February 13th, 2013

Press Royal Charter: Maria Miller’s “Get Guido” Clause

big-sister-maria-millerYesterday Guardian journalists gleefully drew Guido’s attention to a clause in Maria Miller’s proposed legislation that attempts to bring this blog into the regulated, un-free press sector that is being created post-Leveson. Guido has highlighted the ambitious clause in red below…

SCHEDULE 4

INTERPRETATION

Key definitions

1. For the purposes of this Charter:

a) “Regulator” means an independent body formed by or on behalf of relevant publishers for the purpose of conducting regulatory activities in relation to their publications;

b) “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom:

a. a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or

b. a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine);

c) “broadcaster” means:

a. the holder of a licence under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or 1996;

b. the British Broadcasting Corporation; or

c. Sianel Pedwar Cymru;

d) a person “publishes in the United Kingdom” if the publication takes place in the United Kingdom or is targeted primarily at an audience in the United Kingdom;

e) “news-related material” means:

i. news or information about current affairs;
ii. opinion about matters relating to the news or current affairs; or
iii. gossip about celebrities, other public figures or other persons in the news.

It is arguable – and Guido does argue – that since this blog’s server is in California the publication takes place in the US, under the protection of the First Amendment. Readers point their browsers at http://www.order-order.com and download the content from the server cache. The publishing tool is the server and it is definitely not in the United Kingdom. Which is why they introduced the second part: “or is is targeted primarily at an audience in the United Kingdom”. That is an interesting idea, which hopefully won’t catch on internationally. Imagine if the Iranian regime implemented the same law, demanding that the BBC’s Persian Service, which is broadcast from London, submitted to their regulator. Crazy.

Guido would be interested to hear what the many m’learned friends who read this blog think of this bit of the legislation. Who will the regulator pursue? Individual bloggers personally when they are in the jurisdiction? A foreign citizen, uploading to a foreign-hosted website, published by a foreign domiciled company – seems to Guido that this legal extra-territoriality has dubious legal foundations. Perhaps Maria Miller is planning to send Royal Navy gunboats to Wexford and California?


112 Comments

  1. 1
    Steve Miliband says:

    Naval gazing

    Like

    • 11
      Quiet Bat Person says:

      The Septics use this sort of extra-territorial law all the time; but they have the clout to enforce it sometimes.

      Like

      • 22
        Quiet Bat Person says:

        and anyway, what is wrong with this:

        EHCR Article 10

        Article 10 – Freedom of expression

        1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

        2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

        Like

        • 46
          Low-abinding citizen says:

          I am very moved to protect the bad reputations of certain others. Am I protected by Article 10 Clause 2?

          Like

          • you must be 'avin a laugh says:

            surely this clause can be overcome by blogging in romanian or polish or upperclass toff or somethinig

            Like

        • 67
          Anonymous says:

          The first part is entirely negated by the second. There is no freedom of expression beyond that which the authorities may from time to time permit.

          Article 10 is therefore utterly meaningless if you wish to rely on it as protection.

          Like

          • Road_Hog says:

            I wonder if they could use the European Arrest Warrant, stick Guido in jail for a bit, then drop the charges and send him back. IIRC, you don’t actually have to charge the person, you can have them in for questioning and imprison them for a period.

            Like

        • 78
          Robin says:

          Quiet Bat Person asked February 13, 2013 at 1:41 pm and anyway, what is wrong with this: EHCR Article 10

          Well Bat person, at the very start, E stands for European and the British Isles are not in Europe, they are in the Atlantic Ocean and have their own court(s). That is what is wrong with this.

          Like

    • 51
    • 63
      PC Dixon says:

      Well its nice to see the Conservatives so supportive of free speech!

      Fact is the Net is the best thing that ever happened for free speech cos we cant certainly trust the three established parties, all rotten to core in wanting to keep their nasty habits out of sight.

      Thank the Lord for GUIDO.

      Like

      • 112
        Archie says:

        + several million! They don’t like it up ‘em! You’re obviously REALLY getting up their collective noses Guido, old fruitcake. Well done and keep it up!

