Showing posts with label Wordpress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wordpress. Show all posts

Friday, 1 July 2011

Joyeux Anniversaire you Vagrant blighters...



Happy birthday to us...

Well readers, we're still here. One year on and this week will mark the first birthday of Vagrants in the Casual Ward of a Workhouse. And what a week to have our first anniversary amidst the trade union banners and placards announcing the official response from below to the British Tory government's austerity program of impoverishment from above. When all is considered it has been an interesting and riotous year.

And we're not ones to shy from any drop-of-the-hat type of celebration. Due to a certain mental and pecuniorial elasticity - a self-imposed Quixotic streak allied to a strict yet fair policy of getting hammered quite convincingly on methylated spirits alfresco - we took the opportunity of putting the bitter laments to one side and cracked open a rather distinguished bottle of gut rot and raised our imaginary glasses to the devout: those who follow our weekly alliterative aggregations. It is you after all who make the products of our fragrant pen-centric shenanigans worthwhile. And it appears that every week more of you are dipping into our neo-Mayhewian nether regions.

The Vagrantal Schematic

From its inception, we adopted what we've come to term as the Vagrantal Schematic which is not in any sense related to feminine discreet deoderants. The Vagrantal Schematic was (is) premised upon the two-pronged strategy of analysing issues within the wider political sphere as well as providing an insight into a series of legal disputes we find ourselves contesting at the moment. This we do so that we might help others avoid some obvious pitfalls and less discernible allegorical (wo)mantraps. We hope these writings have provided a glimpse into the manner in which we have over the months, immersed ourselves within that arcane realm populated by senior types as well as those who implement institutional policies, codes and procedures and such like. Coffee shops, Employment Tribunals and Civil Courts have provided the stage upon which we have sought to temper our arguments, aired our evidence and countered often what are in our view quite ridiculous allegations. We have been constantly surprised by the extensivity of the assistance provided to us by wishers of well both near and afar as well as the information and documentary evidence that has been supplied to us by readers and individuals some of whom for obvious reasons, have chosen to remain in the shadows. Thank you all.

The weapon of choice - the quill

The author's most recent
passport likeness
Having availed ourselves of the dual-core quill, we are of the opinion that we have already exposed many of the remarkable allegations and abrogations of procedure to public scrutiny which has gone down well with a majority but not with a minority. In order to appeal to as wide an audience as possible we resolved to eschew the use of technical terminology (jargon) for a lexicography based firmly upon pre-1910 forms of syntax and the wilder regions of the imagination. Never ones to constrain ourselves when it came to the less than liberal appliance of sulphurous language, we rejected pithness for an excursive style, pipe tobacco and a wardrobe composed entirely of attire exclusively manufactured in the Outer Hebrides with brogues. An important part of our manifesto was a firm rejection of the internal combustion engine for a singular reliance on trouser clips and two-wheeled leg-driven perambulators.

Busy bees and Rhodal Collossi

Like members of the Bee-Borg collective we have been industrious, assiduously servicing the Queen (hereafter referred to as the legal and tribunals system). We've seen an Employment Tribunal postponed and rescheduled. We've sat in wonderment at the lengths to which the University of Salford have gone in avoiding spending vast sums of money in the civil courts. Press here to see just how little a libel claim costs these days. We've appeared in the Civil Courts twice in front of a District Judge as the University have fought tooth and nail to preserve the right to criticise freely and the right to anonymity by seeking a Norwich Pharmacal order that required of blogging hosts Wordpress to release among other things to them the:

"[u]ser access log records and writings (or a copy of the information contained therein) which evidence and identify each IP address (including date and time of the use of said IP address) associated with and/or used at any time by any person in relation to creating or modifying or posting to the Theratcatchersofthesewers.wordpress.com Account.

