Awol

See you in February for operation re-run. Lurching from crisis to crisis doesn't really seem like the best way to operate the world's largest economy.

Literally, I hope, with a Bowie knife. Well done, post of the year.

That's good. When the zombie war comes you'll need both - plus a little bit of sword action.

I thought you were probably a good bloke, but you appear to have a caravan...

test

Just on that point, my view is that it will not be a brazen exercise of power, the establishment is far too subtle to do things so overtly, but that someone owing their position to political patronage cannot fail to be influenced by it - particularly when it's those same patrons who are reviewing the "independent" body's performance... I start from the basic premise that no one in Westminster is to be trusted and that any grab to further centralise power towards that particular place is a bad thing. When (and I understand we just have a different view here) that institution acquires the power to shape the very fabric not just of political dialogue but the means by which it is debated at large, we have a very serious problem. Politicians by their very nature are control freaks pursuing power, it's why they are there in the first place. Given the chance to abuse it, now or in the future, they won't be able to help themselves. Anyway, points made by all in a good natured way. Not bad this civility lark...

Blandy: TV and radio are regulated and most serious people get real current affairs analysis from neither - because it's infotainment with the cutting edge of angel delight. Drat: The fact someone else agrees with you doesn't invalidate other contrary opinion. That's how opinions opinions work...

It's very simple, currently the press is not regulated by politicians. If the Royal Charter is implemented it will be. I take the view that once in place it is naive in the extreme not to expect creeping control being exerted over the press through insidious political pressure and further to that, once the principle of state regulation is accepted it can be amended at a later date - death by a thousand cuts. I think it's a red line that shouldn't be crossed and has nothing to do with regulatory bodies in any other industry. I can't make it any clearer than that.

as with nearly everything there is an ultimate responsibility to the gvmt. The proposals were a very fair and independent set of reccomendations. Interestingly the biggest objectors are the press themselves and those who they typically support, not the majority of joe public To be honest if Joe Public lacks the imagination as to why, for the first time ever, Government wishes to insert itself at the top of the tree governing the media then they deserve what they get. interesting view. What you are basically saying is that there should be no regulatory bodies anywhere? Because surely all have ultimate responsibility to gvmt? Er, no, I haven't said anything remotely like that!

as with nearly everything there is an ultimate responsibility to the gvmt. The proposals were a very fair and independent set of reccomendations. Interestingly the biggest objectors are the press themselves and those who they typically support, not the majority of joe public To be honest if Joe Public lacks the imagination as to why, for the first time ever, Government wishes to insert itself at the top of the tree governing the media then they deserve what they get.

Yep, sounds lovely, but who do you think is making the appointments to the all singing and dancing "independent" body? Who will be assessing whether it's "doing it's job properly"? If there is one thing the UK establishment remains peerless at it's an old fashioned stitch up. This is the thin end of the wedge, imo.

So instead of the press governing themselves, you have politicians governing the only industry actually capable of holding them to account by exposing their deceit, corruption and hypocrisy. No thanks.

Is that necessary? Hasn't the very public kicking the Mail has received for printing the article demonstrated that government regulation of the press isn't required? What about the Guardian printing all of the Snowden leaks (described by a former GCHQ head as the worst ever loss to British Intelligence) would you have the Government muzzle them too? It is after all a far more serious issue than some journo doing a hatchet job on Ed's poor old dad. For the record I don't think they should prosecute the Guardian (although I hope Snowden meets a sticky end ASAP), press freedom is vital to a democracy. Aiming to curb that is very dangerous and extremely short sighted. I disagree with your views on the press, and fail to see how you using the Grud's actions in some way justifies the actions (and lack of action by the Tory Gvmt) of the Mail and similar styles. You've missed the point though It's not about trying to justify what the Mail published it is the broader issue. Your comment above implied that the Government needed to take action to restrict what the media can and cannot write, or at least to impose sanctions after the fact if some subjective "line" had been crossed (I think decency was the word you used earlier in the thread). Fair enough that's your opinion, my question was whether you would apply the same attitude to a publication you favour such as the Guardian, giving the example of their ongoing crusade against British national security? I understand that you want the Government to take "action" over the Mail article, I'm asking whether you think they should also take action against the Guardian and if not, why not?

