Curly's Corner Shop, the blog!

South Shields premier political blog

The Tweets

with 40 comments

The Birdy Song

Sometimes you just cannot get a bad tune out of your head, can you?

I’ve been whistling this one most of the afternoon in South Shields today. (Not that I want to call attention to myself, you understand).

add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook


Written by curly

April 28, 2011 at 8:43 pm

40 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Story has been building all week and started in The Journal with a piece about STC using Taxpayers money to fund legal action. Today we entered a new phase with Tweetgate 🙂


    April 28, 2011 at 9:24 pm

  2. Anyone setting up a blog/twitter facility to expose alleged misdemeanours/corruption/hypocrisy in any organisation would be well advised to seek expert legal advice regarding format, content and use of sources beforehand. Whether in private or public sector employees who are parties to sensitive information/documentation can potentially put their jobs at risk by disclosing such information to a 3rd party; golden rule never do so without seeking advice from your trade union, if a member, or from a reliable source of advice for “whistleblowers”. It could be argued that the costs to the organisation whether public or private arise because of the actions of the allegedly defamatory tweeter/blogger and are legitimately incurred in pursuit of such. In his book “Rule of Law” the late learned Lord Bingham states that the right to respect for an individual’s private and family life may have to be curtailed in a proportionate way in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others. Furthermore, what is the point of the Standards Board and certain legislation concerned with the conduct of public officers and officials if by passed thus prejudicing legitimate professional investigation and evidence gathering of allegations of malpractice etc.


    April 29, 2011 at 7:40 am

  3. Curly I thought skeletans were supposed to be kept in the cupboard, what must the other Indies think of the attention all falling on one man?
    Havent’t they got an election to fight?
    How will all of his self disclosed publicity help the rest of them?

    Sandra D

    April 29, 2011 at 8:06 am

  4. At times skeletons have to be taken out of cupboards, because there is a legitimate public interest in seeing how the thigh bone is connected to the knee bone etc. But, even if certain public figures and elected representatives are not particularly engaging or likeable their privacy should be protected, and they should be protected from alleged slanders and libels. If a councillor or MP is not attending meetings or fulfilling their obligations as chair or vice chair of a committee(s) and this information can be accessed legitimately by FOI then there can be no legal basis to object to it being disclosed, particularly if they are receiving public money. In my opinion Councillors, MP’s etc should publish weekly diairies showing how they are spending their time on constituency, ward, council or parliamentary business. One local MP, who impresses me with his commitment is Guy Opperman, who, sadly, is now having to contend with a serious health issue according to a report in “The Journal”. The naivety of a variety of individuals is regrettably costing STC a lot of money, sadly, that naivety might cost them their jobs, reputation and livelihoods in the not too distant future, if only Guy was a template for the conduct of professional and political life South Tyne would have a far more credible political profile.


    April 29, 2011 at 9:27 am

  5. Playing the bloody victim again as though the whole world is lined up against him, I’ve got no sympathy for this bloke he launches his attacks with a scattergun approach hitting anyone in front of him. Doesn’t matter if they are councillors or officers or just plain council workers his blunderbus hits them all. Course its never his fault is it?

    Simon Taylor

    April 29, 2011 at 9:29 am

  6. My brother lives in the Horsley Hill Ward where Labour’s Iain Malcolm is defending his seat at this years local government elections. My brother today received a rather dull grey coloured leaflet from the Independent Alliance. The leaflet is complaining about the Council’s attempt to catch Mr Monkey.
    What it doesn’t actully do is mention who the Independent Alliance candidate is. What it does do is mention on no fewer than 8 occasions Cllr Malcolm. It is topped off with a photo of Cllr Malcolm too.
    They have also put this leaflet out when the majority of postal voters must have surely voted by now.


    April 29, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    • They are clueless, you’d think that the blog in question was some sort of semi official Indies website the way they are harping on about it. It was filth, course, defamatory, childish, rude, foul mouthed gutter garbage.
      What upset me more than most things was the way they thought they could “have a go” at council officers, sheesh they are only doing the job that politicians ask them. they are public servants and I think they are not allowed to answer for themselves, so they end up defenceless against this irresponsible and gutter sniping blogger.

      I don’t mind some of my money being spent to clean up South Tyneside and reveal the identity of this person, they drag the whole of South Tyneside down in my eyes.

      Sandra D

      April 29, 2011 at 2:38 pm

  7. Hear, hear; I must confess that I wondered why the Police’s powers to investigate that are available under the Communications Act were not brought to bear in this case, given that there has been a much criticised prosecution of a young professional man and a recent arrest of a councillor for what, at worst, seem to be naive tweets in poor taste.


