Tuesday, March 04, 2008

'Blog War' Spreads To Online Encyclopedia


by Isle of Thanet Gazunder Internet Correspondent Ricky Pedia

Thanet's 'blog war' is spreading across the internet, with Wikipedia becoming the latest casualty.

Westgate councillor and former Thanet blogger Simon Moores' Wiki entry has been 'flagged up' as possibly not conforming to the online encyclopedia's 'Neutral Point of View' policy. Popular Thanet Star blogger Lord Matt has queried Moores' entry because it was extensively written by the Tory councillor himself. Lord Matt has also removed some links, saying: 'One appeared to me to be an advert.'

Wikipedia allows anyone to edit any of its entries, and the revisions are now the subject of a bitter exchange of words between the two Thanetians, with Cllr Moores claiming: 'Unfortunately, Lord Matt has a distinct and very personal and political local agenda of his own. As a consequence his opinions might be best ignored as simply mischevious. At worst, they may be considered prejudicial. It is interesting to see that he has removed a reference to a weblog which has opinions that he has been vociferous in challenging.'

The councillor's latest addition to the debate, dated 3 March 2008, says: 'And who would you like to see confirm this Matt? A past colleague from the Cabinet Office, The Shadow Home Secretary, the head of the Serious & Organised Crime Agency, our local MP? Let's be clear about your local political agenda in this matter.'

Click here for Simon Moores Wikipedia entry
Click here for Wikipedia discussion of changes to Simon Moores entry

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Links to business and consultancy interests abound on the entry concerned. I didn't thin Wikipedia was a self-promotion site?

Anonymous said...

Modesty used to restrain gentlemen from putting details of themselves or their achievements about but being quite happy for others to do it. The world seems to have changed.

Rick said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but credit where credit is due!

Some time ago, Dr Moores PhD, declared on Thanetlife that he was an Honoury Detective in the Met(?) He is now stating on his site that he was indeed given the Honourary rank of Detective Sergeant!

This is a rank that the normal police officer would aspire too after many years of distinguished service!

We must therefore acknowledge some massive advance into the field of policing if Dr Mooores has been granted this unique honourary rank. A rank that this humble member of the'Thin Blue Line' has never even heard of!

Eastcliff Richard said...

Maybe he was having a laugh. He is after all well known for his sense of humour.

Bleak Mouse said...

Ah! There you are old boy.Back in the old routine I see. Guess you must be feeling somewhat dizzy with all the moving about.Good to see you back in print.

Matt B said...

It's more a storm in a tea cup than anything else. I've asked neutral editors to take a look. I'm sure it can all be resolved peacefully.

Rick said...

Here is a self explanatory copy of my email to the Clerk to the Police Authority:

Can I look forward to its removal by blog admin ?

Dear Mr Gilmartin

It is unlike me, as you know, to draw a matter of pedantry to your attention given your more serious duties (such as studying my report to Home Secretary making an application for compulsion of inquiry under the Civil Contingencies Act)

Whilst you have obviously been scrupulous to study in the detail these months I have been active on what are called "Blog Sites". And, as a result, I now have more information. I have sent private emails to two blog site owners Simon Moores and an Eastcliff Richard indicating what this information is.

What is developing in Thanet, essentially independent of my concern but nonetheless quite amusing, is what they call a "Blog War"

Here is an example of a recent thread:


Post a Comment On: The Isle of Thanet Gazunder
"'Blog War' Spreads To Online Encyclopedia"
7 Comments - Show Original Post
Collapse comments
etc as above ....

I would draw your attention to "Anon of 12.10 AM"

Who claims to be a member of your thin blue line. It obviously comes as no surprise to us that one of your purported officers would pay such scant respect or compliance with his sworn position as an independent ministerial officer of the Crown (I think you know this was an issue I brought to a "Pc Copperfield's" attention ... an anonymous and increasing influential police blogger who has now left English Police and joined the Police in Canada. Perhaps he renewed his oath in Canada ?)

