reference to Whittaker's letter is the context of it's content. Guilty as charged I'm afraid I clearly missed it.

Aardvark · 01-08-2008, 01:13 PM

Nope. Just been back to the thread - #30, 25th July 2008, 06.53pm. You had me worried there. I'm a stickler for accuracy on these matters, part of the training. Surely you were trained to check your facts before giving evidence.

I have read the posts on that thread. I originated the thread and have been following it.

You said:

Quote:

the only fact seems to be 1. The email was genuine, (I'm assuming you mean the resignation email).

Everybody would assume, since you had been posting before and after the e-mail that you had indeed read it before you commented on it, context or otherwise. You are now admitting that you debate on threads by reading some posts, jumping a few and then posting without knowing which way the argument is going. At least that's what I think you're saying as your grammar is up the spout again and a man of my intellect can only hazard a guess at what you mean.

Bob, you read the e-mail a few days ago, why deny it?

Bob FM · 01-08-2008, 01:19 PM

I did not read the email and none of my posts come close to concluding I did. So you are now calling me a lair. Talking of your intellect I have had an email, totally unsolicited that does rather put you in a different light to your perception of yourself.

Anthony Butcher · 01-08-2008, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob FM

It makes absolutely no sense whatever to wish to actively engage with and work for a party who you wish to see taken to the cleaners.

Hang on, he is a victim of the party here, and the party refused to take appropriate action, leaving him either to pretend it didn't happen or go to the police. If the only way to teach the UKIP leadership to take their responsibilities seriously is to take them to court, then that is hardly John's fault. Spinning it as 'taking them to the cleaners' is simply reversing where the actual blame lies here - with UKIP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrabody

Well, it just doesn't add up does it? John West claims that he wishes to remain active in UKIP, both as a branch chairman and as a PPC! At the same time he is apparently so outraged by the release of his interview video on Youtube that he has reported the party for violating the Data Protection Act, thereby possibly causing damage to the party.

Your use of partisan logic here is staggering. John is NOT causing damage to the party. The party, via an unauthorised individual, committed what looks like a criminal act, and then refused to take any action to resolve it (which is a bigger problem than the original offence). Annabelle, Whittaker and Farage are the ones damaging the party, no one else.

Who reports the crime is absolutely irrelevant; it is the perpetrators of the crime who are responsible. If John hadn't done it, I guarantee someone else, like GLW, would have.

Attacking John for reporting a crime as 'damaging the party' is just astonishing. This gang culture mentality makes me nauseous. You actually appear to be encouraging party members not to report crimes committed by other party members, and those that do will be subjected to a tirade of abuse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrabody

Therefore it would follow that either he isn't as outraged as he makes out, or he is delusional.

And your personal crusade against him continues; this is really quite repugnant. Is it possible that he is just a committed party member who wants a decent party? i.e. one that obeys the law and deals swiftly and responsibly when problems occur? Just because he has reported a crime to the police doesn't mean that he has to resign, or that he no longer believes in the cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob FM

mrabody, there is of course another hypothesis. He could be just hoping he is made such and offer and then could then really twist the knife.

Do the pair of you realise just how bullying and unpleasant you are being towards him?

Tim Worstall · 01-08-2008, 01:41 PM

"I do not wish this criminal breach of the Data Protection Act"

Umm, I'm not a lawyer so take this with a pinch of salt. But looking at the Data Protection Act I'm not sure that I can that, even prima facie, an offense has been committed.

The act refers to data, most of the references and definitions of which are to do with additions to a database. That is, the definitions of data which are covererd by the Act are to do with data that can be manipulated (or are entered into a database which could be manipulated) automatically.

That's really rather different from a video of someone. The standard law on photography (which extends, yes, to videos) is that a photo or video belongs to whoever took (filmed) it. To do with as they wish. If you film a car crash and sell the tape to Sky, you don't have to have the permission of those in the cars to do so. The tape is yours as you shot it.

As I say, I'm not a lawyer so I can clearly have got the wrong end of the stick here. But can anyone tell me what the `criminal`offence actually is?

I'm aware of all the other aspects here, it's the legal bit I'm having problems with: a video isn't an entry into a database and the law appears, at least to me, to be quite different.

Aardvark · 01-08-2008, 01:41 PM

Bob,

You posted on the thread before the e-mail was put up, you posted on the thread after the e-mail was put up and you knew what its context was. Why would anybody think that you hadn't read the e-mail? Are you saying that you post in a debate expecting a response, you then ignore some of the responses within that debate, then you post again referring to one of the responses you've ignored? I concluded from your post that you had read the e-mail you referred to and I doubt if I am alone in that.

I would never call you a lair, whatever one of those is.

The e-mail you received concerning me is from a very, very unintelligent person. I know who he is. He, like you, resents people with any form of academic qualification - UKIP is full of people like that for some reason. I wouldn't believe anything the person concerned says. I will call him a liar, because that is what he is. He supports you because he has an obsessive hatred of me. I wouldn't repeat anything in the e-mail as it is almost certainly untrue. The person has lied on this forum as well.

Aardvark · 01-08-2008, 01:52 PM

Tim, The video exists on a database; that is how it is called up. The index of videos on your computer is a database of sorts. Data is not just words but anything that is digitally stored. Videos can be manipulated. Ask chikrodah, who has databases containing digital images as well as personal details how those digital images are stored electronically. I think it is all manipulable data.

A private individual is not a data controller within the meaning of the act and can do as he/she wishes with data he/she has stored as long as it is not libellous etc.