    April 29, 2011 at 4:57 pm

  8. More cry baby antics from Khan and co. He calls the gazette editor worse than mud on twitter and calls the gazette an “insignificant rag” then courts cheap publicity in it. More double standards from mr khan.

    Also, I’m still yet to hear any member of the Alliance publically condemn the said disgusting blog.

    Janet Cross

    April 30, 2011 at 10:11 am

  9. Also, why has Khan’s friend Mr Shaw gone issing from the interwebby lately? Coincidence?

    Janet Cross

    April 30, 2011 at 10:12 am

  10. Khan has now officially become the laughing stock of the council! Even the good people of Beacon and Bents, who were once friends of his, are distancing themselves from him!

    The Beacon

    April 30, 2011 at 12:15 pm

  11. Let’s look at this new khan controversy from a different angle. Council is on the verge of revealing the identity of Mr Monkey, and Khan is the prime suspect, hence his twitter accounts have been supeoned. Khan is now ranting about human rights, and how much money this is costing!! I don’t mind if my money is being used to catch a libellous monkey. I hope he gets sued, and he’s just left with his yellow van.

    The Beacon

    April 30, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    • I’m not sure if we are in a position to make that assertion yet, we need to wait and see.


      April 30, 2011 at 1:46 pm

  12. Word is that certain members of the borough elite are already lawyered-up. One shrinking vilot even has the financial clout to take on the Branleys in court if they can be linked at all.

    Janet Cross

    April 30, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    • Trouble is, these things can be awfully long and drawn out affairs, and as we know finding a politician who is ready to “do the decent thing” in this borough is pretty difficult.


      April 30, 2011 at 1:49 pm

  13. I thought Peter Shaw was already bankrupt. Are the rumours about him and Kahn being more than just friends true?

    Karen Junes

    April 30, 2011 at 6:32 pm

  14. Having had a close up experience with STC for a while I must say the politics and characters made the average episode or Dallas seem tame. I’ve had a hoot reading the various blogs (including Mr Monkey).

    The upshot of all of this is I really can’t take any of the politics in STC seriously now. Faced woth a polling card on the 5th May I will have difficulty being able to make choice I can stand behind.

    Still I think the status quo will be maintained in ST again after the 5th May


    April 30, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    • I have now seen the latest Independent “News Flash – read all about it” leaflet, and consider it nothing more than a desperate and expensive attempt to deflect attention away from where it is NOT wanted. No wonder you feel disillusioned.
      I would suggest you cross this “independent party” off your list to help make your choices just a little bit easier.


      April 30, 2011 at 7:59 pm

      • There should be a central collection point for that leaflet Curly where we can all enjoys a Bonfire of the Vanities.
        We could get the kids to make a Guy gorilla to put on top of it.

        Sandra D

        May 1, 2011 at 4:44 pm

  15. One can ridicule the workplace ecentricities and “politics” of any employer public or private sector, but that does not alter the fact that employer’s can with prior notice monitor emails and phone cals made from the workplace, and STC will have such a policy in place, breach of which could have serious consequences. Only the naive would embark upon a disclosure of confidential info and unproven allegations about fellow workers and elected members to an unauthorised recipient.Regrettably naivety could result in dismissal, and to what end?


    April 30, 2011 at 7:21 pm

  16. South Tyneside Council has but little choice in persuing the person or persons behind the mr monkey blog. That is because they have a duty of care towards their employees who, after all, are only doing their job in serving the public i.e. you and me. Several Council employees have been mentioned in a not very good light in this anonymous cowardly mr monkey blog.
    When they unmask the person or persons responsible the amount of court costs that will surely be awarded to the council should more than cover the cost of any legal fees.


    April 30, 2011 at 10:51 pm

  17. Good point. I think the whole issue of costs is a sideshow anyway. Khan is a master of trying to deflect attention. Curly it’s not exactly rocket science to conclude Khan is “allegedly” behind the Monkey blog, as all his victims on his own twitter account are also targeted for abuse on the monkey blog. Does Khan really think the people of Shields are that Gullible to believe otherwise?Like the Great Khan says “me thinks not”

    The Beacon

    May 1, 2011 at 2:15 am

  18. BBC 1 series “See You In Court” illustrates the high personal, financial and emotional costs of defamation actions, it is such a specialised area of law that the practioners do not come cheap.One can appreciate the actions of some “whistleblowers” who expose scandalous cover ups and unethical behaviour in a responsible, analytical, critical way with strong evidence, but this is not evident in the foul mouthed blogs perpetrated by some.


