Longrider

Well, well, well, it seems that MyDV have been getting their lawyers out again. This time the object of their ire is the Internet forum, Matrixwatch. They are requiring a cease and desist of the discussions related to MyDV and want the relevant forum removed from the website on the grounds of defamation. Clearly freedom of speech is not something these people respect.

Now, this forum was one of those I browsed during my excursions on the net when seeking more information on the activities of MyDV. While some of the comments are a bit on the animated side - as is understandable if you have just handed over a three-figure sum for a product that will, in all probability not arrive and if it does, will not have a UK warranty or plug - some animation is understandable. Yet, while animated, none of the discussion could be regarded as defamation by any stretch of the imagination. The truth is not defamation.

Indeed those people who have received goods have found that all is still not well. One correspondent of mine; Louise; had this to say:

“MyDV have sent me an import. This meant very little to me until the nice man explained it further. It means I cannot play the movies on the PSP, no warrenty, and even some games bought in the UK wont work. “

Great. So, not only do they charge illegally for commission and currency fluctuation, not only are they unable to give accurate delivery information - if you do get the goods, they are useless for the purpose described. Pointing this out is nothing more than stating the facts. I repeat; this is not defamation.

Peter Hoare responds to MyDV’s solicitors’ request for a cease and desist with a wonderful letter on behalf of Martixwatch that points out what should be blindingly obvious to any solicitor anyway:

“In any event, you will know that for a claim of defamation to succeed in the courts, proof needs to be established that those accused of the defamatory acts did so knowingly and purposefully, and out of a sense of malice or vindictiveness.”

Solicitors will write pretty much what they have been paid by their client to write, so I take what they say with a pinch of salt most of the time. Having been the recipient of solicitors’ letters over the years, I have come to realise that the bully boys in this world are quick to use them in an attempt to intimidate - and solicitors are more than happy to go along with it. I learned very early on that the only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. Again, I repeat; pointing out the truth is neither vindictive nor defamation and it certainly cannot damage a reputation already trashed by the trading practices of the company in question. If MyDV feels that its reputation has been tarnished, then it should not be looking to its unhappy customers for redress - it should be thinking carefully about its own part in this.

There was an opportunity here to put right a wrong. Unfortunately, MyDV prefers to indulge in bullying tactics in an attempt to suppress peoples’ freedom of speech. Of course, it goes without saying that this behaviour speaks volumes about the ethics of this company.

If you want to discuss this further, I’ve got a forum of my own over at Rogue Trader Watch.

A recent report in the Auto Express has gone largely unnoticed. Tescos have parking restrictions in their store carparks. All fine and dandy; that is their prerogative after all. If customers over-stay their welcome they get landed with a fine of up to £70 for repeat offenders. Again, that is up to them. If the offender wants to give them a two-finger salute, well, Tescos will have to take the matter further through the civil courts.

Now, while I don’t much like private firms imposing parking restrictions and fining people; providing they are upfront with it and provide plenty of notice, it is beholden on the offender to behave accordingly. Tescos, it seems, don’t do as many private land owners seem to these days and clamp offending vehicles. This, at least is an effective means of securing the fine - even if it is technically trespass on the person’s property. Again, the law allows for this if the penalties are clearly signposted. If, having read the signs (because you can’t miss them if they are displayed properly) people still disobey the site owner’s rules and get clamped, well, too bad.

Oh, no, Tescos don’t do this. They get the details of the offending vehicle from the DVLA. They send warning letters and a demand for payment of a fine. They deny this:

A Tesco spokeswoman explained that the scheme was designed to prevent all-day parking. She told us: “It’s not true to say that Tesco gets access to names and addresses, because we don’t. We use a licensed agency, and the system is strictly monitored by the DVLA.”

However, the denial appears self-contradictory. It is through another agency, so that’s all okay, then. The reality is that Tescos can operate this scheme effectively without any access on their part, or the part of their collection agency, to the personal details of the drivers involved.

What worries me - as it does others who are concerned about the erosion of our civil liberties - is the abuse of information given in confidence to government agencies that is subsequently given to private sector companies for their own purposes.

With the introduction of the National Identity register, we can expect more of this and worse examples, too.