        Like

  2. 2
    Anonymous says:

    Under parliamentary sovereignty, parliament can make any laws it likes, but that doesn’t mean it can enforce them. Classic example is banning smoking on the streets of Paris. The statute can claim to give the regulator power over these areas, but that doesn’t mean it can do anything about them

    Like

    • 32
      Socialism = starvation says:

      It does if they are permitted to take steps against anyone physically present in the UK whom they wish in connection with the matters that they are ‘regulating’.

      Like

      • 49
        M says:

        Once found guilty you the be sent to a north Staffordshire hospital trust for processing .

        The final solution !

        Like

        • 104
          Peter Grimes says:

          That’s no better than being sent to a West Yorkshire/Wales processing centre!

          It’s the knackers yard for Guido.

          Like

  3. 3
    Tuscan Tony says:

    More interesting than the rather obvious attack on blogs and Guido is the absolutely facile and child-like level of understanding of the world outside Westminster by some of its denizens. What sort of blinkered muppet spends time crafting such a riddled-with-inconsistencies draft?

    This all backs up my main point: the job of government is now so big it really is beyond human understanding. Time to cut it all down to a manageable size.

    Like

    • 4
      The Third Way doesn't work either says:

      Only one person really required – and that just for a short time – must have skills in turning off the light.

      Like

  4. 5
    The Third Way doesn't work either says:

    I suggest a modest addition to the masthead.

    This blog is targeted at English speaking ex-pats.

    Job done (5 guineas please.)

    Like

    • 102
      Crabwaladr Moonpatch says:

      Some time ago, a very clever lawyer one day realised that what people claim and what is true are occasionally not the same. The idea caught on, and now even judges are prepared to disbelieve certain claims when the evidence against them is overwhelming.

      Like

  5. 6
    golli says:

    Half baked twaddle. Leveson was a bad Cameroonian idea in the first place and like all bad ideas now attempts to take on a life of its own. Let us go back to first principles. Free speech must be defended against the likes of Labour, Liberal and Conservative. All of them are revengeful myopic politicians burnt from the sunlight that exposed the expenses scandal.

    Like

  6. 7
    Boring lawyer says:

    You’re only in trouble if you’re an individual or an entity present within the UK. It seems like a fairly nifty way around foreign entities publishing abroad for an English audience.

    That’s why your BBC Persian service analogy is inapt. I would have thought that anybody connected with it would steer well clear of Iran…

    The conclusion of this pro bono comment, however, would be that they may have a fight to establish what “targeted primarily at an audience in the United Kingdom” means. What if each post is addressed to your granny who lives in Ireland?

    “Dear Granny Grainne….”

    Like

    • 17
      Paniagua says:

      Why are you in favour of U2, what have they done for you?

      Like

    • 82

      Well there is no legal entity / physical blog property in the UK. The contributors can be found in the UK much of the time however.

      Like

      • 90
        bald old git says:

        i suspect they want to establish individual liability on the basis of presence in the UK when generating material. They can establish audience without establishing target audience by arguing a) relevence and b) statistical analysis of traffic.

        Anyway, what the hell are you thinking? Don’t argue against the detail of the provision, just oppose it.

        You can have free press and proper regulation if the press are left to introduce a successor body to the pcc and the government retains the option to have a small-scale judge-led investigation of any serious complaint which isn’t resolved AS LONG AS said enquiry has no more power than to publish a report. The findings of that report could then be used as the basis for civil settlement or referral back to the PCC body for further action. The only enforcement would be that people giving evidence would be on oath, which has proved pretty effective, as Leveson has demonstrated …

        Simples.

        Like

  7. 8
    Paniagua says:

    You will have to start talking like a yank in your first person vagina monologue Guido.

    Water fawcett, trash, color, my bad etc etc.

    Then you can claim that it is aimed at the yanks

    Like

  8. 9
    Red Egg Millitit.....oh nooooo says:

    As I said yesterday……. And these laws will have to cover the whole wide world ?? hahahahahahahaha

    Like

  9. 10
    Andrew Efiong says:

    The politicians are running scared, diving for regulatory cover and using the full force of the state to silence critics like Guido.

