Dear Reader, thank you for visiting this publication ‘The Morning Bugler’, which is part of the Symbol Seeker® Group, and is perpetually under up date.

Now, for the intended ethos of the TMB.

The principal intention is to provide a point of view platform, a ‘Voice for the People’, the little people, those who feel disenfranchised and ill served by ‘politicians’ of all parties, or none, who choose not to answer calls or personal correspondence or who choose through cynical well paid laziness not to become involved in your ‘fight’ on an issue which is special to you; those deliberately frustrated by the untouchable, unaccountable, fat cats of bureaucracy who smirk at your frustration and then lick the copious cream we pay them with; those ignored by an indolent and partisan media who in the pursuit of profit have lost their journalistic freedom and zeal for the truth; those who wantonly stifle protest at public corruption and those who aid, abet, and personally benefit from this suppuration; all of whom in one way or another you pay.

This is an opportunity to balance the books and have your say.

It is an unhealthy democracy in which a partisan media holds sway over an entire city or county simply because they hold a party partisan commercial monopoly over that which you read or which attempts to shapes your views whilst refusing to engage with you and your point of view.

In Lancashire, and perhaps in the UK, a healthy balance has long since ebbed away and journalists fear for their jobs…fear is always the key to their compliance…hope of fair play should be the last sentiment to die.

Like it or not the European Convention on Human Rights provides us with the cornerstones of democracy. One Article in particular should always be the bedrock of the TMB ethos…

It has been abridged for emphasis and application to the TMB:

Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas, but allows restrictions for ‘protection of the reputation, or the rights of others’. So, with freedoms and free speech comes, as it should, the reasonable expectation of responsibility.

This provides the moral compass for TMB’s minimal ‘house rules’ within which we hope our Readers and contributors can practice and enjoy expressing firm

opinions no matter how vulgar(witty is better), or however insulting these may be to others provided no one crosses the democratic line into bad taste or character assassination; treads on the rights of others; or breaches the law of the land.

Most contributors to a mature publication surely know the limits of civility, common decency, and fair play, albeit within the healthy cut and thrust of debate on a ‘serious topic’.

Vulgarity or use of asterisked street slang is usual, sometimes amusing, or simply ignored as posters’ debate in passion.

Some cross the line inadvertently driven by this passion for truth or justice and a public apology, if called for, should immediately address the matter as it is in respectful debate.

However some, driven by spite or wilfulness, or their own undeclared political agenda, are prepared to take the ultimate step. The TMB publication cannot be expected to provide protection for noms-de-plume or anonymity and none will be provided.

By all means express an Opinion but it carries much more weight with published supporting accurate evidence.

The TMB will provide moderation before posting but regardless each must ultimately accept responsibility for their own actions and if a contributor chooses to continue to be obnoxious then expect your contributions to be rejected and/or barred.

Submit any article on any topic you wish and within reason we will publish it or assist you to do so. It is not a matter of censorship(which we will not engage in), nor the self-protection of the publication, but an attempt to draw out those points which seem unclear or could be developed further to the interest of all Readers.

If you like something, or you think a bouquet is deserved, say so…those who serve their communities even in the most menial of tasks properly with courtesy, dignity, and honesty deserve your thanks, please say so…common humanity costs nothing, and just for a moment they will feel appreciated. We have all been there…

Blow all the whistles you want in person or anonymously, your choice. Parliamentary  law in any event provides you with protection. If it is wrong …and you believe it is wrong…have the courage to say so. In this matter we will protect your anonymity.

Now there are exceptions to the house rules…

You are welcome here, but if you wish to use this publication to make or defend your point you will identify yourself by Name and Party…then off you go…you stepped into public life with its public pay so stay there and account for yourself, if needs be.

It seems strange that the former leader of the LCC and serving Cllr G. Driver finds it necessary to use the nome-de-plume ‘Realworldman’;’Concerned of South Ribble’;Classic Act’;’Girl in Finance’ etc,in the Lancashire Evening Post. By failing to declare the obvious, who he is , he simply perpetuates the vision of a  louch and seamy politician, which of course he is…

In 1993, unnoticed by the ‘proles’ and ‘plebs’, and kept hidden by a coy ‘establishment’ to this day, the Law Lords delivered a ruling in the case of the Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers which laid down an irrevocable foundation stone of democracy.

This keystone since called ‘The Derbyshire Principle’ which has been challenged as recently as January 2013, remains rather like a dolman, upright and unshakable.

“The House of Lords ruled that…

government bodies cannot sue for defamation. This covers organs of local and central government including the Crown and government departments which have corporate status. They considered it was of the highest public importance that a democratically elected body or any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism.”

Further:

“Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech.”

House of Lords 18th February 1993.
Lord Keith of Kinkel; Lord Griffiths; Lord Goff of Chieveley; Lord Browne-Wilkinson; Lord Woolf.

Furthermore:

The European Court of Human Rights recognised in Lingens v. Austria, (1986) 8 E.H.R. 407, at 419, para. 42 (cited with approval by Lord Steyn in Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. 1999)…

“that the limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician…”

Politicians have been – and always should be – subject to the harshest of scrutiny – it goes with the pay…

Furthermore, in the matter of subsequent case law…

Derbyshire County Council Appellant v. Times Newspapers Ltd. and Others…

Held, dismissing the appeal, that since it was of the highest public importance that a democratically elected governmental body should be open to uninhibited public criticism, and since the threat of civil actions for defamation would place an undesirable fetter on the freedom to express such criticism, it would be contrary to the public interest for institutions of central or local government to have any right at common law to maintain an action for damages for defamation; and that, accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to bring an action for libel against the defendants, and its statement of claim would be struck out.

This disbarring from initiating proceedings against its critics of course includes employees of any local authority or government department whilst acting as ‘agents’ of that authority.

The critical point to remember is that should criticism/defamation cross the line between acting as an ‘agent’ for a local authority, and these employees acting as private Citizens then they are perfectly at liberty to sue for defamation and to carry their own costs while so doing. They cannot expect and are not permitted to receive financial and other support from their employers the Taxpayer(which is us), in such matters.

The last challenge to this Ruling occurred in January 2013 when the Animal Farm became a reality in Rutland where the local authority attempted to intimidate three of its own councillors into silence by attempting to issue proceeding for defamation against them because they were calling their own council corrupt and lacking in transparency…perhaps there is hope for us and freedom of speech yet?

Thanks for visiting the site and now read on…