Lunchtime linkage: Bloggerheads has a new server

[matgb]

One of the advantages of having an image in your sidebar hosted at Tim Ireland's site is that when it comes back up, the image reappears to tell you. Bloggerheads itself has a holding page, he needs to reconfigure the database, but he's got a blogger hosted temporary site all about The Alisher Usmanov Affair and today he's specifically requesting a response from Fasthosts:

To ensure we broadcast as clear a picture as possible, Clive and I need to deal with this matter by addressing the parties/issues involved in the following order:

- Fasthosts
- Schillings
- Alisher Usmanov
- UK libel law

Today, we begin with Fasthosts.

The Fasthosts issue is a contractual/specific libel case one, that I'm not involved in, I have however removed them from my potential list of companies to rent a server from (I am looking) in the meantime, pending their response. The libel law is where my obvious interest lies, the law can, and should be, reformed, and this may be the cause celebre to get it done, we shall see. in the meantime, Chris Applegate asks:

I figured an article that doesn’t mention the allegations specifically but still discusses them is better than no article at all. But in the light of reading all the blog coverage of this now, I have my doubts: Am I right, or have I cowardly compromised? Your thoughts are welcome.

Personally, I think he was correct to be cautious. Craig Murray, by all accounts, thinks he has a solid case and welcomes the opportunity to test it in court, Schillings/Usmanov seem to want to quash the story but not actually sue (that's my big issue with the law as is, money can suppress a story by threat of legal action). But those not party to the evidence itself need to be circumspect--I have reason to believe Craig may be correct, but I have no plans on going to court over his story. Giving coverage to the action, but not the details of the story itself, seems to me to be a valid compromise.

Comments

[tyrell.livejournal.com]

Confused. What did fasthosts do wrong, and why is it like Jack Straw and the Ambassador? Or can we not say it out loud?

[matgb]

Fasthosts pulled the complete server. They're a server farm, they sell a complete box to Clive (of UK Today), he resells that on to Bob Piper and Tim Ireland, who again resells onto Craig and Boris Johnson.

Fasthosts cut Clive's server because of what a customer of a customer of his wrote, and from what I can tell, did so without any sensible procedure or by sharing the specific allegations with the relevent people. That seems to be what they did wrong, but due to the stupid laws, they probably couldn't have done much better.

Hence my preference for a change of law not blaming the messenger. But their communication with their clients appears lacking, hence the link above.

[tyrell.livejournal.com]

Ah... interesting. Want to see how this plays out now.

UK libel law is crazy. I can't check all the links in the comments at work, but someone should find the Daily Show sketch where they're talking about the Prince Charles allegations and aren't allowed to say what the allegations ARE. And then Stephen Colbert eats a banana in the rudest way possible, and Jon Stewart corpses completely.

[mooism.livejournal.com]

Here ya go :-)

[matgb]

Excellent. So good it gets a post of its own.

[mooism.livejournal.com]

Marvellous :-)

[tyrell.livejournal.com]

I love that clip so much. Having to rely on the net for my Daily Show fix, it's very sad.