    Like

    • 25
      Mork Calling Mindy says:

      They are just demonstrating that they have something to hide.

      Like

    • 92
      More Correctly says:

      Does Guido REALLY want Freedom of Expression, or just the right to insult and make snide remark?

      Like

      • 106
        Anonymous says:

        As an enemy of the United Kingdom he wants the right to insult and make snide remarks primarily with the aims of destroying the UK; smashing the English poor; and making the rich, especially foreigners, even richer.

        Like

  10. 12
    Lazarus the leper says:

    Good luck to them when they try to enforce that:

    “Hello, is that Russia Today? One of your articles has breached the Charter and … I’m sorry, who did you say I have to speak to? A Mr. Putin?”

    Like

    • 94
      Anonymous says:

      Then again, and for some reason, Russia Today can give UKIP more than a fair hearing. Despite this, I continue to watch it.

      Like

  11. 13
    Maria Miller says:

    ‘Perhaps Maria Miller is planning to send Royal Navy gunboats to Wexford and California?’

    They were on their way to the Malvinas, oops I mean Falkland Islands but I have had them redeployed into a new Theatre

    Like

  12. 14
    Socialism = starvation says:

    The old Common Law courts acted in rem, in respect of real things, and kept within the Kingdom. The courts of Equity however, claimed the right to act in personam, against the person (whose conscience they sought to regulate). Therefore, a Common Law court would not touch you if a dispute related to an asset overseas, whereas a court of Equity (the bastard step-father of socialism) would act against a person who owned assets overseas by, for example, imprisoning them if they were in contempt and within the Kingdom, so if a court of Equity held that an asset you held overseas belonged to another and you refused to hand it over, it might seek to imprison you for contempt.

    I can guess which way this law will go.

    The Ecuadorean Embassy is a bit full at the moment. Guernsey is a nice, low-tax place.

    Like

  13. 15
    Grumpy Old Man says:

    English is one of the three official languages of the EU and is also an official language of India. The English language is spoken by millions of people all round the Globe. Thus our learned friends should have little difficulty asserting that Guido is publishing to the world and can easily claim that he is not targeting a UK audience.

    Like

  14. 16

    Good luck with making that work in a European Court, fick face!

    Like

  15. 18
    Sarah says:

    This new legislation will also be subject to EU Law.

    “…………all EU based journalists and publications must conform to European values to be a licensed entity within the profession and industry”…….

    Welcome to East Germany 1970.

    Like

  16. 19
    Mork Calling Mindy says:

    I don’t know about the rest of the target readership but aren’t the denizens of Westminster protected by some sort of privilege? Why should there be someone regulating a blog which is for and about them?

    As for the rest of the readers, most of the comments on here are from the Planet Zog.

    Like

  17. 20
    Casual Observer says:

    The danger is that if there is legislation anywhere crafted to target internet content which is aimed at UK citizens the question of enforcement is immediately raised.

    Whilst going after the source will likely prove impossible, blocking the source from being accessible in the UK if found to be non-compliant otherwise is very likely.

    ie. This argument opens the possibility for blocking content from anywhere overseas on very loosely defined grounds.

    One hopes that legislation is not introduced which for internet content defines the press as being on the client side. The server is the source and the publisher, but the impression is really made by the browser and equipment used to access that source.

    There is a precedent already set in this way relating to the downloading of certain classifications of p0rnography. Because the image is rendered on the machine, or can be, and the law is defined in terms of rendering the image, just having the file in cache is enough to prosecute on. (Questions in that case obviously arise as to whether an impression has been made as it is assumed that presence in on the disk guarantees that the file has been rendered. Not always the case)

    Unless access to the source can be controlled, the real press of the internet cannot. And that has been recognized from the start in closed countries such as Ch!na.

    This legislation should be strongly opposed as it is quite clear where it is going.

    Like

    • 39
      The Third Way doesn't work either says:

      Support all you say but would remind that an unenforceable law is just that: unenforceable.

      When the law becomes like this it is often ridiculed. Occasionally attempts will be made to use some parallel means of enforcement which, unpleasant for those targeted, mostly fall upon appeal.

