Back in September the Huffington Post’s UK editor Carla Buzasi took to her website’s comment pages to issue a rallying call against writing about women’s bodies:

“The fascination with bodies, celebrity or otherwise, isn’t exactly something new, of course, and shows no sign of abating. But here’s a thought: why don’t we just stop?”

That must be why today her website has launched a new theme called “Breast is Best” based on the concept of ‘Photoboobing‘. Or in other-words - funny pictures of titties:

Apparently the cutting edge of online journalism, that claims to adhere to the PCC code and campaigns rigorously for right-on “wimmins issues” is hoping to bring it’s readers the “best boob discovery moments ever documented.” Remember that the next time their writers are bleating about Page 3.

Day two of the Guardian’s ongoing Offshore Secrets investigation focused on “who is buying up London: the real identities behind Britain’s secret property deals”. Apparently some 100,000 tax avoiders have been purchasing British properties and offices using offshore companies, hiding their dealings in the UK and reducing their bill to the exchequer. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Guardian’s very own offices were owned by an offshore company? Surely not…

Guido can reveal that 90 King’s Place, the Guardian’s offices in central London, is owned by a tax exempt offshore investment trust managed from Germany:

If and when the trust’s owners ever decide to sell the property, bought for £234 million and now worth considerably more, the owners could sell the trust offshore rather than the property itself and avoid all UK taxes. The trust itself is exempt from corporation tax in Germany. The Treasury will be denied millions of pounds.

It is incredible that the Guardian is paying millions to an offshore trust which is structured in such a way that it pays no corporation tax anywhere in the world. Guidorama tried to contact James Ball, the Guardian investigations journalist at the forefront of the Offshore Secrets series, he said he was too ill to speak to us, the Guardian Media Group’s press office claims that all the press officers are abroad. Caught on camera Patrick Wintour, the paper’s political editor, pleaded ignorance.

The hypocrisy of the Guardian moralising about tax-avoiding offshore owned properties when it is actually based in one is priceless …

In a leader in this week’s Spectator the editor pledges to go to jail rather than abide by statutory press regulation:

If the press agrees a new form of self-regulation, perhaps contractually binding this time, we will happily take part. But we would not sign up to anything enforced by government. If such a group is constituted we will not attend its meetings, pay its fines nor heed its menaces. We would still obey the (other) laws of the land. But to join any scheme which subordinates press to parliament would be a betrayal of what this paper has stood for since its inception in 1828.

If Cameron caves in to Leveson it looks like Fraser Nelson could be following in the Spectator tradition. Like his columnist Taki before him, he could be on his way to Pentonville…

Dave leaves PMQs, saying:

 ”Right, let’s go and do our reading!”

Transcript of the footage of Piers Morgan speaking to Charlotte Church:

PM: ”There was a spate of stories that came out because of mobile phones. When they first came out mobile phones journalists found out that if the celebrity hadn’t changed their pin code, right…”

CC: “Yeah, you can access their voicemail.”

PM: ”You can access, access their voicemail. Just by tapping in a number. Are you really telling me that journalists aren’t going to do that? If they know they can ring up Charlotte Church’s mobile phone, listen to all her messages…”

CC: ”My God”

PM: ”Right, now all you have to do and I know it’s hard because celebrities don’t like doing anything for themselves is actually change your security number.”

CC: ”Yeah, I’ve changed my security number”.

PM: ”And now you don’t have to worry”.

CC: ”Exactly”.

Just in case you have forgotten, Piers claims:

“I do not believe that any story we published … was ever gained in an unlawful manner, nor have I ever seen anything to suggest that.”

He told Leveson:

“… I had no reason or knowledge to believe it was going on.”

Uh oh…

Comments in the comments please…

Nick Boles is getting it in the neck today after labelling green-belt campaigners ‘hysterical scaremongering latter-day Luddites’. He is also calling for a third more for the UK to be concreted over and built on. Guido suspects that planning minister is doing the usual trick of going tonto to begin with, so that there is room to row back and look reasonable. Either way, given his distaste for NIMBY-ism, Guido presumes Boles won’t mind if his inheritance is the first place to be built on? Maybe a wind-farm too for good measure? Above is the view from his family’s Somerset pile.

One day son all this will be yours, to concrete.

It could not be a great matter of state without the LibDems sitting on the fence. Yesterday they briefed the FT:

“In spite of the party’s liberal heritage, Mr Clegg’s team say the vast majority of Lib Dem MPs would support Leveson if he says that independent regulation must be underpinned by law to make it fully effective.”

However this morning team Clegg is in full reverse ferret mode:

I understand Nick Clegg believes State/statutory regulation of the press is "not necessarily the answer" #leveson—
norman smith (@BBCNormanS) November 28, 2012

Overnight it emerged that the Burns/Blunkett letter had cross party support, also Ming and Hughes have been making plenty of noise on the issue. Interestingly the party’s leader in waiting, who is not a man adverse to regulating, has been rather quiet. The last time Vince Cable said anything interesting about press regulation was when he had been at the sharp end of a sting. After his complaint about the secret ‘war on Murdoch’ recording by Heidi Blake, then of the Telegraph, was upheld by the PCC, Vince said:

“I’m delighted with the findings which fully vindicates the complaints I and my colleagues made to the PCC. It’s very rare the commission comes down so clearly and we are very pleased with the outcome. It was important this was established by an independent, respected and reputable body.”

Will Cable and the rest of the LibDems be voting to keep regulation “independent” or will their Murdoch phobia overcome their liberal anti-statist, pro-freedom traditions?