DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era

Looking forward to press conference later today...

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/01/306681/confidence/

It's been around that level for a few weeks now, right?

Presstv.ir seems legit tho.

Press Tv, owned by the iranian republican guard and has George Galloway as lead talent.

i don't know guys, it says at least 30 MPs singed letters calling for the vote, sounds legit to me

Singed? As in singing, or slightly burning?

(typo is article's own)

the amusing thing is that it pops up as an autosearch on twitter if you even type one of their names in

The big point seems to be that this information might prejudice a couple of upcoming trials. If that's the case, I don't understand how the British public could despise these people any more than they already do.

How would a similar situation be dealt with in the Netherlands, LBI?

The main driver in super-injunctions is an interpretation of European privacy laws. Essentially the UK government has dragged its heels bringing in privacy legislation so judges have to interpret pan-European laws themselves.

Hypothetically, if a Dutch politician or celebrity had an affair, would they have any way of preventing publication, as they would in France?

The short answer would be: no, they can't prevent publication.

A politician could, in theory, sue the media outlet to prevent it from being published (obviously they have to be aware of the fact that a publication intends to publish). But if it concerns amorous liaisons, and a media organization has incriminating evidence, say photos, the chance a judge will stop publication is close to 0%. If the politician can prove that it really is a completely untrue smear campaign, the judge can put a ban on publication. This can also go for something verifiably wrong of something relating to the politician's job.
If it concerns a matter of national security a judge can also stop publication. We've had one extreme example where Dutch intelligence literally held two journalists hostage for them to reveal their sources on a national security story.

But if it's a love affair, the judge is highly likely to tell the politician 'don't do the crime if you can't do the time'.

We all know it's stupid, we went through this a year ago with the Ryan Giggs thing. Ultimately, I believe people have a right to privacy but when you consider that a super-injunctions has been used to prevent a national newspaper printing the name of a company dumping toxic waste off the coast of Africa you realise the system is bullshit.

if we had a properly worded privacy law we ought to be able to separate the malicious tittle tattle from matters of public interest. some newspapers obviously thrive on publishing malicious tittle tattle but that's a matter for their editors i guess.

I want to make a blingee with this phrase:

but that's a matter for their editors

'the public interest'

Who do we trust to define this.

Anyone who can actually tell the difference between 'the public interest' and 'stuff the public is interested in'.

Go on

i don't like the phrase "public interest" either but i really don't see why it's okay for media orgs to publish stories about people's love lives or medical problems unless those things have a bearing on corrupt or criminal behaviour

on the other hand i guess people shdn't work in entertainment/play professional sport/be politicians unless they want every single moment of their lives to be fair play for entertaining nosey wankers

there's an element of wanting it both ways from some slebs though- 5 page Hello! spread one day, complaining about tabloid intrusion the next.

which IMO makes it extremely hard to legislate- however repellent Hello! is, none of the people who appear in it do so under duress (unless you want to get into the murky field of what, under capitalism, you might consider to be structure and agency when it comes to people deciding things like this)

it's a pretty lame excuse usually. i have to do lots of things for my job that i don't want to do at the drop of a hat when i'm not at work.

difference between posing for photos at an agreed shoot to publicize your latest movie and getting papped in your back garden scratching your bum seems fairly clear-cut to me

there's an element of wanting it both ways from some slebs though- 5 page Hello! spread one day, complaining about tabloid intrusion the next.

well, you could look at it the other way - having a 5-page hello! spread is a chance to have writing about you in the press that you control (and to get some money out of it!) when you're already subject to tabloid use of your life in ways you can't really control.

it might be true that there's no way to square a free press with legislation to protect privacy. (tho by "free" press we mostly mean "owned by a few wealthy individuals/corporations whose main interests are in making money and obtaining political influence"). this stuff might be best left to individual moral conscience. i just don't have much faith in the individual moral consciences of newspaper owners et al

Of the public, then?

According to the Random House Dictionary, Public interest is "1. the welfare or well-being of the general public; commonwealth. 2. appeal or relevance to the general populace: a news story of public interest."[1]

First definition rather than the second seems workable - its really not hard. The claim that defining "public interest" is difficult seems like a smokescreen to stop "public interest" from being legally defined.

Then nothing else shoud be published, or anything challenged outside those terms is liable for injunction, or wha

Leaving aside the lol internet global device thing, which is the thing.

Im all for e news being shut down if thats the mandate obv, its the line btwn that and idk giggs shagging frinstance that is if not blurry then certainly fuck all to do with the high echelon publically maintained srs business of the courts.

This may yet be of genuine public interest depending on how badly they played Cameron.

Woah

Have they the real cameron trussed up somewhere? For how long?

oh hey i just arrived in the us for my hols, has this story broken open in the uk yet?

I'm just an American citizen with no real interest or knowledge of UK politics, but I hope it turns out to be SamCam and the redhead.

SamCam doesn't shag oiks, silly.

That's why David was allegedly so shocked, obvs.

heard from a diff source the ac stands for a certain someone's older brother. are we 100% sure it's the two red-top hatemongers?

Heard that alternative rumour too. Would make a lot more sense in 'big shocking secret' terms.

I had not heard that! But it's interesting who her lawyer is...

We would put a limit on how long anyone who can work, can stay unemployed, without getting and taking a job.

Some people say the jobs just aren't there, Miliband says. He disagrees.

I say with a national mission, led from the top of government, we can get thousands of businesses, tens of thousands, in the country behind the idea.

Not sure getting business onside is the major barrier to workfare, tbh.

Currently, after two years of work, someone is entitled to “Contributory Jobseeker’s Allowance” without a means test for six months.

They get £72 per week.

Whether they’ve worked for two years or forty years.
Two years of work is a short period to gain entitlement to extra help.

And £72 is in no sense a proper recognition of how much somebody who has worked for many decades has paid into the system.

As so many people have told me: “I have worked all my life, I have never had a day on benefits, and no real help is there when I needed it.”

So I have asked our Policy Review to look at whether, without spending extra money, we can change the system.

Asking people to work longer – say 5 years instead of 2 - before they qualify for extra support.

Glad we're finally narrowing down that definition of "the deserving poor".

nice to see the party making a play for all those disaffected voters oh never mind

£72 is in no sense a proper recognition of how much somebody who has worked for many decades has paid into the system.

Indeed, let's double it then

hang on, that's not going to cut it, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE CUNTS THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO WON'T VOTE BECAUSE THEY DON'T FEEL REPRESENTED BY THE MAJOR PARTIES AND THIS PUBLIC SCHOOL FUCKWIT IS STILL CHASING THE DEAD-EYED TORY UNDECIDED SCUMFUCK VOTE???

TBF he's being a comprehensive school fuckwit here.

Also these millions don't live in the right constituencies

i wasn't sure whether he want to a comp or not, i was just making outraged classist assumptions as one does when the corpse of the only party that's ever had any connect to the working class gets skull-fucked by Tory apologists like this

i mean i honestly do believe that most of us are proletarians now but sometimes the knife twist is too sharp

There are many, many working class people who agree whole-heartedly with this though.

that isn't the point, at all

I know, fuck them where they breathe too

Well, it sort of is, if the Labour party is going to represent the working class

a party's job should be to represent and form the aspirations of its political support, education is a part of that, taking a stance is part of that

it's okay to tell people they're wrong and attempt to show them why

Fair enough, it takes courage/conviction to do that I guess and Ed Miliband, well, yeah I see what you're saying