Friday, 30 November 2012

Pressing On

With the support of 70 or more MPs worthy to be called Tories, since they believe in national identity, in the sovereignty of Parliament, and in the use of State power against attacks on our Biblical-Classical civilisation. As Leveson himself puts it, he can see no difference between day-to-day British newspaper material and that which is marketed openly as pornography.

"Free" press? What "free" press? Gathered together in their huddle deciding what the line should be, and then all sticking to it. A line which always includes "competition" for everyone else, but cartel for them. If it's not politically fixed cartel-mongers pushing the "free" market on everyone else, then it's hired help of transnational foreign powers posing as champions of national sovereignty and of all things distinctively British, and it's the glorified bouncers of glorified pimps claiming to defend family values.

They have had this coming for a very long time. It is comical to watch their hysteria as they realise that the only politician who is still frightened of them is riding one of their horses. Next up, the City. No more states within this State. Or do you not believe in the sovereignty of Parliament?


  1. Not when it's full of wannabe tyrants.

  2. Hey?

    If the Press isn't free enough now, how is the answer to make it even LESS free by having a Government-run Ofcom (stuffed with Blairites, like every other Government quango) deciding what we can read?

    Notice Leveson declines to tell us what powers this "statutory underpinner" will have, if the newspapers defy it. Will they be closed down? Prosecuted for offences against political correctness?

    You don't have faith in the press...but you do have faith in "independent regulators"? Do you know any history?

  3. That's Fleet Street, or its owners.

  4. I'd elect them. Two from each of the 12 regions, independent of party as well as of press. Each of us would vote for one candidate, and the top two would be elected at the end.

    The Chairman would be appointed by the Secretary of State with the approval of the relevant Select Committee, or possibly of the whole House.

    I'd apply the same model to Ofcom and to the BBC Trust.

    The Parliamentary Lobby already exists. Registration of newspapers with the Post Office already exists. Publication by limited companies already exists. For that matter, Ofcom and the BBC Trust already exist. That's State licensing, folks.

  5. I wonder what the turnout for that will be?

  6. AKA A few political nerds.

  7. "AKA" (have we really come to that?) the electorate. Whom you really do despise, don't you? The New Left and the New Right become the utter nihilism of the Murdoch media and its wannabes.

  8. They weren't bothered to come out and vote for Police Commissioners, what makes you think anyone will for a press regulator?

  9. I don't think you even know what my kind is.

  10. "Ofcom already exists"

    Indeed, thats why we have a dreadful Left-wing broadcast media clustered around the same narrow BBC consensus.

    Let's have partial broadcasting like the US, (instead of secretly partial broadcasters like the BBC)and then we'd re-engage people in politics again.

  11. Leman, astound me.

    Anonymous, please, please, please do not.

  12. An elected regulator wouldnt be slave and spokeperson for the same vested interests who fund and control our Big Two parties?

    Or for new vested interests who would like to censor the media?

    You think Big Money wouldn't get involved in selecting something as potentially useful for them as a regulator?

    Keep dreaming of democracy.

  13. Wrong all round.

    And even that would be better than what we have now.