I wouldn't have imagined something would come up so fast that would be so topical for my blog. But it seems there is an almighty furore over the proposed Leveson Regulations.
I've been publishing here about Margate related news since 2007 when I became interested in saving the corner building at Cliff Terrace, at the gateway to Cliftonville.
As Labour's MP and digital rights campaigner Tom Watson points out:
"“It is clear to all but the very stupid that the new system should only apply to big media -with print operations that might also have a digital presence. Maria Miller should urgently clarify how this will be achieved.”
What can we do? Please join the campaign from the Open Rights Group, which sends a message to David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Harriet Harman.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/22/hacked-off-press-regulation-amendment
http://boingboing.net/2013/03/22/act-now-to-stop-the-uk-leveson.html
Even if, as a lone writer with no other authors writing for my blog, I'm supposedly not going to be currently affected. But I can see how this opens up a potential mess, that will put many people off from publishing at all. This coupled with blogger Jacqui Thompson losing her High Court libel battle against her local authority in Wales.
This brings me then to the issue of why so many good honest local people will not stand for election, despite there being a strong desire for local politics to be seen to be cleaned up and improved. It has been said to me on numerous occasions in the last weeks by local people that their main reason for not standing is not wishing to take on the abuse that they see anyone who puts their head above the parapet having to take. I find this very sad state of affairs.
I personally decided not to stand for election because I wish to continue to work on the community volunteer projects I'm involved in, because of the obvious conflicts of interest being elected would pose. That and being able to freely work on and cover the issues that I believe in.
Defendant’s Response to Letter of Claim
ReplyDelete3.4
The Defendant should provide a full response to the Letter of Claim as soon as reasonably possible. If the Defendant believes that he/she will be unable to respond within 14 days (or such shorter time limit as specified in the Letter of Claim), then he/she should specify the date by which he/she intends to respond.
3.5
The Response should include the following:-
whether or to what extent the Claimant’s claim is accepted, whether more information is required or whether it is rejected;
if the claim is accepted in whole or in part, the Defendant should indicate which remedies it is willing to offer;
if more information is required, then the Defendant should specify precisely what information is needed to enable the claim to be dealt with and why;
if the claim is rejected, then the Defendant should explain the reasons why it is rejected, including a sufficient indication of any facts on which the Defendant is likely to rely in support of any substantive defence;
It is desirable for the Defendant to include in the Response to the Letter of Claim the meaning(s) he/she attributes to the words complained of.
How many actions for defamation have been made against Thanet blogs ? That would be nil then.
How much impact have Thanet blogs had on regulation, legislation, procedure or voting patterns. That would be nil then.