Required imprimaturs on election leaflets
Cris Galletly
revolting smear campaign leaflet against a candidate, which has a
"Printed by" and a "Promoted by" but no "Published by".
No indication of who one *should* vote for, just "don't vote for this
creep".
Is this actually legal? And, if not, what should I do about it?
I am very glad I posted my vote in favour of said candidate last night!
--
+ Cris Galletly <gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> +
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Cris Galletly) wrote:
> Not one in Cambridge, one in Oxford, but I have just received a really
> revolting smear campaign leaflet against a candidate, which has a
> "Printed by" and a "Promoted by" but no "Published by".
>
> No indication of who one *should* vote for, just "don't vote for this
> creep".
>
> Is this actually legal? And, if not, what should I do about it?
>
> I am very glad I posted my vote in favour of said candidate last night!
The new form of imprint is usually "Published and promoted by" <agent> "on
behalf of" <candidate or party> etc. I'm not sure which words are now
mandatory but I think they include "promoted" and not "published".
I would just complain about it being revolting if I were you and not get
too wound up about the technicalities.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Owen Dunn
> The new form of imprint is usually "Published and promoted by" <agent> "on
> behalf of" <candidate or party> etc. I'm not sure which words are now
> mandatory but I think they include "promoted" and not "published".
I don't think there's a required form of words, but I think the
details required are:
(a) the name and address of the printer of the document;
(b) the name and address of the promoter of the material; and
(c) the name and address of any person on behalf of whom the material
is being published (and who is not the promoter).
(Representation of the People Act 1983, s110)
Incidentally, is enqu...@cambridge.gov.uk the right address to
contact the Acting Returning Officer about this sort of thing in
Cambridge?
(S)
maxb...@cix.compulink.co.uk
>>contact the Acting Returning Officer about this sort of thing in
>>Cambridge?
mailto:elec...@cambridge.gov.uk might get there quicker. But it might
not as the elections office is (not surprisingly) a bit busy atm!
The '83 RPA has been superseded, the correct form of words is:
Printed by [name of company], [full postal address]. Published and
promoted by [name of agent] and [name of party] on behalf of [name
of local candidate/s] and [name of party], all at [local agent
address]
From the sound of it, the leaflet in question might not be being
circulated by an 'official' candidate. As Colin says, just complain about
the content, not the imprint.
Cambridge City Councillor 'Max' Boyce, West Chesterton.
18 Springfield Road, Cambridge.
Tel/Fax: +44 (0)1223 358292
email: maxb...@cix.co.uk
Owen Dunn
>>>Incidentally, is enqu...@cambridge.gov.uk the right address to
>>>contact the Acting Returning Officer about this sort of thing in
>>>Cambridge?
>
> mailto:elec...@cambridge.gov.uk might get there quicker. But it might
> not as the elections office is (not surprisingly) a bit busy atm!
Well, if I don't get a reply to the email I sent to enquiries@ I'll
send it again to elections@.
> The '83 RPA has been superseded
Not according to the Statute Law Database or any of the other
databases I have access to. The 1983 Act was amended in 2000 by PPERA
(2000 c41) but the text I quoted is from the amended version.
Interestingly, the electoral commission don't seem to think websites
or social networking sites count for the purposes of that section.
(S)
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Owen Dunn) wrote:
> Incidentally, is enqu...@cambridge.gov.uk the right address to
> contact the Acting Returning Officer about this sort of thing in
> Cambridge?
I'd use elec...@cambridge.gov.uk.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
maxb...@cix.compulink.co.uk () wrote:
> The '83 RPA has been superseded
Not exactly. It remains the principal Act but has been amended by a series
of subsequent Acts.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Brian Watson
"Cris Galletly" <gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:zgj*+g...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Not one in Cambridge, one in Oxford, but I have just received a really
> revolting smear campaign leaflet against a candidate, which has a
> "Printed by" and a "Promoted by" but no "Published by".
>
> No indication of who one *should* vote for, just "don't vote for this
> creep".
Anyone we know?
<Runs for cover...>
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
www.imagebus.co.uk/shop
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Owen Dunn) wrote:
That's not the party view I have. We always put "printer" and publisher
information on ours.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Cris Galletly
Brian Watson <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Cris Galletly" <gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:zgj*+g...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> Not one in Cambridge, one in Oxford, but I have just received a really
>> revolting smear campaign leaflet against a candidate, which has a
>> "Printed by" and a "Promoted by" but no "Published by".
>>
>> No indication of who one *should* vote for, just "don't vote for this
>> creep".
>
>Anyone we know?