Welcome to Tony Blair’s Britain. A place where the fear of crime - as opposed to crime itself - is used to justify the devastation of our liberties. The Prime Minister said on the BBC News recently that he was happy to reverse the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence. The centuries old method of fair trial and “innocent until proved guilty” is to be replaced under Neu Labour with instant penalties and ASBOs. It’s all in the name of “respect”; a word dear Tony fails to comprehend. Certainly I see precious little respect for the electorate he is supposed to serve. The man even has the effrontery to challenge those of us who object to replacing law by precedent and proper burden of proof with “Tony says” with this utter tripe:

“Our critics, who usually do not live in the communities most affected by crime and anti-social behaviour, often describe these measures as overly punitive and a threat to basic legal principles.”

Damn right they are.

“We are criticised for introducing rough justice and removing courts from the sentencing process.”

Given that this principle reverses the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence, that is exactly what it is - rough justice. No amount of appeals will put that right. In a common law country the accused is innocent until proven guilty by presentation of the evidence by the prosecution before a jury for a bloody good reason. It prevents miscarriages of justice (well, reduces the likelihood) and in the process protects society as a whole. Conviction of the innocent is not only a crime against the accused; the guilty party is still at large having got away with it; case closed. That is why our system has evolved as it has - but never mind, Tony Blair knows best; after all, this is the 21st Century…

“But this is not a debate between those who value liberty and those who do not. It is an argument about the types of liberties that need to be protected given the changing nature of the crimes that violate them. And it is an attempt to protect the most fundamental liberty of all - freedom from harm by others.”

Apart from being priceless bollocks, this is the rambling of a seriously deranged mind… There is no tradeoff to be made with liberty. Liberty is our protection from the tyranny of the state. Tyranny that is being imposed steadily by an administration that treats individual electors with contempt. If you are in doubt, perhaps this little gem will make you think again:

“One of the basic insights of the left, one of its distinguishing features, is to caution against too excessive an individualism. People must live together and one of the basic tasks of government is to facilitate this living together, to ensure that the many can live without fear of the few.”

There you have it; we are not individuals, we are numbers, a part of the collective. Sure, we have to rub along together and sure, we have to have systems that protect the many from the behaviour of those who would steal and murder. That, however, is a world away from penalising us all and treating us as criminals in waiting. When challenged during a BBC interview on Monday on the matter of seizing criminal assets:

The plans are controversial as suspects do not be [sic] convicted to have their assets seized and critics complain people that have to prove their money did not come from crime.

Mr Blair was asked if he was sticking to his principles on presuming innocence before suspects were proven guilty.

Blair said:

“You cannot deal with this type of crime by ordinary methods or by ordinary court processes. I genuinely believe that. I have tried it, it doesn’t work.”

So there you have it; the presumption of innocence is history. Perhaps next, we will be arrested for what we might do, so as to stop a crime from ever happening.

Suddenly, Minority Report seems less like fiction…

“I saw a quote the other day by Traitor Blair which I can’t find now (if anyone has it to hand, please put it in the comments). He said something along the lines of the presumption of innocence was troublesome and it was a barrier to justice.”

Yes, I recall him saying that as well. Damned if I can find it either. I suspect that it was in the television interview. What concerns me is that so little has been made of it.

Following on from the amount of requests for help, I’ve decided to follow Mrs Longrider’s suggestion of a website devoted to consumer issues. I know that there are plenty of sites out there, but it’s costing me next to nothing - indeed, only the domain registration, so far and I’ll probably recoup that through Google’s Adsense anyway.

I’ve started setting up resources. It’s a little thin yet, because I’ve only just started writing it. There is also a forum on the site for people to exchange stories and warn others.

We’ll see how it goes.

The URL is http://www.rogue-trader-watch.co.uk. I’ve also put a button in the sidebar.
—–

There was a time when everything was so simple. An idealist at heart and a liberal democrat (in the literal sense rather than party political) I abhorred the idea of unelected offices in government. The second chamber should be elected by the people to represent the will of the people as with the commons. The Lords, unelected and of the privileged elite were an anachronism and undemocratic.

Unfortunately as I have discovered, the commons will use “public opinion” when it suits it to push through nasty legislation, yet in reality treats democracy with contempt. The recent “90 days” debacle was an example of such brazen populism. Conversely, it is probable that the majority of the populace (if they have given the matter some thought) do not support the idea of identity cards, yet our representatives in parliament went ahead and voted “aye” anyway.