We also compared and contrasted this with Martin Hall's claim that:

"...the University of Salford has not sought, nor will seek, the identity of all people posting to any site. We have rather requested through the courts the minimum information necessary to identify those responsible for specific postings for which there is a prima facie case of defamation.(1)

We've imagined the almost Herculean efforts to which the CEO of Automattic Inc (owners of Wordpress who are a blog hosting site of some renown) a Mr Toni Schneider went in defending his own company's Privacy Policy and the right to privacy of his customers by waiting to be served with a valid subpoena by a US court. To view a copy of Mr Schneider's signed affidavit press here. This one is likely to run and run...

Lack of understanding of the Civil Procedure Rules combined with this 
type of mast-based activity can play havoc with your bridge work
Twas, on day one of the rescheduled Employment Tribunal, that we received the libel claim form from the University of Salford's lawyers alleging that the University had suffered damage by 'false and defamatory words' on a blog called the Rat Catchers of the Sewers. With witness statements provided by Registrar Adrian Graves and blogger Vice Chancellor Martin Hall, the UoS retained the legal services of a chap called Ian Austin in these matters. Mr Austin bestraddles both the University of Salford and the law firm Halliwells Heatons like the venerable Colossus of Rhodes.*

Can a claim for unfair dismissal be reclassed as the eighth wonder of the world?

We sat slack-jawed like banjo playing extras from Deliverance during the rescheduled Employment Tribunal in March 2011 whilst two senior managers (a Mr Hopwood and a Mr Attwell) on behalf of the University  gave evidence, admitting under the skilled cross-examination of that Suffolk chap E S Longley that the University dismissed a certain bewhiskered fellow for bullying two members of staff despite the fact that no official complaint (as per the UoS' own Code of Conduct for Bullying and Harassment) from the two staff members could be produced! The services of two lower mandible relocators was very nearly deemed necessary by the Clerk of the Court as the two managers failed to demonstrate to the Tribunal panel just how the author had brought the University into disrepute nor indeed could they quantify to the Tribunal precisely the damage caused to the University through his authorship of the satirical Vice Consul's Newsletters (to view the dismissal letter click here).

A simple Freedom of Information request.. oh the pain... the pain
Born free...

And the coming months look like they are  going to provide even more grist to our quill. We have an appeal being heard in July by the First Tier Appeals Tribunal into the decision of the Information Commissioner to uphold the University's refusal to release information to a certain hirsute doctor (on the grounds that the UoS allege such requests were part of a wider vexatious campaign against the University). The evidence and witness testimony provided to the Appeal Tribunal by all parties can only be described as quite 'stunning'. We will of course by exploring this one in greater detail over the coming weeks as well as the evidence provided to the Commissioner by a certain Deputy Vice Chancellor in 2010 which in the opinion of this author is a bit of an eye opener.

But officer, a consequence of my prolonged exposure to a disciplinary procedure is form of 
pernicious piss derangement with an associated need to urinate directly 
down this drain without removing my trouser
We also have the second part of the Employment Tribunal claim into unfair dismissal in mid August where over three days, the manager in charge of investigating the University's allegations against me  -  a Mr Scott Mulholland - will be cross-examined by that staunch and dauntless Suffolkian. We also expect to see there a certain Executive Director of Human Resources - a Mr Keith Watkinson - who is known on occasions to wear pinstripe suits and to have partaken of our textually-situated efforts.

Yes the coming months promise to be quite explosive (metaphorically speaking of course).


Notes and References

* Austin is currently the Chair of the Audit Committee at the University of Salford as well as a partner for the law firm Heatons. To avoid doubt and further legal action the author's note that the analogy with the Colossus of Rhodes is a literary device and not a literal representation. Mr Austin is patently not massive, made of stone, mythical or indeed ancient. Just for the record, neither could a full size ocean going vessel from the 5th century BC be sailed comfortably between his legs.


(1) M Hall, Dark Side of the Internet sourced at  http://www.corporate.salford.ac.uk/leadership-management/martin-hall/blog/2011/01/dark-side-of-the-
internet/#comments

Note of caution: before embarking upon expensive civil litigation, contact the author for any necessary corrections at vagrantsintheworkhouse@gmail.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, 16 February 2011

For a few dollars more...