      Clearly it is better that it is not passed, at least in its current state. But if it is, it will be easy to shoot peas though it (and that is something I would not have been able to say a year ago!) :-)

      Like

      • 52
        Casual Observer says:

        Just talking around the issues.

        The only way internet regulation would work is by providing a path for government to have access to certain IPs blocked at what is the UKs international firewall. The difficulty in getting to that point though is doing so without being too obvious. Once there, then the issues with proxying / mirroring / reblogging etc. come in to play which should preclude any such effort.

        Control of information flow via taxation across international routes is likely to be the final solution there. Frameworks for international agreements are in discussing with WCIT at present.

        That would prove the most effective way of enforcing censorship of sorts as it immediately makes mirroring to local jurisdiction very attractive, and then the content essentially comes under control.

        The economic argument there, inefficient as it appears, is compelling and will eventually happen.

        One other obvious problem with the legislation wording above is as follows.

        What about political party web sites ? These invariably fall into the above proposed definitions, and if a government at the time so wished, with these powers could very easily shut down what may be the most popular broadcast medium for opposition parties at that time.

        There should at the very least be an exemption there. Following that, the path of exemptions would render the law into absurdity as you say.

        Still, it would perhaps be much better use of Parliamentary time to deal with some of the other more important issues such as NHS, horse meat, EU referendum, etc. etc. etc.

        Like

  18. 21
    mmm which one is the Mule? says:

    Like

  19. 24
    Lizzie says:

    I’d be less concerned if a future government sent a gunboat to California than if they got narked with Russian TV’s english language website …

    Like

    • 33
      Admiral Byng says:

      Do we still have any gunboats?

      Like

      • 37
        MOD says:

        If you mean a rowing boat with an air pistol (pointing inwards) strapped to the boat.

        No

        Like

        • 42
          Lord Mandelbum of Fondleboys says:

          On the plus side our sailors might get a bit of enforced R&R and some new suits and headscarves courtesy of their opponents, just as they did from those nice Iranians a few years back.

          Like

      • 65
        Bollocks to getting a pseudonym says:

        If I remember rightly, one of our admirals said a few months ago that the Royal Navy has enough ships and personnel for a day trip to France. It’s probably enough for the Woolwich ferry by now.

        Like

        • 85
          Anonymous says:

          Was he the one who blew the budget on two container ships that were so expensive they couldn’t afford any planes for them for another decade?

          Like

      • 84
        Anonymous says:

        We had an inflatable and Ipod that the Iranians borrowed and haven’t returned yet. Are they going to unveil a reverse-engineered dopI and elbatalfni?

        Like

  20. 26
    keredybretsa says:

    Seems like this will turn up, as a nice little earner for our bewigged learned friends.
    Bloggers of the world unite to save and preserve free speech.

    Like

  21. 29
    Lizzie says:

    Is Guido targeted primarily at a UK audience? I’d assumed it was targeted at a US audience, hence it’s published from a US server. After all, it specifies the audience it is ‘targeted at’, not who actually reads it … and how on earth would a court decide who it was ‘targeted at’?

    Like

  22. 31
    Anonymous says:

    I’m in the uk, I’m a uk national/citizen, I use a server in america, for a site which targets both the uk and the asian markets.

    If the labour/cameron luvvies think that they can muzzle me when someone from japan publishes a story on my site that they don’t like but which is in the public interest and has no security issues, then I’ll see them in court.

    I don’t submit to their lefty Orwellian nightmare, they can fuck off.

    I’m publishing whatever the fuck I want as long as it’s in the public interest, doesn’t risk national security and isn’t libellous, and so are the contributors to my site.

    I piss on their “regulate the internet globally” hellish/nightmare idea, and then I spit on it.

    Like

  23. 34
    Pentangelis says:

    Sadly, with our mainstream press so frightened of their own shadows these days, it does fall to the ‘unregulated’ press ie Guido et al to keep us informed of events.
    To attempt to regulate in this way is just stupid and unworkable.
    It seems to me the balance is completely wrong.
    After all, where on earth would we be without our ‘Polish Plumber’ or Guido’s revelations about Mark Oaten and Chris Huhne, who oddly enough shared boundaries with each other as well as another extremely dubious character, the much ridiculed ‘third man’ in the Hampshire Lib-Dem triumvirate Mike Handcock?
    We will muzzle the press much to our own cost!

