Sunday, October 05, 2008

The Sunday Highagain: Rowen's Vicarious Liability


A comment at this post on Dave Hennigan's toy throwing tantrum that succeeded in getting reasonable comments on the Rochdale Online forum from yours truly removed - under threat that DH would stop posting there if I was allowed to - suggests that the proprietors could be done under "vicarious liability" rules for a supposed "potentially defamatory" comment.

In fact there was no such content in my post. But there was in Dave Hennigan's arsey rebuke - which can be seen at the link.

The only person who could suffer under "vicarious liability" in these exchanges is Paul Rowen MP who employs Hennigan, using tax payers money, for allegedly non party political purposes, and who fails at every stage to control the over-enthusiastic toxicity of his star employee.

Often but often reaching defamation (not potential defamation mind) in verbal briefings to the press, comments in fora, public and private remarks, including for example over the deejay's microphone at the Rochdale business Awards, and naturally in writing too. He cannot help himself.

Dave is addicted to vile bile. And Rowen is failing to control him. We, the taxpayers, are funding his position.

20 comments:

Everybody Hates Chris said...

If you really want to get to the bottom of the Rochdale Observer's alleged bias in letter selection then can I suggest you write to Labour's new 'City Minister', Paul Myners. It seems he is the outgoing chairman of the Guardian Media Group.

I assume that 'outgoing' refers to the fact that he holds that position at the moiment rather than him being extrovert and gregarious.

When you speak to him, could you by any chance ask him what his other company has done with the millios they made on short-selling Bradford & Bingley shares?

tory boys never grow up said...

The only libel I can see is one by Heneghan of yourself and Messrs Stott and Duckworth - and it looks pretty clear cut.

Aren't parlimentary employees such as Heneghan covered by Parlimentary standards - Heneghan's behaviour is such that it probably warrants reference to the Commissioner. All Henghan's tactics demonstrate is that he is trying to avoid the real issue which is Cyril's role as MP for Turner and Newall - and inabilty of the current Rochdale LibDems and their MP to accept that Cyril did something wrong.

Chris Paul said...

EHC: GMG and indeed the Scott Trust say they (by choice) have no control over the Regional Marque. It all comes down to advertising sales. They will try to keep the big edition "nice" if they think that "true to life" upsets advertisers.

The Treasury appear to accept the market meme that says that in normal times shorting stocks is useful and part of the functionality of the market. I wouldn't necessarily agree that it does this. But I'm no expert.

The toxicity appears to come from the barrow boys sticking the knife in over a matter of hours rather than taking a position months ahead. But again I'm no expert.

Everybody Hates Chris said...

I agree. You are absolutely right. You're are indeed no expert.

The group that Paul Myners belongs to was the main activist in the short-selling of Bradford & Bingleu shares. Does that make them 'barrow boys'?

Does it also explain why the Labour goverment has taken absolutely no action in curtailing the practice of short-selling?

Chris Paul said...

This is tedious. No-one denies that there have been Labour supporters working in the financial markets. NL appear to still think that shorting stocks is a valuable market function except in extreme conditions.

But contrary to your rather foolish assertion EHC the government HAS taken action in curtailing short-selling for six months.

Once again this is the lowest non-sequitor tactic of the muppet troll. The post is about vicarious liability. And about Rowen failing to protect himself from the boy Hennigan.

As of now the government of LOL will take action as it sees fit to curtail or short if you'd rather off topic comments.

Get your own blog. This is tedious EHC. Why on earth are you sticking up for asbestos? Why are you sticking up for Cyril? Why are sticking up for Hennigan? Why are you continuously changing the subject rather than answering the hard questions?

If you want to ask different hard questions get your own blog. If I comment at all - and no promises - I will guarantee to do so as far as I can without changing the subject to irrelevancies.

And yes, you are STILL a cowardly individual who should stick your real name on your arguments.

Everybody Hates Chris said...

A ha. I thought your warm-up act, Tory Boy, was going to fall into the trap, but it looks like it has caught somebody completely different.