We should not be surprised to note what appears to be a junior officer erring. His role models would have been such as the Thanet Supt who got a Common Law Information of Misprision of Treason against her. and a Judicial scalding for writing to a judge critical of his sentencing in a specific case. Let's be clear that should read EX Supt ?

I would commend to you my own blog as an example of my own humble efforts towards my Commendation for Lifelong Honour of the Constable Oath.

Inevitably this purported police officer, skulking in anonymity but enjoying trying to exercise influence without consequence, calls to my mind the criminal convictions of Pcs Hills and Burgess. Hills in evidence said he had been scared to tell the truth for fear he would "Have all Thanet Police against me". He alludes surely to his feeling that he is a member of an organisation of institutionalized liars.

However, admitting to pedantry, I wonder if you could spare time from your Home Secretary report study, and consider if you will Magna Carta, Common Law USA and UK and USA 6th Amendment. Moores it seems felt recently that he had been targetted, for his politics as an elected councillor, with a campaign of defamation although the details are scanty I feel. Google sites appear to come under USA law and his attempt to identify anon bloggers failed against his complaint of civil wrong.

However it is a CRIMINAL offence to impersonate a police officer. And someone describing himself implicitly as a constable has committed to such an accusation by implication against Moores publicly on this thread.

I would think that would give Dr Moores rights to identify the anonymous bloggers.

I don't think he will pursue it as the whole "War" is lightweight and trivial. For example on the one side Eastcliff Richard thinks a red hot issue is the use of the word "Gippo" in a contribution on Simon Moores blog site.

If nothing else I hope that, by drawing your attention to the Thanet Blog war, I have lightened part of your day and enabled you to return with refreshed detrmination to a serious matter. That of sabotage and unreliability of backup generators and the technical explanation report to Home Secretary.

I was chatting to a London cabbie the other day

"Thanet" he said, "Full of wankers"

Then after a moment's thought he added "Especially the police"

And I think after you read the contribution from the anonymous police poratt above you will concede that the cabbie has a point.

Best wishes Rick

Eastcliff Richard said...

So full of w*nkers, in fact, that it appears we've had to export one of them.

Rick said...

Export tends to be higher quality product ECR. The worst of your criticism is that it is true.

However I was invited to Thanet in the first place to improve the gene pool. I do hope that you did not start off as the seed of one of my sample jar contributions.

Perhaps a DNA test ?

Can you produce a sample ?

Rick said...

Unless your remarks allude to the recent export to Australia of a police chief ?

Anonymous said...

It would appear that rambling Rick has taken 12.10 posting completly out of context.

I read it as being a post, from possibly a police officer, expressing suprise at someone having an honourary police rank, and boasting about it!

I must profess that I have never heard of honourary ranks in the Police.

Matt B said...

I have looked into the mater and can only locate references to Honoury Police in Jersey mostly in the .gov.je space.

http://tinyurl.com/ysqggx

They seem to be like special constables but less powerful and elected.

Rick said...

matt b

The Home Office position re honorary constables is that specials fulfil our power to hold parish elections to elect our own constables.

The Home Office do not go as far as to deny that we can exercise our power to elect constables by parishes and thus remove (take back the power on loan) the power to select constables off Chief constables.

Having said that. Moores never claimed to be an honorary det sgt.

Look at the logic of your position.

Sir John Stevens Met Commissioner quips that he will make Moores an hon det sgt.

You readily assume that Sir John Stevens does not have that power.

yet conversely you readily believe, it seems, that he would have the power to remove the office of a constable by the expedient of sacking an officer ?

I am assuming that you are not confusing the OFFICE OF CONSTABLE with the rank of constable ?

They are different things.

We have the power to select who can hold the office of constable.

If we used this power then a Chief constable in a Home Office Police Force could only select his officers from amongst the constables we have chosen.

In fact Westgate could hold a parish election and vote in Simon Moores. On proof of the vote a Justice of the Peace can swear him in. And Constable Moores it would be.