    Like

  24. 35
    US Watch says:

    Guess that they may not want stuff like this published for the UK audiences when it happens over there:

    http://www.naturalnews.com/039065_Christopher_Dorner_LAPD_cover-up.html

    Why burn the guy alive and not just wait it out ?

    Like

    • 59
      Tay King-dePisse says:

      Oh I dunno, ‘coz he had already killed somebody earlier in the siege?
      His choice, to “hunker in the bunker.” Good riddance.

      Like

  25. 36
    Liarpoliticians says:

    I think the press abroad would have something to say that they are based in the UK when they are not. The LibLabCon really are idiots. Unenforceable knee jerk laws.

    Like

  26. 38
    Anonymous says:

    lord Leveson has filled his boots through legal practice. He now wants to regulate publications aimed at the UK, I suggest he reads today’s English language Pravda and he will discover joyous confirmation of the true role of journalisim :

    http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/13-02-2013/123775-journalism_money-0/

    Regardless of the intentions of Deputy Minister of Communications Alexei Volin to provoke a scandal, the scandal did occur. Perhaps, few expected that a fairly high-ranking official would say something in the spirit of “journalists will work for their master,” and “do what they are told.”

    Alexei Volin shared his views on the profession on Saturday at the conference “Journalism: Social Mission and Profession” at the Faculty of Journalism at the Moscow State University.

    He believes that “journalists should always keep in mind that their task is not to make the world better or lead humanity the right path.” “The task of a journalist is to make money for those who hired him,”

    So there we are straight from the home of authoritarian socialism, the role of the journalist is to make money, of course for nomenclatura of the ruling caste like Leveson one hand washes the other, once you control the press then the pennies will fill your pockets. Pravda should have no problems post Leveson, perhaps he can find a rewarding spot on their board.

    Like

  27. 40
    Will says:

    The clause itself is largely irrelevant and unenforceable, however I would be vary of arguing the case on the basis of “the servers are in California”:

    In matters of corporate taxation, most companies will consider a company tax resident where “its effective control and management” is exercised – in other words, you can’t simply incorporate offshore but run a company from the UK and believe that no UK corporate tax is due: the company would be effectively controlled from the UK, hence UK tax resident.

    I would expect press regulation and most other law follow the same pattern: where servers or other materials are is an absolute nonsense argument – it is where the actions are effectively conducted. If the reporting is done by UK residents reporting in the UK, they would likely fall under the new regulation. If they are non-UK residents doing reporting from outside the UK, then tough luck for the regulators.

    Like

  28. 43
    old SHEP says:

    Wilkes and Liberty!, back to ‘illegal’ printing presses and pamphleteering 18th century style.

    Like

  29. 44
    Diane Abbotapotamus says:

    So what would happen if a UK resident was on holiday in California and drunk more than 500ml of sugary drink?

    Like

  30. 45
    Anonymous says:

    I’m an IP lawyer, not a media lawyer – but in IP matters it is enough if a cross-border offer of goods or services targets consumers in the UK. For example, a foreign company may use overseas servers to offer counterfeit goods located overseas. However, if they target UK consumers (ie by use of the English language, pricing in Sterling, offering shipping to the UK) that’s enough. Same point as the posters above, though, on enforcement.

    Like

  31. 47
    labrat says:

    Wonder where that leaves huffpost?

    Like

  32. 48
    William Joyce says:

    Down with this sort of thing!

    Like

  33. 54
    (I don't need no doctor) says:

    Crime is supposedly down. Is this true?

    Could figures be down purely because people do not bother reporting crime. For many years there has been no point in reporting a crime because nothing is ever done. The police certainly don’t want to know.

    It’s time Guido looked at this issue.

    Like

    • 57
      Cause and effect says:

      Less police mean less people to report crime to and less people to receive reports of reported crimes. How is a crime defined these days ?

      Like

      • 62
        D Cameroon Your leader and don't forget it, cking plebs says:

        You forget one salient point!

