Thursday 8 January 2009

Not Guilty M'lud

You may remember Hazel "my Dad's smaller than your Dad" Blears getting rather irritated by bloggers on the day we were strolling up to Parliament Square.

She turned her fire on political "bloggers" - accusing them of fuelling disengagement by focusing on "unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy" and of being written by "people with disdain for the political system and politicians".

I know it's been done before, but ... if politicians weren't such dismissive individuals, perhaps we wouldn't be so disdainful of the political system, eh?

Unless and until political blogging 'adds value' to our political culture, by allowing new and disparate voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and pessimism.

The culture of cynicism and pessimism emanates from the fact that you won't listen to us. We are the new and disparate voices, raising legitimate protest and challenge. What sort of challenge do you expect when you rig all your 'public consultations'? All faithfully reported by Comrade Beeb without recourse to 'responsible' objective journalism.

Then, as if by magic, via Iain Dale, comes the news that the Law Society are warning us that bloggers could be in line for defamation or libel actions.

As media specialist Amber Melville-Brown at David Price Solicitors & Advocates observes, modern technology means a defamatory story can no longer be forgotten ...

The internet, in particular, she says, has brought about a fundamental change, with the ‘publisher’ of defamatory material online no longer being only the old but known foe of the media, but an entirely different force: the blogger.

Olswang associate Ashley Hurst added,

...defamation cases have become more sophisticated and that the work of media lawyers has changed.

Defamation lawyers are now spending lots of time tracking down anonymous internet users. In contrast to libel actions against newspapers, in some cases claimants are now bringing proceedings simply to establish who is responsible for damaging their reputations and obtain injunctions ...

Personally, I have always written what I believe to be the truth, but I'm taking the well-intentioned advice seriously.

As a result, I'd like to say that ASH are a bunch of Government-funded liars who refuse to even consider debating their ridiculous claims, preferring instead to bypass democracy by way of lobbying Government and the Media, against the stated wish of the voting public. Their insistence that "the debate is over", with regard to passive smoking, is incorrect and they are well aware of that ... well, they would be seeing as they are a bunch of Government-funded liars.

Come and get me. Let's see your rebuttal stand up in court. You know, that place your type are desperate to avoid seeing as you generally get butt-fucked when you get there.

Talking of lying, here's a bit more from the aforementioned Amber Melville-Brown about our wonderful broadcast media.

Rolling news enables a story to be published over and over to millions of people worldwide ...

While an affected party may choose to disregard them as not meriting a response, she says, they can have an insidious effect, creating a momentum of their own until – repeated and republished frequently enough – they are believed to be true.

Trying to stop a concerted campaign of criticism on the internet, she adds, can be like ‘trying to plug the holes in a colander’.

She's right you know, Comrade Beeb has been presenting ASH lies as fact for quite a while now. Almost invariably without providing a right of reply to bodies that disagree with the Government-funded liars.

This one is just the latest. Exhibits A through to Z and beyond would have just taken too much time to post.


banned said...

Yesterday the BBC local radio news was reporting that Scottish teenagers were increasingly likely to smoke.
With genuine sounding puzzlement the reporter exclaimed " This is despite huge amounts of Government money being spent on the problem ".

DaveA said...

A mate of mine used to be quite a senior spin doctor for one of the major political parties. His view is that if ASH take the trouble to sue someone over for example their second hand smoke lies, it is happy days. Trials are always newsworthy, the contents in the public domain and they will probably lose. The defence of fair comment must be odds on favourite to win.

Most importantly the lies of SHS will be laid to rest. I also think there will be thousands of smokers, pro choice smoking groups and even possibly tobacco companies who would be happy to fund a defence.

So Dick with your permission, and you have my consent to pass my contact details on, should ASH be in touch.

On the health effects of second hand smoke (SHS) and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) at the very best you are exaggerating and at worst telling downright lies.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dick Puddlecote said...

Comment deleted because it was a spam advert for a Pharma quit smoking product which has been proven to induce suicidal thoughts.

And they say Tobacco companies are evil.