Blogger Humiliates Town Councillors Into Resigning

Dr_Barnowl writes "In an occurrence first postulated in sci-fi and later lampooned by stick figures, it seems that a blogger has actually been responsible for the mass resignation of elected officials — a British town council — largely by calling them 'jack***es' and Nazis. What's next? The deposition of a president with 'your mom' smacktalk?"

Comments

On the other hand, it's Somerton

[Kupfernigk]

Disclaimer: I live in the Somerton and Frome constituency. The East side (where I live) is part of the 21st century, The politics is mainly Lib Dem (the only mainstream UK progressive party- and no, I am not a member.) The south-west side is deeply conservative and rural, and the local grandees have a huge sense of entitlement. They think that they have a right to run things and nobody should be allowed to criticise them. (They are also the area's Nimbys - they try to block industry or anything that will modernise the area and provide well-paid jobs for non-landowners.)

Now someone thinks they have the right to comment on Council decisions - and the toys get thrown out of the pram.

This is not about bloggers. It's about rural Conservatives finding their views called into question. It would be exactly the same if it was a campaigning newspaper, or if the people in subsidised housing started a resident's group and sent someone to see what happened in Council meetings.

This blogger was lucky

[CdBee]

In the UK its fairly easy to get sued for making written statements about people unless you are scrupulously accurate, and having looked at the blog in question he's taken a fair few risks..

Probably the traditional British tolerance for ecentricity is the only thing preventing the targets of his jibes from crucifying him in a civil court...

Re:This blogger was lucky

[jabithew]

I refer you to the case of Simon Singh v. Assorted Lunatics. What he said was materially true, but he will most likely lose the court case.

Mr Justice Eady has a lot to answer for.

There's more details on the Singh case in the current Private Eye, for any Brits out there.

Read the blog itself

[Mathinker]

Just reading a few of the last entries of the blog:

• Town Council would have approved the building of a recycling center, itself a business opportunity for one of the council members, except that 100+ residents actually showed up at the Town Council meeting to protest.
• A post ridiculing a plan to build a new cheap aluminum doorway in a historic building.
• Critique of the Town Council buying land for some kind of project, the project being canceled, and various interests connected with the Town Council profiting from the sale of the rezoned land, whereas there didn't seem to be much problem with actually managing to get this project finished rather than canceled (and that would have been more transparent and equally beneficial to the community).
• The blogger's car was torched and his house vandalized.

So no, I don't think it's exactly a newspaper. It's more focused and more dangerous, like being an opposition leader in an only semi-democratic country.

Re:Read the blog itself

[nurb432]

The blogger's car was torched and his house vandalized.

Another good example of why the net should be as anonymous as possible

Re:Read the blog itself

[FlyingBishop]

I think you need to read up on the historical role of newspapers. Pedro Chamorro Cardenal was the editor of La Prensa in Nicaragua, and he was a powerful opposition leader in his own right. His murder effectively started the Sandinista revolution.

You've just become accustomed to "newspaper" meaning "establishment drivel."

Re:So?

[smoker2]

You are wrong on so many levels. Firstly, they are not volunteers. They get paid for every meeting they attend and they get expenses paid for any work they undertake as a council member. Secondly, are you suggesting that democracy means you cannot exercise free speech ? Thirdly, are you suggesting that elected officials, who presumably had to canvas support in order to get elected, are so unsure of their position that a single person can force them to resign without so much as a struggle ? And lastly, if you as a member of the electorate exposed a scandal involving the council and publicised it, are you then guilty of something or are you doing the electorate a favour ?

Seriously, if they resigned over one persons so called ravings, then they didn't have much authority to start with, not to mention cahones. I know that if I found financial irregularities in a councils spending and could reliably document it, it would be my duty to inform the electorate. I have no interest in being a councillor, but that doesn't mean they can get away with it. Why should I invest time and money in making myself electable merely to point out the illegal activities of others ?

I repeat, if the whole council resigns over 1 persons unsubstantiated rant, then either they have got skeletons to hide or they are worthless as politicians. Politicians argue all the time, that's what they do. But one non elected person can force their resignation ? Please .... Are they going to take their toys and go home ?

Re:Can we get rid of the US Congress so easily?

[NickFortune]

I agree entirely. There's this meme going around that holds that if newspapers die, investigative journalism will vanish from the face of the earth. I think this case could well serve as a counter example.

Incidentally, is it me or is there a a strong subtext of "don't try this at home, kids!" to many of the posts on this topic? You'd almost think some people were worried in case this sort of grass roots political activism should catch on....

Re:Can we get rid of the US Congress so easily?

[WillDraven]

Just because something is common doesn't mean it's right.

Re:Can we get rid of the US Congress so easily?

[estarriol]

The cameras in people's homes are a UK Gov plan that the councils have no choice but to follow - blame the cabinet for that cracking idea

There is always an alternative choice, though it may not be the most pleasant of things to think about. Us American's kicked your government to the curb over a few tax disputes (and a few other issues). Placing cameras in private citizens' homes seem to me like a much bigger issue.

You guys could at least throw a few riots or something. And no, angry postings on slashdot do not count. By excusing this sort of behaviour all you are doing is shifting blame from your government to yourself.

Three big flaws in your argument here even at a casual glance:-

1) The proto-Americans had the advantage of an ocean between them and the people they were rebelling against, and the advantage of being on home territory against an enemy who had generally never even been to the rebels' continent. The situation would have been radically different if the American rebels were living in Clapham.

2) It's not "Us Americans" who rebelled at all - you personally had nothing at all to do with it - so it's rather precious of you to advocate that others risk their lives to do something that I suspect you have never done yourself.

3) The modern USA is exactly the sort of imperialist superpower that England was back then.

Overall, the pretense that modern Americans are some kind of ninja rebel outfit who would overthrow their government at the first sign of totalitarianism isn't helping anyone, especially when you sit in your comfy chair behind your (no doubt very rebellious) warrior keyboard and advocate that others risk their lives.