Is that necessary? Hasn't the very public kicking the Mail has received for printing the article demonstrated that government regulation of the press isn't required? What about the Guardian printing all of the Snowden leaks (described by a former GCHQ head as the worst ever loss to British Intelligence) would you have the Government muzzle them too? It is after all a far more serious issue than some journo doing a hatchet job on Ed's poor old dad. For the record I don't think they should prosecute the Guardian (although I hope Snowden meets a sticky end ASAP), press freedom is vital to a democracy. Aiming to curb that is very dangerous and extremely short sighted.

The thread is about Pippa Middleton. D'ya know what?

I used to be a beater for a syndicate shoot based out of my Dad's pub as a kid. Local farm workers, car salesman, solicitors, paper shop owner etc. the usual cross section you'd expect in a village pub 25 years ago. Toffs they were not. Where it happens then killing birds of prey is obviously well out of order, but I find it quite funny the amount of townies who seem to think country sports are the preserve of posh people.

The worst thing about politics, is the politics.

Does a Fox hide in the bushes in St James' Park? Those cowardly Tories would put their silly little outfits on and ride about on horses while they have some dogs chase it if it was. Cowardly? Have you seen the size of a fox's teeth? It's no badger, but still.

Beyond that. The piece of paper the claim form was printed on would have been more expensive. EDIT: Fox is a turd anyway. I was part of a panel that got to question him about Defence before the last election and he swore blind that the SDSR would be driven by a newly defined foreign policy, which would define capability requirements which would define funding. Inevitably the SDSR was a cost saving exercise and cheap way of cutting spending without losing too many votes. I was gutted when he got caught trying to open doors for his special friend on the taxpayers account....

The post was addressed to Blandy, as was the suggestion that a dispassionate reading of the thread might support my argument. I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be responded to, the whole point is to provoke debate, I just thought it obvious who it was directed at specifically. Yes everyone has an opinion so people cannot be truly unbiased (EVEN the moderators ), but Blandy is probably one of the most impartial - or at least open minded - posters on the bollitics stuff*. Anyway, I wasn't suggesting anyone be sad enough to actually do it, more to highlight that there is probably some evidence of a pattern in this thread to support my point, if they could be arsed to look. My original comment wasn't even about this forum. *For a raving yoghurt knitter.

Why single out this thread? Er, it was just an example? See above No, that'll be you putting words in my mouth. Cheers for that. You'll note the post was addressed to Blandy...

Without in any way dissing AWOL, or yourself, if you take the party political part out of it, then yes. If you leave that in, then either it isn't, or you don't read much. That's genuinely not meant as a dig at either of you, just that the point is absolutely not (for me) a left/right one, but just a societal one. Oh dear, that one's going to break the "like" button!

I take your point to an extent, Pete. The difference is, should someone be retarded enough to wear such a t-shirt outside a mosque, they'd rightly be nicked. How many "right wingers" do you see outside a left wing conference sporting "kill Labour scum" gear or screaming at the Greens? I think on balance there is simply more hatred and bile in the left wing than the right, even a dispassionate reading of this thread might give that impression. As for the hypocrite Toynbee, she's been up in arms about poor old Ralph M and the slating he's received from the goose steppers, rewind to this: in the Guardian from August and she is mocking Cameron's emotion about his own dead dad's disability. It's the rank hypocrisy of the left that make their constant claim to the moral high ground so vomit inducing.

. You lefties make me laugh . what is satire In CED's case, certainly. The broader point stands though. Many lefties (and this is aimed at commentators like Polly Toynbee not posters on here) spew streams of spiteful and infantilised logic at their ideological opponents and the less cerebral of their acolytes tend to make this approach their own. Question gay marriage? You're homophobic. Question EU membership? You're a racist - ad infinitum. They represent the willing suspension of critical analysis, exchanged for the warm comfortable blanket of absolute certainty that your view is the only one with merit. They are the people who stand outside the Conservative Party conference with "kill Tory scum" plastered on their T-shirts. They are the people who scream "Fascist" at perfectly decent people going into a public meeting to listen to UKIP. They are anti-democratic, they are viscous, they are simpletons and they deserve nothing but contempt.

. You lefties make me laugh . Modern liberalism is like a religion, disagree with their views and fervorous bile will pour down upon you from the heavens - without the slightest hint of irony.