And if they voted in a load. Then if they felt Kent Police by their presence in Westgate represented a threat to the peace they can arrest the police and release them at their own discretion where a breach of the peace is unlikley to be occasioned.

Like in Margate Harbour.

We should have cottoned on to this in the miners strike. Aylesham votes in 20,000 constables (Miners from all over UK). And they arrest Kent Police for conduct likely to occasion a breach of peace namely waving payslips at striking miners.

I love being in a constitutional monarchy.

However I must concede that Arthur Scargill was not exactly fertile soil when it came to a solution involving invoking Crown Authority !!

Bye all

Eastcliff Richard said...

I'm not sure what any of that means, but, er, um, fascinating stuff, eh?

Cops arrested by miners sounds fun, though!

Rick said...

Here is a ramble from parliamentary debate re SOCA (which I think was the organisation Simon Moores was associated with or aspiring to but not sure)

COPY

Let me deal with two crucial matters that need to be understood and fully appreciated before our amendments can be considered. The first is the historical significance and importance of the office of constable. The second is an understanding of the way in which the Bill, as presented, proposes to give what might broadly be described as "police powers" to SOCA staff.

Although today's police forces are the creation of statute and the police have numerous statutory powers and duties, from a legal point of view, a police force is essentially neither more nor less than several individual constables, whose status derives from the common law. The office of constable dates back to the parish constable, who, by the beginning of the 17th century, was responsible for the preservation of the peace in his bailiwick and for the execution of the orders and warrants of the justices of the peace. The constable's oath and close relationship with the justices of the peace characterised him as a ministerial officer of the Crown, like a sheriff or the JPs themselves, rather than as a local administrative officer. In short, constables have never been civil servants.

Various enactments were passed in the 19th and 20th centuries, providing for the establishment of police forces. Powers were not conferred on members of police forces as such, but a member of a police force on appointment had to be attested as a constable by making a declaration. A member of a police force now has all the powers and privileges of a constable throughout England and Wales.

The hallmark of the present day constable therefore remains, as it was in the 17th century, his attestation. Until so attested, constables have neither the authority nor the status of a constable. Once attested, the constable holds that office. That applies equally to members of police forces, special constables, and, of special note, the director general and police members of the National Crime Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad.

I draw attention to the fact that, when Parliament created NCIS and the NCS, it wisely saw fit to maintain the significance of the office of constable by creating a

7 Feb 2005 : Column 1272

category of police members of those organisations. The Bill will abolish NCIS and the NCS and absorb those organisations into SOCA. What, then, is the precise status of a police constable?

When carrying out his duties as a constable, a member of a police force—of whatever rank—acts as an officer of the Crown and a public servant. Constables' powers are exercised by virtue of their office, and unless they are executing a warrant, the powers can be exercised only on their own responsibility. A police constable who deliberately fails to carry out his duties by wilfully omitting to take steps to preserve the Queen's peace or to protect a person under attack commits a criminal offence—the common law offence of misconduct of an officer of justice.

The Crown is not liable for the wrongful acts of a member of a police force. Although a constable is an officer of the Crown and a public servant, his or her relationship with the Crown is not that of master and servant, nor that of principal and agent. He or she is a servant of the Crown only in the sense that any holder of a public office may be called a servant of the Crown or the state.

Why does that matter in 2005? The answer is that it has important consequences for the nature of policing and the independence of our police force. Police officers cannot be dismissed on notice; they cannot take industrial action; they have a duty to act and report both on and off duty; and they are completely politically impartial. Those have all been characteristics of our police for at least the past 175 years. They derive from the office of constable. That is of great importance to the nature of policing in Britain.

Rick said...

ECR a bit of history before I stop blogging

Before the Norman conquest we had tithing men (police) and the Normans had counts de stable (who organised the knightwatchmen (sic)

Since they won we ended up with counts of the stable which became constable.

Then Magna Carta came along and the monarch was committed (as were his heirs and successors) to appoint as constables only men who know the law of the Realm and who are minded to keep it well.

Tra lala through Cromwell, interregnum and restitution of monarchy.