Go ahead punk... make me pay
Oh dear. It would appear that the original figure of around £14 million believed owed to unsecured creditors of Ian Austin's former law firm Halliwells, was a little on the... well low side. According to the article in The Lawyer, it seems that the original figure has been revised up ever so slightly to a figure just shy of £200 million (£191,521,921.)


It's not known if this sum has been rounded to the nearest pound and whether there are any outstanding pences owed. It's also alleged in the article that from this figure £4.3 million is owed in tax and £1.2 million in VAT to HMRC. The article goes on to say that £17.7 million is owed to the majority state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland. RBS and other creditors have formed a committee to try and retrieve this debt. It's widely accepted that HMRC are known to be rather aggressive in recouping money owed to them.

Many strings to his bow

Ex-managing partner Ian Austin of Halliwells, who 'where appropriate, uses alternative forms of dispute resolution (including mediation)...'(1) like a concert violinist, has many strings to his bow. As well as having given his 'life to that practice' (meaning Halliwells) insodoing, found a novel way to remove his socks.(2) The former executive chair of Halliwells is currently sharing his second life between Heatons LLP and the University of Salford, where he sits as Chair on the Audit Committee

Ian Austin
Austin has spent many years specialising in commerical litigation. More recently, having carefully re-rosin-ed his bow, he's branched off into another area of law in the libel action instigated by the University of Salford  against Dr Gary Paul Duke. Austin thus sits on the University Council as a member of the UoS, and is currently acting for the University in his capacity as a solicitor representing Heatons LLP.

Libel proceedings

As well as the one witness statement provide by Registrar Dr Adrian Graves, Austin has provided his own two signed witness statements to the court as well as the contentious 'List of Information and Documents to be Produced by Witness' sent to Rat Catchers of the Sewers blog host Automattic Inc (Wordpress - see previous post).(3) It was this evidence - including IP addresses - provided by WordPress in breach of their own Privacy Policy, that acted as the basis for the UoS Court Order to Virgin to release details of the account holder of one particular IP address to the University's lawyers. To date, the University have yet to serve the claim form and move the libel proceedings forward.

An Employment Tribunal is scheduled for the 1st and 2nd March in Manchester, where this writer's claim for unfair dismissal will be heard.



(Table courtesy of The Lawyer)





(1) Sourced at http://www.governance.salford.ac.uk/page/Council_Biographies
(2) Sourced at http://www.thelawyer.com/halliwells%E2%80%99-ex-managing-partner-%E2%80%98i-gave-my-life-to-that-practice%E2%80%99/1005189.article
(3) 'User access log records and writings... which evidence and identify each IP address (including date and time of use of said IP address) associated with and/or used at any time by any person in relation to creating or modifying or posting to the Theratcatchersofthesewers.wordpress.com Account.' 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 8 February 2011

The Etymologist's dilemma and a butterfly of words



If there's one thing academics and lawyers have in common, it is an adherence to a certain code or form in writing and speaking that involves precision in the use of terms and language, although some might argue for very different ends. For Tiersma discussing the use of language in the legal profession '...technical terminology promotes communication in the profession by allowing lawyers to express in a word or short phrase what would otherwise require a much longer explanation.'(1) Within academia the opposite is more usually the case. Language can appear purposely convoluted and texts often impenetrable, crammed with the jargon of the day which seem to make opaque and confusing that which they should be making transparent and intelligible. There are a variety of reasons for this although Thomas remarks that "[a]cademics often disguise their own confusion by means of wilful obscurity..."(2) New scholastic appellations are endlessly created to replace their simpler (read more easily understood) now outmoded lexicographal* forerunners. Simple ideas and basicly Engly twentyfido** are often shrouded in a series of arcane phonological acrobatics that would confuse the most rabid post-enlightenment linguistical luminaries such as the late and revered Professor Stanley Unwin.


