Leveson & Niemöller
First they came for the Tabloids, and I said nothing because I read the Guardian on my iPad. Then they came for the Guardian, and I said nothing because I’d assumed it was going bust anyway. Then they came for the blogs, and I said nothing because bloggers are just hairy-handed self-abusers, aren’t they? Then they came for Twitter, which I only use to post pictures of my food, (organic, nach…) so I’ll probably be OK. Then I criticised the Government on Facebook, and there was no-one left to speak for me.
Peter Lilley yesterday said the new regulator has the potential to become an Orwellian ministry of truth, and the press should resist it. If you can’t see how the regulator will have a chilling effect on investigative journalism of the sort that exposed the expenses scandal, you’re a moron. Britain’s chaotic, anarchic, brutal free press will either resist this regulator or be tamed to death. We will see fewer exposes of powerful people doing bad things, which often have dubious sources. Is this price worth it to prevent journalists listening to someone’s voicemail.
It isn’t the News of the World that killed Millie Dowler, and there’s precious little evidence anyone from the paper even listened to her voicemail. The press is being regulated because of Labour’s desire for revenge for this headline:
And I wish people would realise that the wankers hiding behind the Dowlers in Hacked off are the Marxist twats that run Common Purpose…
A good article, Dude.
If the conservatives pass this legislation into law, will you then consider voting for a party that opposes it?
If by that, you mean UKIP, no.
I don't seriously think with the hysteria surrounding leveson, and the treachery of the lib-dems any other outcome was possible.
Cameron sought to avoid legislation. He would have succeeded had the Tory party been united, and the Lib-Dems acted as their name suggests they should.
I genuinely don't think Cameron can be blamed here. And UKIP can rant as much as they like that they oppose it. They don't have an MP. And Peter Lilley, who's defence of free speech has been total, is my MP.
I'm voting for him on this.
I think Camerons sold out, and have no idea why. It would be better if he'd made a principled stand and lost rather than accept this dogs dinner. If I had an MP of principle like Peter Lilly I would happily vote for him, but as I have a useless lump of whip fodder, (Robert Walter),whom I've always held my nose and voted for on the basis that though he makes leftie pro euro noises and would probably struggle to find his own constituency on a map, he usually votes with the party and supports Cameron. But let's be honest there's less than a gnatts whisker between Cameron, Milliband and Clegg and though Cameron often makes the right noises he usually folds at the first sign of trouble and runs back to centre ground with the other party leaders. The Economics policy is pretty much the same as the last goverments, they were a bit sounder on civil liberties but that seems to be going out the window, Education looks promising, but public spending is still rising- despite falling unemployment, tax and regulation are as bad as they've always been. Quite frankly if we're going to be run like this it might be better if it wasn't a Tory in charge so Conservative ideas didn't get the blame!
Vote UKIP get Mililband and not notice any significant difference does not fill me with terror!
Rosscoe hits the nail on the head – there's simply no point in voting |Tory top get Labour Lite
The big three parties now have more in common with each other (like covering their arses via Leveson) then they do with me.. and so I won't vote for them.
Jackart, for an intelligent guy, you're being taken for a ride by the promise of Tory policies which the current lot don't have the brains nor the balls to implement…
And as for Cameron bravely trying to resist Statutory legislation – this whole affair stinks of a stitch up…
So I'll vote UKIP… otherwise I'm simply endorsing the shite "Tory-Lite" that Cameron represents…
The problem with "well my MP's al-right" is that he's still under the thumb/supporting Cameron who isn't.
Cameron should have stood on a principle and lost, rather than allow this shit
This is exactly the type of policy which could have drawn former Tories back to the Conservative Party and Cameron has caved in.
I admire your loyalty to Dave but he strikes me as a man who has seen how it worked for Blair and is just marking time until 2015 when the book deal and speaking tour nets him a fortune. I can't think of any other explanation for his lack of a backbone. I mean, did he really not foresee the outrage from the press over this?
Tories exert power by putting everybody in their place. Socialists achieve power through 'equality', making the act of aspiration the irrational behaviour of the heretic.
The former is fascism from top down; and the latter is fascism from bottom up. The reason both left and right seem the same today, is because they have finally met in the middle.
We are now a fascist state.
Dick Puddlecote, "This is exactly the type of policy which could have drawn former Tories back to the Conservative Party and Cameron has caved in." There was no cave-in. Cameron was outnumbered and would have lost a vote. And the idiots who vote UKIP are probably pro-leveson. Most of the country is.
"I admire your loyalty to Dave" It's not loyalty, it's a burning desire to keep that tit miliband out of no. 10.
JimmyGiro. Fascist? Are you a total fuckwit?
In his book "Liberal Fascism", Jonah Goldberg writes:
"Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social
pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy. I will argue that contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism."
Am I 'fuckwit' for recognizing the truth in Jonah's definition, and its correspondence with our own country?
Mussolini's definition of Fascism was "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato", so we are not that far from it, we know our elites want to push further in that direction (they recognise no limits to their meddling, after all), and no, JimmyGiro is not a fuckwit.
JimmyGiro – quoting from someone who is basically wrong makes you a fuckwit.