        I’m a Toff on crime and Toff on the causes of crime, unless of course it’s one of ones friends.

        Like

      • 66
        Bollocks to getting a pseudonym says:

        Crime is defined very easily. It’s whatever the police, CPS and politicians say it is.

        Like

      • 86
        Anonymous says:

        There’s never a pedant around when you need someone to point out the difference between less and fewer – are they all at the supermarket demanding the checkout signs are corrected?

        Like

    • 76
      Lou Scannon says:

      Crime is very definitely up, and one of the main points of origin is Westminstser.

      Like

  34. 55
    Rob says:

    If this shit becomes law, the political class will become invulnerable.stuff like Huhnegate will be forever buried.

    Like

    • 56
      Webs we weave says:

      And learning facts like Vaz being solicitor for Richmond council back in 1982, before moving on to !slington until 1985.

      Odd how he managed to get off with only a one month suspension for the Eggington affair, not to mention Filkin.

      Like

    • 64
      Anonymous says:

      It may become law, but it will be unenforceable law.

      The thing you need to worry about isn’t these laws being passed (because the laws themselves are illegal as they piss all over your basic human rights/freedoms), instead the thing you need to worry about and look for is when the government start to take control of the judiciary and police so that they can enforce these (or any other) bogus laws in their own self-interest.

      Like

  35. 60
    Anonymous says:

    The physical location of the server is completely irrelevant, and it is a stupid defence to even try to make/give.

    If it was relevent then you could be a uk resident who uses Iranian servers to host a website targeted at uk citizens that promotes terrorism in the uk, and get away with it.

    Your argument should not even consider the physical location of servers, the courts will laugh at you.

    Instead of the server location, your argument should instead simply be the “public interest” argument, which supercedes all other laws that any jurisdiction may try to enforce.

    The proposed new laws are unenforceable and are themselves illegal, because other laws regarding the most basic human rights and freedoms will ALWAYS supercede them.

    Like

    • 69
      Bollocks to getting a pseudonym says:

      In theory, basic laws covering human/civil rights superced any new laws, but we are talking about a bunch of criminals who make and abuse laws to suit themselves. Abusing power is standard practice amongst all branches of the British state.

      Like

      • 74
        Anonymous says:

        As long as the government doesn’t take-over the courts/police, then these laws are totally meaningless (and if such a thing did happen then we’d have a revolution).

        For fuck’s sake, Gordon Brown classed Iceland, the entire country, as a terrorist organisation, but which court in their right mind would ever uphold such a thing?

        Governments often do completely insane things that courts would just laugh at if it ever came to an attempted prosecution.

        Like

  36. 68
    Lord Justice Loverson says:

    If Cameron wants to mend fences with Murdoch the Royal Charter should really have said the country of publication is the country where editorial decisions are taken and the “publish” button is pressed.

    That way Guido would be caught in the net but the Sun and the Times would be free to carry on regardless in their free, natural, unregulated state.

    Like

  37. 70
    We're not all millionaires, you know says:

    Guido,

    You should just begin every post with “Dear Channel Islanders”. Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, Herm, Alderney and those bits owned by the Barclay brothers are outside the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the decisions and actions of Westminster politicians are of great interest to us Channel Islanders, so we have a legitimate right to read news stories about them, wherever those stories are published from.

    Keep up the good work!

    Like

  38. 72
    Aydodge E. Scheisster QC says:

    If there is some sort of statutory enactment in place that states what the duty of care is to be regarding an action taken by an individual or corporate entity, it is presumed that someone who would engage in that sort of thing would avail themselves of the services of a lawyer who could tell them the legal consequences of their doing it, or would at any rate try to muddle through on their own, for the purposes of resolving doubt. What any regulation does is to make it easier to prove negligence on the part of the tortfeasor. It’s a Heinlein’s Razor situation– they don’t have to prove malice, so much as negligence, on your part, in order to find you liable. Now as far as the off-shoring goes, that’s an issue that can and will be litigated for the purpose of wearing down the target of the lawsuit and exhausting their funds, at which point a consent decree is arrived at without there being a final judgement in the matter. Basically, all that’s being done is to make sure the case cannot be dismissed at the first hurdle and that it can proceed apace. Quick joke: the difference between a litigator and and alligator? The alligator lets go once you’ve stopped struggling.