Prof Unley Stanwidlyo

The etymological rationale

There is of course a perfectly good reason for this. Why would one wish to make simple what are oftenly complexidlo theoratum?*** After all, the road to becoming an academic is a longly, arduouosee and a now very expensively businesslyo. With this comes a certain responsibility to ensure that unintelligibly conceptua are translated into philological incoherencies. Some have suggested that the Daedelean-obscura that passes for academia-speak is purposely linguistically convoluted and discursively Machiavellian in order to buttress academic elitism and an artificial divide between the holders and interpreters of knowledge and the vast mass of citizenry that do not partake of University education. There may be an element of truth in this. However, if we are to avoid what Judith Butler(3) sees as a retreat into the language of 'common sense' (as opposed to good sense), then framing new concepts and confronting common sense ideas in the field of knowledge and theorising inevitably demands a certain linguistic 'comprehensivity'.(4) But a word of warning: there is a world of difference between having sharp tools and talking a lot of incomprehensible cobblers.

My dear Dr Duke. You are on
record as talking unmitigated shite

Avoiding the Butterfly Effect

At this juncture I would like to raise my hand as being personally culpable of committing the most heinous of crimes against the English language, to which my long-suffering former PHD supervisor and other more than patient academic friends will attest. It hasn't yet been made a disciplinary offence but I'm sure there's still time. It's also highly likely I'll commit a few more over the coming months on this blog for which I apologise in advance.  There is however an important point to this brief exploration in linguistical elaboration. It concerns absolute precision in the use of language when issues of a legal nature are raised publicly, particularly one might add, when academics are involved. In addition to precision, brevity or caution are more usually exercised as the slightest deviation from the letter can induce a veritable allegorical 'butterfly effect' and potential calumnious feedback. Considering this, I reprint a recent exchange from the Vice Chancellor's blog in response to a comment/posting left by one Rupert Bayer of Paris on his . It read:


"Professor Hall,

Your response to the other contributors is disingenuous in part and omits to respond to some salient points put forward. First, you do not address Longley’s charge that the University sought personal details of private individuals who were not subject to any allegations of defamation. Apart from the fact that this is an attempt to breach both the right of free speech and of privacy, it also amounts, in my view, to cyber bullying. You therefore need to provide a detailed explanation of why the University sought to breach fundamental rights of some anonymous individuals. You also need to explain why this does not amount to cyber bullying.

You do not appear to accept the right of anonymity. This can be particularly important where those being critiscised [sic] are in a position to be vindictive and punish their critics. Unless you publicly support the right of anonymity then you will be charged with siding with the forces of oppression. Democracy is based upon the absolute right of the secret ballot. Similarly, the right of free speech relies absolutely on the right of anonymity. Are you prepared to guarantee the right of individuals to free speech at Salford University?"

Professor Hall stated categorically:

"I’ve made my position on anonymity quite clear. In addition, the University of Salford has not sought, nor will seek, the identity of all people posting to any site. We have rather requested through the courts the minimum information necessary to identify those responsible for specific postings for which there is a prima facie case of defamation."

The honing of one's tool

Before I venture any further, it might be worth dwelling for a moment on the more general achievements of the Vice Chancellor. Hall is a well published academic of some deserved repute. Like many of his peers he's achieved this partly through years of intensive training attained during his studies as a Cambridge undergraduate, through working in the field and years of academic research and writing. As such, Hall is no doubt well versed in the precision use of language as a vital adjunct of analysis. As noted above, he has also added another string to his bow of repute: with Registrar Dr Adrian Graves and University Council Chair of Audit Mr Ian Austin acting for them, he has embarked upon the issuing of libel proceedings in the High Court against someone not a million miles from... well me.(5)

Compare and contrast...

This is not the post to go into the highly pertinent issues of rights of anonymity and freedom of speech. There will be plenty of time for this over the coming weeks and months. What is of interest is the use of language and the precise meaning of words, particularly those in his above reply. I would like to draw readers' attention to the two exhibits below (para 8). The below documents, stamped by the  UK courts, were sent by the University's lawyers to Mr Toni Schneider at Automattic Inc (host of Wordpress).