The Labour government has in fact taken no action in curtailing short selling - not even for six minutes let alone six months.

The FSA announced in the middle of last week that they were taking that action and added that they had had no such instructions or even requests from the government to do so.

And yet all sorts of Labour spokespeople, notably Hazel Blears, have repeatedly claimed that it was Labour that did so. And now you have too.

On the matter of subject changing. I was merely following the thread of alleged media bias, whether that be the Rochdale Observer or Rochdale Online. I was trying to help by suggesting that when you wrote to Lord Barrow-Boy, you could take up both issues at once.

Anyway, it's nice too see that your attitude to hedge fund managers has mellowed since you promoted one into the government rather than accusing them of only donating to the Tories.

tory boys never grow up said...

EHC

Wrong yet again - if you look at the FSA press release - you will see that the FSA "agreed to" the changes to the provisions in respect of short selling. To agree to something there has to be someone asking - now who do you thing that was - and it clearly strange that this action was somehow co-ordinated across Europe and the US. The UK Treasury was very clearly involved - the FSA is the body generally responsible for the regulation of market conduct and is the one which needed to make the changes to the market code.

Clearly you know as much about finance as you do about asbestos. I suggest you ask Cyril for some share tips next time you visit Emma Street.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2008/102.shtml

tory boys never grow up said...

Of course in his never ending task to smear others and divert attention away from his master EHC of course fails to state some other facts about Paul Myners such as:

- he was appointed a Director of GLG in 2007 after it had been fined by the SEC for a number of breaches - perhaps the appointment was because GLG wanted to be see as trying to clean up its act.
- he is the author of the Myners report which is it is known for anything is that it advocates greater transparency in the fund management industry (something which many in the industry hate)
- he was only a non executive director of GLG

None of the above is say that Myners is without fault (and if you look at postings elsewhere you will see that I have been opposing the role of the hedge funds for a long time) - very few politicians/businessmen/people are.

However, as long as you keep taking the Emma Street schilling I suppose you have to believe in the infallibility of St Cyril and his motley disciples.

tory boys never grow up said...

Perhaps we should start referring to EHC as the Bayard of Emma Street!

Everybody Hates Chris said...

And if you look at the FSA press release you will notivce that it makes absolutely no reference to the government asking it to take such action. If they had don't you think it would.

So perhapes you could direct me to the treasury press release which details how and when such a request was made.

There isn't one.

It was as a follow-up the the very FSA statement you mention here that the BBC got in touch with them to as about any goverment involvemnt. The Authority's unambiguous answer was that there had been no such directive or request.

I don't particularly see that as a problem as the correct action was taken anyway. But I do object to leading Labour figures (and yourself) claiming credit for it.

Maybe the phrase 'agreed to' is in reference to the FSA's sister organisations in Europe and the US.

Clearly you know as much about finance as you do about asbestos (and anything else for that matter).

Anyway, Tory Boy, you had better post your real name on your comments or Cwiss will get vewy vewy cwoss.

tory boys never grow up said...

"If they had don't you think it would."

No - by a long standing protocol the Bank of England/Treaury/FSA do not give a running commentary on what they say to each other for obvious reasons. The FSA is the body with responsibility for regulations in this area so they said what they had "agreed to" - in order to agree to something you have to have someone else in the room - at least you do in sane society. The financial authorities in this country have never operated on the basis of directives - it is not their style - hence the statement to the BBC.

If you think that the FSA/Bank of England/Treasury are not talking to each other on a day to day basis and agreeing actions - it is you who doesn't understand how these matters work.

Everybody Hates Chris said...

The FSA were specifically asked whether they were acting on the basis of a request or a directicve from the government. They, in turn, said very specifically that they hadn't. Not "we do not comment". The reply to the BBC was that at no time had they been asked to do so.

Fair enough. Maybe that is how it works. But don't start claiming, like Blears, Harman, Hutton et al, that the Labour government did so.