Well, as I said, it's against a candidate in Oxford.
The person who produced the leaflet said it was "on behalf of concerned
residents of Oxford West & Abingdon". The person who produced the leaflet
appears to be somewhat on the deranged side (after Googling them).
If anyone wants to see JPEGs of the leaflet they are available at
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly/00001.jpg
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly/00002.jpg
Gareth Rees
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly/00001.jpg
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly/00002.jpg
"Evan Harris promotes liberalising the law on abortion"
Sounds good to me. Tell me more...
"Evan Harris promotes controversial embryonic stem cell research
methods"
I see. In favour of science, as well as women's health.
"Evan Harris promotes the legalisation of euthanasia"
Did I read somewhere that he quit his job as Shadow Secretary of State
for Health to look after his partner while she died of cancer?
"Dr. Evan Harris is one of the most outspoken secularists in
Parliament"
A secularist. And outspoken too. Very good.
Are you sure this leaflet is from his opponents?
--
Gareth Rees
The Natural Philosopher
In the 60s we had leaflets like that promoted by the Workers
Revolutionary Party etc.
Because Russia had the funds
Today, the American Right and Saudi Arabia has the funds.
So its all hard line religion.
With the left having destroyed individual freedom, I expect we will be a
fascist theocracy within 15 years,
Cris Galletly
It's from a lone rather strange person as far as I can tell.
http://www.oxford.anglican.org/the-door/features/assignment-earth-5989.html
is an article about one of her novels.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <3452d9eb-2fec-4223...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Gareth Rees <g...@garethrees.org> wrote:
>> Are you sure this leaflet is from his opponents?
>
> It's from a lone rather strange person as far as I can tell.
>
> http://www.oxford.anglican.org/the-door/features/assignment-earth-5989.html
>
> is an article about one of her novels.
good grief. Yes, its that little subculture known as 'Christian Fiction'
or 'books you can safely read and know your prejudices will be confirmed'
Ben Hutchings
> In article <3452d9eb-2fec-4223...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Gareth Rees <g...@garethrees.org> wrote:
>>Are you sure this leaflet is from his opponents?
>
> It's from a lone rather strange person as far as I can tell.
>
> http://www.oxford.anglican.org/the-door/features/assignment-earth-5989.html
>
> is an article about one of her novels.
Sadly there are other strange people ranting along the same lines:
<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100035241/>.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus
magwitch
> On 2010-04-27, Cris Galletly <gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> In article <3452d9eb-2fec-4223...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> Gareth Rees <g...@garethrees.org> wrote:
>>> Are you sure this leaflet is from his opponents?
>> It's from a lone rather strange person as far as I can tell.
>>
>> http://www.oxford.anglican.org/the-door/features/assignment-earth-5989.html
>>
>> is an article about one of her novels.
>
> Sadly there are other strange people ranting along the same lines:
> <http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100035241/>.
>
> Ben.
>
whose leader publicly professes himself to be an atheist, yet privately
accompanies his wife and children to mass and cashes in by sending his
kids to faith school?
Brian Watson
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hr64fs$nl$1...@news.albasani.net...
> With the left having destroyed individual freedom, I expect we will be a
> fascist theocracy within 15 years,
Communism failed.
Capitalism went bust.
First one to come up with something that works wins a coconut.
Brian Watson
> In article
> <3452d9eb-2fec-4223...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Gareth Rees <g...@garethrees.org> wrote:
>>Are you sure this leaflet is from his opponents?
>
> It's from a lone rather strange person as far as I can tell.
>
> http://www.oxford.anglican.org/the-door/features/assignment-earth-5989.html
>
> is an article about one of her novels.
Coo, THAT looks fun!
I love all those crazy "Alice In Wonderland, Water Babies"-type Victorian
children's stories, of which that appears to be one.
Most of THEM seem to have been written by rather unhinged religious nutters
too.
magwitch
> "The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hr64fs$nl$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> With the left having destroyed individual freedom, I expect we will be a
>> fascist theocracy within 15 years,
>
> Communism failed.
>
> Capitalism went bust.
>
> First one to come up with something that works wins a coconut.
>
certainly worked out well for him :-(
"Hi I'm Tony Blair and I'm very very rich..." etc.
The Natural Philosopher
The only real question that is being posed at this election, is whether
to choose between:
"The government is the solution to all our problems"
or
"The government largely IS the problem"
Every other distinction will be blurred by necessity and spin until you
can't tell the difference.
I happen to think the latter statement is more true at this point in
time. To present government as the solution to the individuals problems
is, in my opinion, the greatest con trick ever perpetrated on the world,
(with the possible exception of the Catholic Church)..