Exhibit A



Er... exhibit B

I'm sure Hall has chosen his words very carefully given his previously discussed academic training allied to the vast practical and theoretical knowledge on matters of a libel nature held by Ian Austin and an extensive pool of highly paid law firms he can draw from if he so wishes. But I'd like to draw your waning attention to the wording of paragraph 8. It is true, the University (such an impersonal term) did not seek the identity of "all people posting to any site..." as he states. According to the legal document drafted carefully by expert commercial litigator Ian Austin of Heatons with one assumes the full knowledge, understanding and authorisation of Hall and his corporate subordinate Registrar Graves, it would appear that the University merely sought the 'minimum information necessary' which according to their own document submitted to the UK courts translates to the: 'User access log records and writings... which evidence and identify each IP address (including date and time of use of said IP address) associated with and/or used at any time by any person in relation to creating or modifying or posting to the Theratcatchersofthesewers.wordpress.com Account.'

You tomato and I say... well tomato

Vice Chancellor Hall's interpretation of the word 'minimum' sits oddly with my own interpretation of the word a point that was raised in court last December. Moreover, in the context of the Vice Chancellor's above statement and the court papers, other than the spelling, I can't for the life of me discern any significant difference in meaning between the word "all" and the word 'any'. I don't relish the thought of being drawn into a war of interpretations as I'd probably end up being accused of being anti-semantic, but if  "all"... sorry 'any' of you would like to contact me and let me know the difference, I'd be most grateful. 

* Note: I think I've just made this word up.
**Courtesy S Unwin
*** Also made up.
(1) Tiersma PM, Legal Language, Chicago University Press, London, 1999

(2) Thomas Mark L, Review of The Idea of Commmunism eds Zizek S & Douzinas C, Verso, 2011, in Socialist Review, February 2011
(3) Butler J, A Bad Writer Bites Back, New York Times March 20 1999.
(4) I thought I'd just dreamed this one up but apparently it does already exist... it means 'comprehensiveness' but gives an idea how jargon-ese is disseminates promoted by a new generation of social scientists and academics.
(5) Legal proceedings have been instigated but the Claim has yet to be served.

Tuesday, 25 January 2011

A Question of Anonymity

In Professor Martin Hall's weekly blog, which is always a fascinating read, he asserts that "[a]s a university, we have our own share of cyber-bullies and harassers. They are invariably disaffected individuals with personal grievances who hide behind anonymous blogs and e-mail pseudonyms. As Vice Chancellor Hall has opened a debate and invited commentary, and not wishing to be cast as a dreadful "cyber-bully" or serial "cyber-harasser" it would be remiss not to draw readers attention to a little snippet found on Erin Baldwin's campaigning website. It concerns a comment posted on her website by a chap called Mr Ethical Blogger centring on the provision of Personally Identifying Information such as IP addresses and email addresses to the University of Salford. Provided voluntarily I might add for the sake of clarity, by the CEO of Automattic Inc/Wordpress a Mr Toni Schneider.

Ethical Blogger  * 

Has anyone perchance seen
a loose cobbler
knocking around?
“I don’t know any of the details of the case set out here or the ratcatchers blog (strange name), but I strongly believe that bloggers should act ethically and within the law. Is it possible that WordPress acted ethically, concluding that the material published by Dr. Gary Paul Duke on the strangely named blog, contravened their own guidelines for ethical blogging – and was so evidently defamatory (as apparently determined by the British authorities) – that it would inevitably lead to an order for release of the US courts. They released it therefore in accordance with their own principles of publication - saving themselves further administrative and legal costs in the process?”

Erin Baldwin writes:

"I think it’s interesting how the person writing this comment states at the beginning:
“I don’t know any of the details of the case …” then pontificates very astutely about
the major issues of controversy:



(1) that WordPress ethics have been called into question;
(2) that Dr. Gary Paul Duke allegedly published “defamatory” material;
(3) that WordPress claims that the “defamatory” material was against its guidelines;
(4) that British courts deemed the content “defamatory”;
(5) that United States courts concur (since the trend in the states is to terminate as many blogs as possible that express an opinion contrary to the status quo and/or arrest owners of blogs to at least take the heat off for a while); and…. finally and most importantly to Toni Schneider and Matt Mullenweg:
(6) that the US courts would issue a court order to save WordPress legal and administrative fees because they are actually doing them a favor by being the hatchet men for the government. 
I think the writer of this comment knows quite a bit about this case, don’t you? Like maybe he or she is intimately involved in the litigation?"