That the use of evidence gained though torture is even on the agenda is an indication of just how far into the abyss our government has sunk. On a pragmatic level, the evidence gained is unreliable, tainted as it is with the victim telling the interrogator whatever is necessary to stop the pain - truth is the third casualty (the first being the hapless victim; the second, our humanity). On a moral level, I cannot fathom - even though I try - why any civilised society should consider it acceptable. Oh, yes, I’ve heard the cries of “terrorism” time and time again as have we all, and it is becoming tedious. The “war on terror” is being used as a rallying cry to justify every little erosion of our civil liberties that the governments of the so-called free world choose to seize upon next. All in the name of “public safety” you understand. Robespierre would be proud of his legacy in Whitehall and Washington.

500 years ago, Anne Boleyn was murdered by the state using evidence gained through torture - not one jot of the charges brought against her were true. The political landscape may have changed in the last 500 years, but it seems the scruples of our government have more to do with Thomas Cromwell’s star chamber than a modern democracy.

Worrying, too, is the reaction among members of the public when the matter is debated. Jeremy Vine discussed this when the matter was about to be referred to the Lords a few weeks ago. Far from outright condemnation from his listeners, there was support for the idea - because, it seems, it might catch some terrorists. Of course, it won’t be them or theirs being tortured, it will be brown people, so that’s all okay.

We really haven’t moved on. It is all a veneer, this civilisation of ours. Underneath, we are as cold, cruel and inhuman as our Tudor forbears. And the Lords? Well, today, they have rejected the use of evidence gained from torture - and quite right, too. Which brings me back to my opening point. Once more, we rely on an unelected chamber to do the right thing and defend us from the activities of an elected body that has lost its way.

“An independent judiciary has once again been more effective in defending individual rights than this government”
Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrats

My ideals of twenty years ago are once more up for re-evaluation.

Since publishing my tale of woe about MyDV last month, I’ve been inundated with hits as a result of Google searches. You may wish to read the comments I’ve received on the articles here, here and here.

Of course, I was kicking myself for allowing my usual guard to slip. Normally I am rather more cynical and careful. Well, I guess, some good has come out of it as people are not buying from these people as a direct result of my difficulties. Thankyou to all those who contacted me and let me know.

Mrs Longrider is convinced that I should set up a consumer website with somewhere for people to swap stories and warn each other along with articles and links to consumer organisations. I know that there are already sites such as this on the web, so wonder whether there is really a need for another, but I’ll give the matter some thought.

Well, well, well ain’t that a turnout for the book. Okay, so using words like “scam” is sailing close to the wind; the evidence suggests gross incompetence rather than deliberate intent to defraud. However, the result for consumers is exactly the same - money out and no goods back. I’d also point out at this juncture, that promising something and then failing to deliver according to that promise constitutes breach of contract. I’ll also point out that an invoice with an amount payable is what the customer should see going out of their bank or credit card account. The owner of the server, Dan Sharp seems to be missing this point.

Still, MyDV’s legal team issuing threatening letters obviously infers that the point is getting through to Jeremy Paradies. And, such threats against people who have a legitimate grievance merely highlights the grievance. I leave you, dear readers to draw your own conclusions about Mr Paradies’ behaviour. He could, rather than making threats, just trade legitimately and honestly, instead of lying to his customers. And, yes, if his legal team are reading this, claiming to be “The UK’s Best Source for Digital Video Equipment” is deliberately misleading and therefore constitutes a lie:

lied, ly ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.

1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

Mind you, claiming “fast, free delivery” and failing to deliver within a reasonable timeframe (in my case, nothing after two weeks) is less than truthful, too.

Edited further to add URL of Rogue Trader Watch

Sometimes there’s a whole controversy going on and you just aren’t aware that it’s going on. The Blogroll debate is one such. The core of the debate seems to be around the way the linking and ranking works in search engines and blog listing sites such as Google and Technorati. The more links, the more your page will show up in a Google search. Also, there are those rankings on such places at TTLB and Blogshares. All of this, say the critics, favours the established elite over the new voices. And, the established elite are, for the most part, middle class white men.

