As Catherine Tate’s ‘Nan’ might say: “What a fucking liberty”.
David Cameron was once a daily reader of my blog. Whether he reads it now, I have no idea. If he does, it might not be for much longer. Why? Because if what I read is even 50% correct, I may well be forced to close down this blog for fear of being sued by some vexatious nutter who knows he can do it on a whim because I would be forced to pay his or her costs. And to think, I only restarted it less than three months ago.
It seems to me that blogs may well come under the remit of this new form of regulation despite a Number 10 spokeswoman saying the exact opposite. Paul Waugh tweeted this earlier…
PM’s political spkswmn: @guidofawkes wd not be caught by new internet curbs cos doesn’t hv staff + is “more gossip related than newsrelated”
Except Guido does have staff – Harry Cole and Alex Wickham. I have an assistant, Grant Tucker. Does this Downing Street spokeswoman seriously believe that Guido Fawkes’s site, or mine, for that matter aren’t news related? Guido often breaks news stories. I used to on my old blog. But even in this new incarnation, much of what I write is commenting on the news. I don’t make money out of my blog, but it is all part of Brand Dale. Without it I wouldn’t do all the media stuff I do, so on that basis I could be said to make money out of it. Guido clearly does.
Well, let’s look at what the proposed Royal Charter actually says…
It says:
b) “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom:
i.) a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or
ii.) a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine);
b) “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom:
i.) a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or
ii.) a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine);
Well from that wording I think my blog would certainly fall under the remit. And it stinks. I did not vote Conservative at the last election for a Conservative Prime Minister to inhibit my freedom of speech, and that’s the effect of this. I know I will feel inhibited. I know I wouldn’t take any risks. I couldn’t afford to. Perhaps I should write something, print it out and then just read it on the radio.
Keith Flett put it all in an historical context on Twitter…
Similar to the Stamped/Unstamped press of 1830s; You’ll find out if your blog has too much news when a judge fines you.
Well I for one couldn’t risk that. I am not prepared to risk my or my family’s financial future in this way. Because if I don’t sign up and I am successfully sued, a Judge would award exemplary damages against me. As Archbishop Cranmer tweeted…
Basically, if you say something somebody doesn’t like, they’ll report you. And then you get to pay their costs even if they lose.
This is madness. All that will do is encourage people with a grudge to make a complaint in the full knowledge that they will never be held responsible for what they are doing. Clearly there is still time for this hastily written Royal Charter to be amended, but as it stands I certainly wouldn’t sign up to be regulated and would seriously have to either shut own the blog or make it so anodyne as to make it not worth reading. Or I could go and blog for the Telegraph or another MSM outlet. But why should I have to?
What a depressing thought. Hacked Off have a lot to answer for, for it is they who have driven this ridiculous agenda. A group of jumped up, rich celebrities who pretend to be fighting the cause of Milly Dowler, the McCanns and Christopher Jefferies, but in reality are only concerned with covering their own backs and doing their best to ensure that tabloid newspapers can never again put them on the front pages.
Word on the street is that the major newspaper groups are furious at not even having been consulted before the three party leaders came up with their grubby little deal. It may be that they all reject it and the government has to start again from scratch, but I am not at all sure that will be the outcome.
Very few of the voting public care about this issue. Very few would even consider changing their vote over it. I might well be the exception.
Am I bovvered?