Oh dear... how sad... never mind

In light of Professor Hall's obvious antipathy to anonymous commentary via cyber-land, I shall of course reserve my own judgement. You however, can draw your own conclusions. If any readers would like to undertake a little bit of their own investigative work, click here and then click here. The results prove very interesting.

Post Script: The author of this blog would like to stress that he has no problem with the issue of anonymous or pseudonymically centred blogging. Indeed anonymous political leafleting and pamphleteering have played an important historical role in creating an a political dissidence and ideological alternative in periods of ruling class hegemony. However, the University of Salford have made it clear via letters to this writer from their rather over-enthusiastic lawyers (who were incidentally Halliwells at the time until they went bust last year) that they believe this type of blogging to be 'cowardly', a view that cuts against the grain of the opinion of Mr Justice Thomas who in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) recognises the 'value' in upholding the right to publish anonymously within the First Amendment of the US Constitution. 

I would also like to say that I would not condone for one minute the UoS seeking to discipline the above anonymous post-er to Ms Baldwin's blog despite the obvious misuse of UoS IT facilities.
  


* I have removed this IP address but this particular IP Address is already in the public domain courtesy of Erin Baldwin at http://erinbaldwin.com/2011/01/12/university-of-salford-busted-for-anonymous-post/ 




Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 9 December 2010

A Registrar, a witness statement and a Court hearing

Signer of witness statements Dr Adrian Graves*

A snippet of hearty news arrived in the post yesterday (8th Dec). It was a witness statement with a highly significant signature affix't. That signature belonged to one Dr Adrian Graves. This witnesses statement lays out the basis for the University of Salford's allegations against one Mr Gary Duke ('tis I sir!). Contained within are claims that the aforementioned Mr Duke ('tis I again and a Dr to boot if you like sir!) has vilified and defamed them (senior types and others at UoS) to some fine tune on a website entitled The Rat Catchers of the Sewers. It is on record that this writer has neither confirmed nor denied involvement, a point made by us to the Judge at the previous hearing in order to correct a misapprehension held by the University's barrister.

Dr Graves' is an interesting statement on several levels none of which we can go into here for obvious reasons. The forthright claims made by Dr Graves in his statement will serve as the basis for a request by University lawyers that the Court grant them Norwich Pharmacal relief . This is an Order that requests Virgin Media Limited to provide account details of an IP address supplied to the UoS by Automattic Inc (the owners of Wordpress). The forthcoming hearing may prove enlightening and contentious.

When Wordpress folded

We might also add for clarification that the above information (an extensive list of IP addresses of contributors and 'posters', an email address and details of when the Rat Catchers of the Sewers account was created) was handed to the University of Salford US legal representatives by the CEO of Automattic Inc (Wordpress), Mr Toni Schneider. This was without being "required to do so by law" or a Court Order from the Californian courts. Below is a quote from Wordpess's Privacy Policy:


All those who have a Wordpress account may wish to take heed of this precedent. They might also take Schneider to task over this apparent breach of their own Privacy Policy. We wouldn't want Wordpress to find themselves in court answering to claims under the Californian version of the Trade Descriptions Act (if one exists).

In closing...

Given the content of Dr Graves' statement, which bears many striking similarities to a statement provided to the Court by Mr Ian Austin dated 27 October 2010, members of the public if not already titillated, may wish to recover from the dark cupboard corners their Thermos vacuum flasks, vintage Tupperware sandwich containers and large sponge hands and reserve their seats at the next round of legal proceedings.


Another hearing in all things deem'd calumnious, defamatory and libellous....

The University of Salford

v

Dr Gary Paul Duke

2 o'clock promptly before Judge Smith at Manchester District Registry
21st day of December 2010,
Manchester Civil Justice Centre
One Bridge Street West,
Manchester



*Picture courtesy of the University of Salford sourced at http://staff.salford.ac.uk/news/details/1868