    Like

  39. 79
    Call me Dave says:

    We will always allow Guido his little folly. If we did not then where on earth would these people commenting let off steam? For heavens sake they might actually become a problem.

    All will be well so long as Guido doesn’t become to mainstream and remains niche.

    If he ever teams up with someone like Murdoch then we will move on him, but until then.

    Like

  40. 80
    Victims my Arse says:

    This is all because the McCanns say they are victims of the press and the BBC agrees with them.

    Well the BBC, the McCanns and Lord Justice Leveson have very short memories.

    Far from being victims of the press the McCanns are manipulators of the press. Have they forgotten the twice daily press conferences that the McCanns staged in Praia da Luz overseen by Goron Brown’s Clarence Mitchell? So much so were the McCanns using the press that the British media did not once question the fact that they left three babies alone in a holiday apartment every night while they went out on the piss.

    It was not until the Portuguese police made the McCanns official suspects did the British press start reporting the facts and those facts were uncomfortable for the McCanns and they fled Portugal.

    Victims of the press they were and are not. Isn’t that right Clarence?

    Like

  41. 87
    LJL says:

    Is Guido just a little bit scared that his boasts about not being able to be caught in a regulatory net might prove hollow?

    Like

  42. 88
    Go get 'em Guidio says:

    Since their exposure as criminals the crooked politicians really are determined to stifle the press.

    Like

  43. 93
    Blowing Whistles says:

    Be ‘Flattered’ – that they are after you Guido – obviously they are after those who speak and write – the truth – including bloggers like me.

    The do not like it up em – The Truth that is “The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth” < That's a Rendition of an old saying – But it is up em; and out there and they appear to be "The last chance saloon Desperados attempting to conceal the truth".

    Be Flattered. be very Flattered – NOT AFRAID.

    Like

  44. 97
    Anonymous says:

    The extract shown appears also to include private circulation material, such a journals and newsletters among members of social, professional, trade and political groups.

    I like the phrase “unfree” but I do not like the fact of its imposition here.

    Like

  45. 99
    Anonymous says:

    What makes you think that Guido is any danger to the Powers-That-Be? Now, had he questioned NATO or US Bases in Britain . . .

    Like

  46. 100
    KillaWabbit says:

    Who/what is dis Maria Miller ? Is it she is some skank piece of Huntshite slag wot is a filthy europiglet? Or is it just some piece of diseased, fly blown excrement? Or is it a fluffy, wuffy unicorn made out of lezboonies?

    Like

  47. 101
    A totally pissed off supporter of democracy says:

    Protect Guido. All politicians are fascist by nature and want to suppress any sort of free speech because it will usually carry criticism. Can anyone explain to me the differences between Stalin and Hitler?

    Like

  48. 103
    Erskine May says:

    Now we discover that phenylbutazone, better known as bute, has been fed into the foodstuffs via the equestrian delicacies masquerading as beef.

    When is this decade long run of outrage against the population going to end?

    That the quantities might have been tiny is neither here nor there. They should have been NIL.

    Like

  49. 105
    The situation is extremely grave... says:

    They are coming for you.

    You have two choices:
    Fight, make noise, oppose
    OR
    Close the site down.

    The choice is not necessary today but the direction of travel is clear. We are headed toward a virtual police state. This will happen, it is not scaremongering. The levers are being put in place and step by step activated.

    The reason that this is a done deal is that most people will actually want a police state. They will see it as a beneficent thing. They will hang you for a minor perceived misdemeanor – ala Assange. Guido, make sure neo-Guido and wiki-Guido and yourself are spotless.

    Twas a nice thing, free speech. I remember it well.

    Like

  50. 107
    told you says:

    The liblabcons are gonna get you, Greedo.

    Like

  51. 108
    Great Granddad:Prime Minister in Waiting, New Utopia Party says:

    The drafter had only one blogger in mind – Guido. They are unlikely to get you this time, old lad, but they’ll keep trying. Keep your eyes open and keep your head down.