Either you are wrong or the BBC is. Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather belive the BBC. I'd rather believe CBBC! They get more economcs right than you do.

tory boys never grow up said...

I know a part of Rochdale LibDems DNA is never being able to admit they're wrong and a tendency to rewrite history - but I'm afraid a quick search of the BBC news website reveals no evidence ot support your claim - and the linked blog entry from Robert Peston actually shows the opposite - i.e the Chancellor asked the FSA to look at short selling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/09/profiting_from_fear.html

Town Cryer said...

Did Cyril Smith short sell his T&N shares?
Did he buy them or acquire them?
When did he sell them?

He clearly states in the 1982 Rochdale Observer that 'instructed his bankers' because he though they were cheap.

What effect did Cyril have on the T&N share price. Was he trying to increase the share price?

What inside information did he have?

What is all this nonsense about attending the AGM?

Cyril Smith has always been a bully and a foghorn. He has never needed a special platform to get his message out, he had his own loyal organ for that- The Rochdale Obscurer.

Perhaps the only short selling that Cyril Smith did was to Rochdale. Looking at the "Smith legacy" there is clear proof this buffoon sold the town short.

All for a few peices of silver.

Everybody Hates Chris said...

I'm afraid that yet again those pesky facts show that you are wrong, Tory Boy.

I have had a look at the press release you linked to and it says this about the FSA:

"However he (Alastair Darling) neatly passed the buck to the regulator, the Financial Services Authority, saying that it was looking at how and whether to restrict short-selling in these febrile conditions."

No mention of him asking them to do so, or even if he approved of their actions. Just that they were happening.

Your claim was that the press release shows:
"the Chancellor asked the FSA to look at short selling"

My source was the financial report during the BBC Radio 4 Today programme in which they reported that they had contacted the FSA to ask them the specific question of whether the government had initiated the process. The very specific reply they got was "No".

Maybe that's the way it is all supposed to work and I don't have a problem with that. What is galling is the parade of Labour ministers (and bloggers) jumping on board to claim credit.

tory boys never grow up said...

Read the whole article - Darling said something needed to be done about short selling and he then passed the buck to the FSA - this is long hand for saying he asked them to do somthing in their area of responsibility. Sometimes you don't need to give a formal instruction when everyone is in agreement - the FSA would not want to be seen as operating under formal instructions given its statutory independence.

If you want to look at my own posts you will find that I have been going on about the need to regulate hedge funds and other speculators for a long time.

Everybody Hates Chris said...

"Something must be done".

Ah yes, that great rallying cry of the clueless throughout the ages.

I haven't looked in the dictionary, but I very much doubt that "passing the buck" would be defined as "asking them to do something in their area of responsibility".

And even taking your extremely rosy interpretation of events, do you really think it warrants a parde of Labour voices congratulating the goverment on their "direct and postive action"?

Of course, one piece of positive action was to appoint into the goverment somebody from the company that ran Bradford & Bingley into the ground by short-selling. I know you claim he only had a Saturday job there, but could you have a word with him to find out where the money went. He may not know himself, but I bet he knows a few people that do.

tory boys never grow up said...

So if the Lib Dems were ever to get to power they would intervene directly in complex markets without seeking the input of those responsible for day to day conduct and regulation in those markets. Fortunately, the chances of that happening are very remote.

If this is the naive LibDem view of how government should work - then perhaps it is little surprise that Cyril stood idly by while 20% of the workforce of TBA (Evil And Stupid Brother Norman's own figure) were made to suffer the consequences of exposure to asbestos.

Everybody Hates Chris said...

If you actually read what I have said, you would see that I am not arguing for direct intervention. I am commenting on the Labour ministers, and bloggers, who have proclaimed Labour's 'direct intervention' in the case of short-selling when they have done no such thing.

I think "something should be done" about it, and I will claim full credit when it is.

Anonymous said...

Quite right EHC- "something must be done"... about Cyril Smith, Paul Rowan and Dave Hennegan.