This is where my irritation starts to kick in. I can understand and empathise with the core argument - i.e. established voices drowning out new ones. But, for me, the argument is undermined when people start to play the gender or race card. Gender and race are irrelevant. As I understand it, TTLB came in for flack because someone asked the question “Where are all the female political bloggers?” The answer is that they were here all along, but their voices were drowned out by the noise created by top 100 popularity lists and this noise is being fuelled by the tendency to blogroll. There’s an in-depth analysis over at Burningbird where Shelley says that such things as TTLB and Blogshares are hurting the blogsphere by enabling the noise. Although, as one commenter, Melanie, on this, similar posting points out, Shelley is speaking for herself rather than the blogging community as a whole.

“I disagree with Shelley’s assertion that people don’t find blogs through blogrolls. I also don’t appreciate that she deigns to speak for all bloggers when she uses the word “people” - she should have said “I” feel that… how can she claim to know the consciousness of 9 million plus bloggers?”

As an aside, I delisted from TTLB and Blogshares myself quite independently of this debate and frankly hadn’t given this angle any thought. I delisted because I objected to the “opt-out” philosophy being employed - particularly with Blogshares where my intellectual property was being used as a playing chip in someone else’s game.

Okay, back on topic, I can see the point Shelley is making, but I’m not sure I can get worked up about it. Certainly, I don’t believe anyone is being “hurt”. Unless, I guess, you want into the top 100 yourself and feel excluded because you aren’t in it. I’m not in the top 100 and couldn’t give a damn. Indeed, I couldn’t tell you who is, I care so little for it. But then, perhaps my attitude is coloured by being white, male, middle class and English. Indeed, it’s probably just as well I don’t smoke or Satan’s little demons would be making the bed and dusting down the room ready for my arrival. Yes, the top 100 blogs are dominated by white men. Life is full of such anomalies and it is tough sometimes to break through. Accusing white men of hurting you because they dominate the top 100 or because they don’t agree with you doesn’t help the case one little bit - it merely raises hackles. In the case of blogging, if what you have to say is interesting enough and well written, people will stop by and read what you have to say irrespective of your background or gender.

I don’t write this blog to make the top 100, I write because blogging gives me an incentive to try and write something most days - and to exercise my brain a little into the bargain. Yes, it’s nice to be read. It is nice if people drop in and discuss what I have written, but none of it is essential. And if this blog isn’t in the popularity poll de jour no one is hurt by it.

My blogroll is there for the same reason that I provide links on my main webpage and on my forum; because they link to places that I think others might want to visit. I can’t change the way that Google ranks pages and I’m not going to lose any sleep about it. I mentioned on the comments section of a recent entry, that Internet “rules” are artificial nonsense made up by people who try to impose their will on others. These rules only work so long as we concede to them. The whole blogging hierarchy is one such nonsense. So, too, is the campaign to do away with blogrolls.

This blog’s blogroll - like it or lump it - stays.

It seems that following a thorough mauling in the blogsphere, Mr White is to be Neu Labour’s sacrificial lamb. Well, I guess, someone has to pay and he did author the offending email. However, while Mr White is going (gone?) the general ignorance and bigotry towards the English remains. Indeed, I see no point in repeating what others have commented on this particular piece. Read, for example; the England Project or The Campaign for an English Parliament’s News Blog for a more detailed analysis of the article.

National identity may well be a tool used by extremists. Certainly politicians have been quick to use it when it suits their ends. However, a sense of national identity is a natural human trait - it only becomes wrong when used in the Orwellian sense.

“Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”

Identifying myself as English is recognizing my cultural heritage - it is not the same thing that Orwell rails against. Indeed, I empathize with his statement - there is something repugnant about the unthinking, flag waving desire to oppress others in the name of one’s own nationality.

On the matter of flag waving, the cross of Saint George is not, as the Friday project maintains, a “wretched flag” any more than is the saltire of Saint Andrew or the Dragon of Wales. The accusation of football hooliganism is identifying a minority and applying the resultant slur to the majority. There is nothing wrong with identifying oneself as English rather than British if that is how we see ourselves. We all have multifaceted views of our cultural identity - I am English, British, European - and, if you really want to pin it down, I’m a Man of Kent.

Does any of it matter? To most of us, no, it doesn’t. To the Neu Labour Apparatchicks, Englishness is something dirty, to be frowned upon. After all, Englishness is the root of all evil; soccer hooliganism at the one extreme and “Middle England” with all the inverted class snobbery that the term invokes (real or otherwise) at the other. No, being English means that we may be labelled as oppressors with impunity. Every nasty regime needs a scapegoat. Today, the English will do nicely, it seems.