And *more* government will make the problems *worse*.
There has to be an optimal size for government when viewed from an
efficiency point of view.
Its only ideology that says 'hang the efficiency, we want to be FAIR, or
FREE or LIBERAL' or some other twaddle that makes it utterly
inefficient, in the pursuit of unattainable goals.
Right now we need efficiency, at the expense of some ideology, if it has
to be so.
Time enough to argue morality when there is some cash in the bank.
When running a business I was often berated for spending time looking at
the bottom line, and not considering all the other aspects of the
company. My response was always 'without there bottom line, there is no
company: And all your moralistic and idealistic vapourings have no context'.
A broken economy allows no room for socialism at all. Zimbabwe gives the
lie that egalitarianism beats economic efficiency in terms of delivering
quality of life to the lower paid.
Game theory more or less proves that egalitarianism, if taken to its
logical conclusion, destroys the economic game: That may have been the
point of it when the Cubans and the Russians promoted it: But those
times are long gone.
The Natural Philosopher
> The entity calling itself The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Zimbabwe gives the lie that egalitarianism beats economic efficiency
>> in terms of delivering quality of life to the lower paid.
>
> not a sustainable form of government. I'm not sure it shows much else.
>
Believe what you want to believe.
Paul Oldham
> Zimbabwe shows that a cleptocracy [...]
What a marvellous word.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.milton.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it"
Gareth Rees
> Well what else is a committed Catholic such as Odone, to make of a party
> whose leader publicly professes himself to be an atheist, yet privately
Perhaps the party think he's a tolerant person who isn't willing to
jeopardise his family's happiness in order to make a point of
principle?
(Everybody who has a partner who's from a different religion or
culture or who doesn't have identical values faces the same kind of
decision. Sometimes real people are more important than abstract
principles.)
--
Gareth Rees
magwitch
He's a right old pussy cat... of the Cheshire variety I fear.
Brian Watson
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> Right now we need efficiency, at the expense of some ideology, if it has
> to be so.
>
> Time enough to argue morality when there is some cash in the bank.
The two are not incompatible. Besides, there IS some cash in the bank - we
are all giving to them daily.
> When running a business I was often berated for spending time looking at
> the bottom line, and not considering all the other aspects of the company.
> My response was always 'without there bottom line, there is no company:
> And all your moralistic and idealistic vapourings have no context'.
The error is ONLY to look at the bottom line.
I look at mine frequently and find that dealing honestly and fairly with my
customers has a beneficial effect on that.
> A broken economy allows no room for socialism at all. Zimbabwe gives the
> lie that egalitarianism beats economic efficiency in terms of delivering
> quality of life to the lower paid.
I was chatting with a Republican yesterday and he regards ANYTHING that
isn't Republican dogma as "socialism" and, as "socialism=communism" in his
mind, that must be a Bad Thing.
A little thinking out of the box is required, which you rightly expressed as
"Right now we need efficiency, at the expense of some ideology".
> Game theory more or less proves that egalitarianism, if taken to its
> logical conclusion, destroys the economic game: That may have been the
> point of it when the Cubans and the Russians promoted it: But those times
> are long gone.
Yes, so a bit more staying away from dogmatic extremes and a bit more
pragmatism is the most likely Best Course from here on.
Brian Watson
"Paul Oldham" <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote in message
news:pkhla7-...@clive.hug...
> August West wrote:
>
>> Zimbabwe shows that a cleptocracy [...]
>
> What a marvellous word.
Are you thinking of nicking it?
:-)
Paul Oldham
> "Paul Oldham" <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote in message
> news:pkhla7-...@clive.hug...
>> August West wrote:
>>
>>> Zimbabwe shows that a cleptocracy [...]
>> What a marvellous word.
>
> Are you thinking of nicking it?
>
> :-)
<grin> already did, it's my Word of the Day at the moment (although with
the "k" spelling" - see <http://the-hug.org/paul/wibblings.html>, bottom
left).
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.milton.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?"
Paul Rudin
> Brian Watson wrote:
>
>> "Paul Oldham" <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote in message
>> news:pkhla7-...@clive.hug...
>>> August West wrote:
>>>
>>>> Zimbabwe shows that a cleptocracy [...]
>>> What a marvellous word.
>>
>> Are you thinking of nicking it?
>>
>> :-)
>
> <grin> already did, it's my Word of the Day at the moment (although
> with the "k" spelling" - see <http://the-hug.org/paul/wibblings.html>,
> bottom left).
Mugabe doesn't even make it into the top 10:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy> (although that list was
2004).