After restitution of the monarchy judges made a law that they cannot be sacked. And there was a rights thingy in which people who had been exaggerating a terrorist threat to put themselves beyond law would henceforth be subject of a principle that be you ever so high the law will be above you.

Remarkable really because it would be a couple of centuries before Tony Blair was born. Yet they already had a provision to deal with him.

But cunningly someone took this sort off stuff off the curriculum.

Napoleon was a tricky old lad. He reckoned his law, of tell yer what to do and thought policing etc, was his great gift to the world.

Apparently Tony Blair agrees with him. So he busily undermines the Queen so as to foist a new system of controlling law upon we freemen of England (we are not waking up to this yet ... but I think eventually there could be a row)

Anyway after the defeat of Napoleon England got uppety. And royalty was a bit nervous being it was the age of reason, rights of man and Americans had won independence and French had kicked out monarchy. Could it happen here.

So first off the govt tried Blairite laws suppressing all sorts of freedoms of expression and thought.

There was trouble.

Then genius. Let us organise the constables as officers in paid police forces. Send em out with just a bit of chippy wood (a truncheon)1829

Well the crowds seeing this whipped out their English sense of fair play and left their guns and cutlasses at home.

And all was well. (Recently police have deluded temselves that their bit of chippy wood is better with another tonfa piece at right angles to the shaft. And we keep the little tossers happy by giving them a side handled baton each)

Well there we were. Working men paid to be officers. from 1829

Police.

Right says the top lads. Now a few decades has gone by. We can start sneaking power back off the police.

What we need is the devilish Fenians to come over from Ireland burn some haystacks and blow up prominent public lavatories (the one under Scotland yard be a suitable conflagration)

Then we can lament that the police lack the expertise to face a new threat and what we need is a Special Branch like we got in Ireland. (oh not the same trick being used now to give MI5 a greater role ? Yes actually)

The Fenians bog off.

But cunningly the top lads do not disband the political police Special Branch.

Give it a few more dcades and the govt invents MI5.

And what they need is liaison arrangements to Force Special Branches. (why they still there the Fenians been gone home for years)

Now who is getting influence without consequence ECR ? Govt, MI5 and Special Branch. If they can exercise influence over the way a constable does his duty then, if it comes on top, who is criminally responsible to the Queen ? The constable and Special Branch would deny all knowledge of advising that corruption could be a good career move.

And govt seamlessly gains secret power until a DI is contacted by special branch to tell a young constable to destroy forensic evidence in a sudden death case. And the young constable says no. Resigns and "Continues to hold said office of constable" pursues the duty without being a member of the police force corrupting his inquiry.

That ECR was me

And that maybe why the barrister MP described the case as the most important police constitutional case since 1829.

It is slowly being published on my blog. I am zapping comments as moderator and only allowing ones which won't bugger up what I am trying to do.

Because just one of the parties watching all this develop has a four million per annum PR budget.

They went to lengths to try to nobble Dr Paul Darke off the net.


And I cannot afford to have an irritating bloke f-ck up my blog.

Anonymous said...

Rick, please, commit yourself and do us all a favour!

Eastcliff Richard said...

Now, now anon 11:45. Unlike some blogs I can't mention, we don't descend here to questioning people's grip on reality merely because their contributions may seem slightly, er, eccentric.

That said I think we've heard enough on that topic now, Rick, so perhaps you could continue this fascinating discussion on your own blog? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Online Pharmacy for Cialis, Levitra, Tamiflu, Viagra. Order Generic Medication In own Pharmacy. Buy Pills Central.
[url=http://buypillscentral.com/buy-generic-cialis-online.html]Purchase Best Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, Tamiflu[/url]. prescription generic drugs. Cheapest drugs pharmacy

Anonymous said...

We are to death that our comrades Buy Viagra Knock off Rather is sole of the best in the Internet, commonly, Discount Cialis Pharmacy Online specializing on online drugstore Cialis.

Anonymous said...

huh. bookmarked post ))