    Like

  52. 109
    Sick of lying cheating politicians says:

    Piggy Miller obviously didn’t like being accused of defrauding the tax payer and Uncle Ken obviously didn’t like allegations of him fondling bits old men shouldn’t fondle. erosion of freedom of speech – they spent all that money on the Leveson, decided to ignore it, now they are making their own rules and we have no say as usual.

    http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/defamation.html

    Like

    • 110
      A Guido supporter says:

      As someone said the other day ‘have you ever tried pulling a pig out of a trough whilst feeding’?.These fuckers just want to feed constantly without interuption and without being seen and accountable.
      By the way anyone know what happened to Vicky Pryce? everything seems to have gone quiet. The last I heard on Thursday the jury were out but nothing since.

      Like

  53. 111

    Umm let me see a government that puts politicians in charge of the police, that margalises the vulnerable, that tries to control free speech and what is reported. Reminds me of a dark time in european history. Lessons have not been learnt.

    Serious question to all establishment bods here, why are you allowing history to repeat itself?

    Serious question to our elected MPs why are you doing it? We fought a war to prevent such darkness. Read up on 1930s history and the parallels are astounding. If you dont reign yourselves in where will be be in 5 years time, thinking about “solutions?” having “nights of glass?” Do you really want to be remembered as the government that enabled darkness to take hold of this nation of ours?

    It wouldn’t be so bad but in addition to all this dark art stuff your policies are failing left right and centre, I mean you even havent got to grips with how the profit motive can have adverse effects as shown adequately in Panorama.

    Clegg appologised for his errors and moved positively fowards, Cameron, come on man, I need you to inspire me and this nation. You started out so well and things have gone to pot. Stop following the route of Slytherin and switch on the proverbial lightbulb. (Without benefits would Harry Potter have ever been written, and all that corporate and income tax would not been paid – sorry had to sneak that one in).

    Our government is in a corner and does not seem to know how to deal with the failures of its policies while trying to look successful. Don’t make matters worse by denying free speech. Just because politicians have proven that they cant self regulate does not mean that you should shoot Guido. A better solution would be to raise the standards of MPs.

    Come on man, this nation matters. Stop faffing about and turn the corner before history remembers you poorly.

    Like


Media Reader

BBC Marr Pinko Trying to Ban the Queen | Speccie
Eric Hobsbawm: Companion of Dishonour | Standpoint
Russell Brand Comes Out as 9/11 Truther | Guardian
10 Years of Guido | Iain Dale
Tory MP Tells Leftie Jon Snow to Retire | Guardian
Guido Whips Politicians Into Shape | Guardian
Mrs Danczuk Beats Mensch to Win Guido | Telegaph
PM Congratulates Blogger Who Destroyed Minister | Mail
Revealed: Guido Fawkes Anniversary Dinner Guestlist | Peter Oborne
Give Journalists Public Interest Defence in Law | Guardian
Cameron Mustn’t Scupper TV Debates | Steve Hewlett


VOTER-RECALL
Find out more about PLMR


Rob Colvile reviews Russell Brand’s new book:

“Oddly, the person I feel sorriest for isn’t Brand himself – although he certainly comes across as a rather pitiable figure, projecting his own brokenness on to the world around him – but Johann Hari. Drummed out of Fleet Street for plagiarism, the former Independent columnist has washed up as “my mate Johann, who’s been doing research for this book”. For a genuinely talented polemicist, it would have been a humbling experience to have to treat this sub-undergraduate dross as the scintillating wisdom of a philosopher-king.”



Mycroft says:

Have you read the last bit of Animal Farm?

You know where the animals are looking through the Farmhouse window?

My TV screen was that window at lunch-time today.

Be careful, the sudden self-congratulatory tone, the slightly pudgy outline of indulgence and you become exactly what you should despise.

The jolly face of the Quisling Cameron poses for your camera has mesmerised and deceived you, you who were once not so deceived.

You were no firebrand, you were a damp squib in my opinion, sorry.

You need a damned good kick up the ahse!


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:






RSS




AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,542 other followers