As Ms Raccoon observes. The news media is suffering because of little old us – we don’t buy their propaganda rags because of blogs and twitter. It’s the cursed interwebs wot dun it!
Every year, every month, they are losing ground to blogs and Twitter and Google News; every year the internet eats more destructively into the business case for old-fashioned journalism. That is at least one of the reasons why some journalists have been driven to behave so disgracefully, squawking ever louder, no matter how erroneously, in the hope of being noticed.
Cry me a fucking river. Look, Boris, I haven’t bought a newspaper since 1979, because even back then I realised that newspaper journalists were a bunch of fucking lying charlatans and decided that they were not going to get a groat out of me. Now, explain, please, how the Internet was responsible for that.
Arseholes, the lot of them. Their redemption is only that they are not as bad as politicians, but it’s a close call.
Mrs May said: “The people who say they’re against this bill need to look victims of serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences in the eye and tell them why they’re not prepared to give the police the powers they need to protect the public.”
“Anybody who is against this bill is putting politics before people’s lives.”
I’ve read some arse-dribble in my time, but that one takes the biscuit. No, Mrs May, despite my opposition to government regulation of the media and snooping on our electronic footprints, I do not have blood on my hands and it will not lead to an increase in crime. The very suggestion is absurd and hysterical beyond belief and any credibility you may have – and it wasn’t much – has just evaporated. It is at this point we are reminded what scurrilous scumbags politicians really are. They make newspaper journalists look paragons of virtue and given the reason for the Leveson Inquiry that really takes some doing.
“There will be paedophiles who will not be identified and it will reduce our ability to deal with this serious organised crime.”
And when faced with the paucity of your case, wheel out paedogeddon. Y’know, there’s a whole new Godwin in there…
Mrs May said: “Criminals, terrorists and paedophiles will want MPs to vote against this bill. Victims of crime, police and the public will want them to vote for it. It’s a question of whose side you’re on.”
The side of liberty, which is easily identified as being the side you are not on.
“There will be paedophiles who will not be identified”
Bullshit. They can do all of that and more right now.
Under current legislation an ISP can be forced to prevent all of us from even looking at a website that might enable us to download a frickin’ song… if we were so tempted by looking at that website. The hosts of such websites have been very publicly arrested and some have even been prosecuted.
I used to wonder why the same legislation wasn’t used more widely but guessed that since the distribution of photographs and videos of little kids being raped wasn’t losing the likes of Chesney Hawkes a single penny in royalties then there was no hurry.
Now I know what they were biding their time for. 😐
So essentially this entire hysteria is your fault LR.
It would seem that way.
Not content with scrutinising all the spending of the self employed via credit agencies in order to tax them more, the statists want to see everything you say and do online. Not that they don’t already. Prurient little prodnoses. I’ve seen dogshit with more class. 😈
Theresa May is a first class throbber.
A walking edition of the Daily Mail with knee jerk, over-simplified answers to everything, she’s a witless rigid idealogue
She was on the telly a while ago with some shtick about this and removing the right to anonimity for people accused (just accused mind) of sex crimes. Once a person has been found guilty then have at them, until then they have as much right to protection as anyone else.
Although I understand such leftist pedo-apoligist thinking is beyond her.
XX Mrs May said: “The people who say they’re against this bill need to look victims of serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences in the eye and tell them why they’re not prepared to give the police the powers they need to protect the public.” XX
I HAVE. I am NOT. Has SHE!?