Thursday, February 07, 2008

Taking Brown to court

Well, in a manner of speaking, as Dizzy points out.
A former Labour activist is taken Gordon Brown to Brighton County Court today for breach of contract over the promise for a referendum on the EU Constitution Lisbon treaty.

Stuart Bower, a former police officer, and also a former constituency secretary for Hove Labour Party in 1997 has had the papers served and the Government is apparently going to defend itself in open court. If there is a case to answer it will be referred to the High Court.

One would have thought that such an action was relatively newsworthy, wouldn't you?

As Dizzy points out, isn't it strange, then, that there should be no mention of it on the BBC website?

Mind you, I suppose that the BBC wouldn't want to offend its paymasters.

It's down to the unique way that the BBC is funded...

UPDATE: thanks to Nosemonkey who points out in the comments that, in fact, the Beeb did cover it. I should have checked more carefully, rather than believing one of these rumour-mongering blogs...! mea culpa.

11 comments:

lahgbr said...

What a surprise - the BBC ignoring an anti-NuLabour/EU news item!
You may have mentioned it before elsewhere, but are you also aware of the attempts of retired police officer Albert Burgess to have the remaining members of the Heath government that sold us to the EU prosecuted for treason? (Sadly they can't get Heath because the smug, fat bastard is dead. Maybe they could dig him up and give him the Oliver Cromwell treatment!)
Burgess talks about it here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6884017322536911169

Mr. Hughes.

Newmania said...

Funded by the EU. In Robin Aitkens book on BBC bias he quoted a survey of the interview time given to pro and anti EU views over a period of years and the results were all too predictable .

I don`t think it is the funding it is the paternilist Liberal slant of the BBC who are set up to lead the common hoi polloi not provide it with a Product.

Nosemonkey said...

I, too, could launch a pointless attention-seeking lawsuit on the political issue of my choice, based on a ridiculous misinterpretation of the law that will get thrown out instantly by any sensible judge, but I'd see it as an undeserved waste of taxpayers' money. If they aren't reporting on it, the BBC are giving this precisely the attention it deserves.

Sadly, however, they covered it a few days back.

Come on, DK - you're better than to fall for the idiotic BBC conspiracy theories.

number 6 said...

My fire breathing friend,

When the 'debate' about the constitution, sorry treaty, was in full flow the BBC invited every twat from the libconlabor party onto the air. Noticable absence was UKIP the one party that should have been involved to put the opposition side forth.

When later challenged on whatever fucking useless pr exercise the EUBBC runs for 'viewers and listeners' to voice their opinions the corporation stated that it was an oversight and that UKIP would be invited to discuss the issue in the future.

Naturally, by the time the 'even handed and non partial' BBC will allow such free speech the constitreaty is a done deal so anyone expressing an opinion to the opposite is pissing in the wind.

One party state, one party media one party government, what could not be acheived by force of arms will be acheived by graft, corruption and a supine media.

Welcome to the EUSSR

Unsworth said...

It was mentioned on BBC local TV this morning. Sort of passing reference - just before the traffic and weather and the prolonged plug for the BBC local radio station.

You can tell these guys have got their priorities well sorted.

Tomrat247 said...

"The treaty contains many of the reforms outlined in the constitution - including changes to voting rights and the creation of a European Commission president - but drops the name "constitution", a reference to EU symbols and an article on the primacy of EU law.-BBC article"

Interesting that this little titbit was added by the BBC; an admittance that there is little difference. They had to balance it out though with the cognitively dissonant remarks:
"The government is promising line-by-line scrutiny of the document, but the Tories and Lib Dems say more Commons time needs to be set aside."
and,
"On Monday, the government won a Commons vote for a 12-day debate on ratification by a majority of 56. The opposition had wanted 18 days."
Surely giving the Tory's and LibDems the time they want for "line-by-line scrutiny" validates the former arguement?

JonnyB said...

Er yes - what Nosemonkey said. The last line, 'specially.

Budgie said...

Tomrat247 said...
"Lisbon '... drops the .. article on the primacy of EU law'.-BBC article"

No it does not. The offending article is retained as an annexed protocol. It is in any case the effective existing practice.

Together with the articles giving the EU independent legal status and the Exit clause which prevents us leaving when we decide, the effect is EU legal supremacy. It is just a different route.

The BBC is not just imcompetent in its reporting it is biased in favour of the EU, receives funds from the EU and is therefore corrupt. It should be broken up and sold off.

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

I wonder what Neil Harding's got to say about his former comrade? That is his neck of the woods, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Brown certainly IS a lying sack of shit. But this case is completely without merit (due to the lack of any legal contract) and will be struck out. Im suprised that the government is bothering to defend it when they could apply for strike out.

Umbongo said...

"Im suprised that the government is bothering to defend it when they could apply for strike out."

Because the case has no merit (as a breach of contract) the government will "win" this case. The BBC will then report that not having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has been ruled "legal" by a court (ie even the courts are backing Brown). "Striking out" although effective would be a much weaker PR point than a verdict (no matter how predictable) in a case which has been heard.