Once data comes into the hands of a data controller and is within a category for which he/she is registered then it is different. John West's video probably falls into the category that deals with membership records etc.

C_steam · 01-08-2008, 01:53 PM

Well done John West! Clearly the party has done some 'dirty tricks' over which a lesser man would have quit the party in disgust. Not so JW. He wants any matters dealt with properly and remains committed to his duties as a UKIP activist and local leader.

Seems reasonable behaviour to me. On the other hand, if the party has issues with anything he has done, then he should be put through the party disciplinary process as soon as possible.

01-08-2008, 12:29 PM	#21 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,730	Bob FM, If you did not read Whittaker's e-mail posted on the 'Annabelle Fuller Resigns from UKIP Thread' by Anthony Butcher at #12, 25th July 2008, 03.44pm, then why did you comment on it on the same thread at #30, 25th July 2008, 06.53pm? You also posted on the same thread at #3 11.19am (a particularly naive post in the circumstances), #23 06.21pm, #41 26th July 2008, 06.17am (up with the **?), #43 26th July 2008, 10.02am, #52 26th July 2008, 06.36pm (up with the ** again?), #54 27th July 2008, 07.54am (and again?) etc etc. Bob if you comment on something posted on a thread it would be useful if you'd read it first. To say now, having dicussed an issue at length and presumably read the postings of other people, that you had not read an e-mail fron the Chairman to the NEC and posted by Anthony makes you look very silly. John West is not to blame for leaks from the NEC or postings by Anthony Butcher. He is on record on this forum, in his last post, as being upset that his e-mail to the NEC went public (see John West 'MEP TV Interview' thread, #32 20th July 2008, 10.23pm). __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

01-08-2008, 01:41 PM	#28 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,730	Bob, You posted on the thread before the e-mail was put up, you posted on the thread after the e-mail was put up and you knew what its context was. Why would anybody think that you hadn't read the e-mail? Are you saying that you post in a debate expecting a response, you then ignore some of the responses within that debate, then you post again referring to one of the responses you've ignored? I concluded from your post that you had read the e-mail you referred to and I doubt if I am alone in that. I would never call you a lair, whatever one of those is. The e-mail you received concerning me is from a very, very unintelligent person. I know who he is. He, like you, resents people with any form of academic qualification - UKIP is full of people like that for some reason. I wouldn't believe anything the person concerned says. I will call him a liar, because that is what he is. He supports you because he has an obsessive hatred of me. I wouldn't repeat anything in the e-mail as it is almost certainly untrue. The person has lied on this forum as well. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

01-08-2008, 01:52 PM	#29 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,730	Tim, The video exists on a database; that is how it is called up. The index of videos on your computer is a database of sorts. Data is not just words but anything that is digitally stored. Videos can be manipulated. Ask chikrodah, who has databases containing digital images as well as personal details how those digital images are stored electronically. I think it is all manipulable data. A private individual is not a data controller within the meaning of the act and can do as he/she wishes with data he/she has stored as long as it is not libellous etc. Once data comes into the hands of a data controller and is within a category for which he/she is registered then it is different. John West's video probably falls into the category that deals with membership records etc. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

01-08-2008, 01:53 PM	#30 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,509	Well done John West! Clearly the party has done some 'dirty tricks' over which a lesser man would have quit the party in disgust. Not so JW. He wants any matters dealt with properly and remains committed to his duties as a UKIP activist and local leader. Seems reasonable behaviour to me. On the other hand, if the party has issues with anything he has done, then he should be put through the party disciplinary process as soon as possible. __________________ -------------------------------------------------- Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at. Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply .

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-08-2008, 12:41 PM	#22 (permalink)
progcon.org Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 934	"I repeat, if I am made aware of a crime I have a legal duty to report it" Does that make those of us who watched John on the video, legally obliged to report his criminal interviewing skills to the police?

01-08-2008, 12:49 PM	#23 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,126	I didn't make a post at o6.53, perhaps your meant 05.53, I know what a stickler you are for accuracy. What I suggest you do is actually read my posts, on that thread, pre AB's posting and post AB's posting and a man of your superior intellect will I am sure will conclude I make no reference to Whittaker's letter is the context of it's content. Guilty as charged I'm afraid I clearly missed it.

01-08-2008, 01:19 PM	#25 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,126	I did not read the email and none of my posts come close to concluding I did. So you are now calling me a lair. Talking of your intellect I have had an email, totally unsolicited that does rather put you in a different light to your perception of yourself.

01-08-2008, 01:41 PM	#27 (permalink)
Tim Worstall Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 86	"I do not wish this criminal breach of the Data Protection Act" Umm, I'm not a lawyer so take this with a pinch of salt. But looking at the Data Protection Act I'm not sure that I can that, even prima facie, an offense has been committed. The act refers to data, most of the references and definitions of which are to do with additions to a database. That is, the definitions of data which are covererd by the Act are to do with data that can be manipulated (or are entered into a database which could be manipulated) automatically. That's really rather different from a video of someone. The standard law on photography (which extends, yes, to videos) is that a photo or video belongs to whoever took (filmed) it. To do with as they wish. If you film a car crash and sell the tape to Sky, you don't have to have the permission of those in the cars to do so. The tape is yours as you shot it. As I say, I'm not a lawyer so I can clearly have got the wrong end of the stick here. But can anyone tell me what the `criminal`offence actually is? I'm aware of all the other aspects here, it's the legal bit I'm having problems with: a video isn't an entry into a database and the law appears, at least to me, to be quite different.