Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

9 thoughts on “FCO moves to obtain court injunction against online Murder in Samarkand documents!

  • Chuck Unsworth

    Let's remember that the Treasury Solicitors are attack dogs controlled by HMG. As such they are doing the bidding of their masters in FCO. They have no authority to make such demands outside of a Court Order. Certainly they have no powers of enforcement and have not even obtained a Judgement.

    This is the usual threatening pose. What they should do is prove their case in front of a Judge and Jury. In any event this is yet another example of a Government Department seeking to hide its incompetence and immorality behind a smokescreen of legal action.

    As for the 'Freedom of Information' charade so loudly trumpeted by Blair and his henchmen, well ain't that just too bad? This is New Labour's 'open government' at its very best. A splendid example of a confident and competent executive….

    It's about time that these intellectual pygmies grew up and learned to deal with the world in a mature, honourable, decent and sensible manner. The whole concept of supressing scrutiny by whatever legal means there may be is absolutely typical of this overbearing and autocratic government.

    Rather than face up to the real debate these buffoons have decided to go for the easier option of claiming some vague control over copyright. This is a tacit acceptance of the content of the book itself. If the book contains lies or libels then let them deal with that. Or is the British Public deemed so stupid as to be unable to decide the merits of its contents for themselves?

    Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Information? I don't think so! Certainly not under New Labour.

  • balders

    A zip file of the whole set including html prefaces is available on request. Send email to clives AT batchtarget DOT com if you want a copy.

  • Richard II

    What about the public's right to know?

    The government isn't a corporation; it's an institution that is run on behalf of the public, FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD! It does NOT exist to protect the skin of politicians.

    This kind of copyright can be overruled if the public wants it overruled. That is what democracy is about. That is what a government is meant to be about.

    Our freedoms in Britain are eroding rapidly. We must not let the people in government bully and intimidate us like this.

    "Her Majesty is the first owner of any copyright in the work," the letter says.

    "Her Majesty" is a thief, whose family stole – and continues to steal! – wealth from the British public.

    What did "Her Majesty" do to become "Her Majesty"? Nothing! Except inherit a title and power. Power that her family has no right to have. Power that has now been handed to the government.

    In 2004, Blair used "Her Majesty" to invoke the "royal prerogative", permanently banning the Chagossians from ever returning to THEIR island, to THEIR property.

    Yes, the people in government love property rights, but not when such rights are protecting something the Americans covet, such as Diego Garcia.

    The hypocrisy of the civil servants in government stinks to high heaven. Our government is run by thieves, liars, hypocrites, and murderers. They don't deserve the protection of the law, because they have BROKEN THE LAW; AND OUR TRUST!

    We should have taken a leaf out of the French book, and beheaded "our" monarchy long ago. That would have given the people in government one less excuse for preventing the truth from coming out.


    These documents belong to us.

  • Richard II

    Do these documents tell us anything we don't know already? When you read these supposedly top secret papers, does your jaw drop?

    Maybe for people naive about the unpleasant nature of those in government, these documents ARE a revelation.

    It seems to me that the people in government are abusing the power of the state to protect their personal reputations and those of their friends.

    "We don't want this said about us. We don't want that said about him. No, no, no – don't say that about her!"

    Unless you're in the government, you won't know who most of these people are, as they're not referred to by name.

    The only thing that bothers me is, does Craig still believe British values mean something, or that they ever did?

    Poor BAT. They can't repatriate their profits!

    BAT is an unethical company, both in its business practices, and in what it sells.

    Sympathy for the Devil, I don't have.

    Piss off Blair, and play your games elsewhere.

  • Durham Rambler

    Let's get this straight:

    1. You obtained these documents as a result of a Freedom of Information request to the UK government.

    2. You are not permitted to republish them on this website, according to the government.

    3. On the other hand, you are free to publish the text of your FoI requests, since you are the author, and you could release them into the public domain.

    4. Others could then submit FoI requests in the same terms that you did.

    5. HM Government should then send the same information in response to that FoI request.

    6. This is, however, a lot more time-consuming than allowing you to publish in the first place.

    7. Am I missing something here?

  • Craig

    Durham Rambler,

    Yes, except that I obtained most of these docs under the Data Protection Act rather than the FoIA, so they're not obliged to give them to anyone else.


Comments are closed.