Jock's Place blog by Jock Coats is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. Based on a work at www.jockcoats.org.uk. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/copyright.
Atom - articles RSS - articles RSS - comments
Latest Ten Articles
-
Helicopter to snoop on speeders
26-Aug-08
-
Blogging will be light to non-existent...
26-Aug-08
-
Labour at odds over football plan
24-Aug-08
-
"Corporatisation" of government functions does not transfer responsibility
24-Aug-08
-
The internet, think-tanks and politicians
24-Aug-08
-
The BR Brute Squad
23-Aug-08
-
Why should the state validate your existence?
22-Aug-08
-
Olympic Spin: Jamaica on top, China in 45th
22-Aug-08
-
How should our details be protected?
22-Aug-08
-
First they took away Habeas Corpus...
22-Aug-08
...and to ones that made be mad!
The Revolutionary Liberalism series
User login
-
Evan harries the invincible Cable -
"Lib Dem" donorgate...bring it on -
Faraz Bhatti - I'm not doing my job... -
Karim defection a blow for Nick Clegg? -
Revolutionary Liberalism: 1 - Leadership -
General Erection -
Putting the genie back in the bottle -
Neo-puritanism: a Liberal opportunity -
At forty I've only ever known Tony Blair too -
Defection Elections; what will Mr Cameron say?




















Evidence of what? That an
Evidence of what? That an offence may have been committed? The leaflet speaks for itself. It is a clear breach of my rights as copyright owner under section 80 of the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act (1988?) which is the civil matter. If I can make the case, however that that makes it a derivative work I will argue that it is therefore a statement of fact misrepresenting me or my position and could then fall under section 106 of RPA 1983.