    May 1, 2011 at 9:11 am

  19. Khan is finished, and he knows it. Silly, silly man. Playing the victim as the house of cards collapses. He introduced a never before seen depth of depravity and division to South Tyneside politics which we will all be glad to see the back of.

    Like the shop owner in the Stephen King novel, Curious Goods, Khan will no doubt move on to a new town to change his name and create a fresh image only to bring to it the same sort of shame and filth he brought to South Shields. What a *****rd that man is, and all those who idolise him.

    Karen Junes

    May 1, 2011 at 11:00 am

  20. Many “alleged” criminals don’t confess, thus putting the public sector/tax payer to a great deal of expense in investigating and proving their guilt in an adverarial trial. They are also expert at creating an alternative story, recent high profile trials resulting from crimes committed in the North have ilustrated this. Ironic when public servants or representatives who are allegedly the perpetrators of a crime or tortious play “the waste of public money”.


    May 2, 2011 at 7:37 am

    • Its not all this guys fault , we all know it “allegedly” has the *****s fingerprints all over it So a confession would put the whole of South Tyneside at ease.


      May 2, 2011 at 8:28 am

    • You make a good point with the word “allegedly”, commentators need to be reminded that making certain assertions whilst a case is sub-judice could be dangerous both for me and for them. Naming individuals and attaching the word “criminal” to their name simply will not do, particularly as they have no criminal record as far as I know. For this reason alone I have had to remove a couple of comments this morning.
      One needs to choose our words very carefully, unless one wishes to drag oneself into a legal minefield and inadvertently drag me into it too.


      May 2, 2011 at 9:18 am

      • I’m only going to comment becuase I care about what may happen to you Curly. You need to be a bit stronger with your censoring of the site, merely *** expletives do not protect you from your responsibility for what is published. We do not know who is guilty of what and lynch mobs are a bit tasteless. LLB should perhaps give a view on how sites such as this can take care that they do not either intentionally or by error commit offences themselves, whilst maintaining freedom of speech. Thus protecting from the blemishing, both the reputation of the site, and the publisher. I know that people are annoyed and want to vent their anger but they should take care! Lets be more ballanced and professional.


        May 2, 2011 at 9:40 am

  21. Thanks Kevin, I must admit that I was growing concerned for Curly. It is important to bear in mind that defamation is a civil tortious wrong not a crime and that throwaway accusations about individuals and use of industrial type language should be avoided at all costs, and costs are what can be incurred if legal action is pursued.


    May 2, 2011 at 10:21 am

    • Language was not the problem here, it was the use of names and unsubstantiated allegations that puts me at risk.


      May 2, 2011 at 12:30 pm

  22. I dont quite get this legal system , Ive not studied law in detail but does that mean whoever can pay millions in legal fees will win regardless ?
    The allegations will in turn become fact as this case runs its course i believe.Tweet tweet….


    May 2, 2011 at 1:46 pm

  23. It is the cost of geting advice from specialist lawyers, for example even a relatively straightforward contract dispute can involve disputing parties in £200 per hour legal costs, specialists in defamation are rarer and charge far more than this. Furthemore, there are defences to the publishing of alleged defamatory statements, for example if the words/statements are “substantially true” or “fair comment made in good faith and honestly about a matter of legitimate public interest”.Personalised invective and malice can prejudice the alleged defamers position. It is an expensive legal minefield.Feeding info to an alleged defamer in breach of employment terms and conditions or IT Policies could involve some unfortunates in this minefield as well as disciplinary procedures.


    May 2, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    • Wonder who has the time to learn all that b*******
      Still any court case has winners and losers , those with more money generally win So let the richest person win !I know where my fivers going at the betting shop.


      May 2, 2011 at 2:35 pm

  24. A lot of civil tort law is surprisingly straightforward relatively comonsense stuff. Costs in civil disputes are incurred when parties delay or try to avoid settlement and/or compromise, keep phoning, emailing, meeting with lawyers, who have no choice but to bill for their time.


    May 2, 2011 at 2:58 pm

  25. I Protest.


    May 6, 2011 at 2:31 pm

  26. Are the general public allowed to charge 250 pound per hour for an hour of time?There must be something in the european courts for human rights that puts the general public in a position where they cannot be persecuted and opressed by any authority.


    May 7, 2011 at 6:52 am

  27. Why do you think that the public sector is under threat by CamClegg, so that private service providers can come in and charge high and profitable fees. Dealing with a dispute about a fitted kitchen contract, for example, can cost more than the kitchen. Watch “See you in court” on BBC1 if you are interested in defamation and libel.


    May 7, 2011 at 7:15 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: