To return from any entry to the top of this page, click any date on the left
To place a bookmark/anchor in the URL bar (for links), click the blog title
To read blogs from other years and months use the menu above
To change the text size click ‘AAA’ or Mobile icon on the menu above
To permanently change the text size click ‘Configure’ on the menu above
Nothing too serious to begin with; probably we need some light relief.
Bexley Action Group
Four years ago Michael Barnbrook and his friends set out to defeat Councillor Craske at the 2014 election. They just failed thanks to the UKIP surge and Councillor Chris Taylor lost his seat instead. Serves him right for having a surname beginning with T instead of one at the top end of the alphabet.
Mick campaigned under the name Bexley Action Group with leaflets, brochures and website to match.
Today someone emailed to say that the name Bexley Action Group is copyrighted. A bit late in the day for such a claim is it not? What can I do about it four years later, especially as the message came via BiB’s anonymous Contact system?
Another anonymous email signed by J. merely said "LAWYERS MAKE MONEY BY RUNNING CASES THEY ARE NOT GENERALLY INTERESTED IN SETTLING THEM".
I suppose there could be some truth in that.
Yet another email demands that I “send a copy of the statutory regulations which the police claim you have breached and a copy of the Court summons”.
Well if only I knew! I haven’t a clue what regulations I may have breached but it is all academic anyway. How can I send anything to someone who has used the anonymous Contact facility? It is genuinely anonymous. No names, no return email address, no accessible data trail.
Someone who is not anonymous to me, he gives his name and address, but asks that he remains anonymous to you tells me he is in trouble with the law too.
Like me with the libel case he stuck absolutely to the truth in one short blog. He was accused of harassment and when he was eventually told what he had done it transpired that no one disputed his truthfulness, the problem was that the truth had “upset” just one person.
The police eventually abandoned the case against him but if he upset anyone again he would be charged. Surely they must have been bluffing.
And which Police Farce would this be? Why Kent of course.