UPDATE: 30/09/2010: altered links because they've been changed. Thanks to Raincoat Optimism in the comments. Tweet
29 July 2010
The Best Football Celebration Ever?
I found this clip from the Iceland football league on the Guardian's You Tube feature today:I look forward to Rovers doing summat similar next season...
UPDATE: 30/09/2010: altered links because they've been changed. Thanks to Raincoat Optimism in the comments. Tweet
UPDATE: 30/09/2010: altered links because they've been changed. Thanks to Raincoat Optimism in the comments. Tweet
27 July 2010
Movie review: Inception
Like Shutter Island, Inception stars Leonardo DiCaprio as a man on a singular mission, obsessed with the absence of his wife and children and constantly haunted by their apparitions. Also like Shutter Island, it turns into a dizzying commentary on the fragile nature of reality. They're also both ambitious, portentous concept movies from respected directors - this one from Christopher Nolan, who made Memento and The Dark Knight.
But even more than it recalled Shutter Island, Inception brought to mind David Cronenberg's 1999 movie eXistenZ. (Coincidentally, it's not the only thing to do so recently.) It has similar multi-layered levels of reality and fantasy and similar young, strong, intellectual female characters who expertly design these reality-levels. In some ways the concept is better than that of eXistenZ: in Inception's dreamworld, dreams-within-dreams last longer than their host dreams and so several parallel "events" can synchronise - which they do, in a technically superb and exciting finale. In the to my mind important sense of plausibility, the concept of eXistenZ is superior and thus more satisfying. But the world of Inception is largely self-consistent, despite some minor gaps.
I deliberately haven't explained much of the concept here, because finding that out is an important part of the enjoyment of the film. But it's worth saying that although Inception has been slapped with warnings of complexity and of being hard to follow (notably by Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo), I wouldn't take these warnings too seriously. Yes, it doesn't spoonfeed us, but it does give us ample explanation of what's going on. I was slightly apprehensive about it myself, ensuring I was wide awake before seeing it. But that wasn't too necessary. For one thing, it's got enough explosions and gunfire to keep the doziest viewer awake. I wouldn't want people to miss out on seeing the best film of the summer just because they don't fancy having to make too much effort. Inception is thoughtful - but it's also rip-roaring, dizzying fun. Whether it would survive a second viewing with as much praise is hard to say, but everyone should give it a first. Tweet
But even more than it recalled Shutter Island, Inception brought to mind David Cronenberg's 1999 movie eXistenZ. (Coincidentally, it's not the only thing to do so recently.) It has similar multi-layered levels of reality and fantasy and similar young, strong, intellectual female characters who expertly design these reality-levels. In some ways the concept is better than that of eXistenZ: in Inception's dreamworld, dreams-within-dreams last longer than their host dreams and so several parallel "events" can synchronise - which they do, in a technically superb and exciting finale. In the to my mind important sense of plausibility, the concept of eXistenZ is superior and thus more satisfying. But the world of Inception is largely self-consistent, despite some minor gaps.
I deliberately haven't explained much of the concept here, because finding that out is an important part of the enjoyment of the film. But it's worth saying that although Inception has been slapped with warnings of complexity and of being hard to follow (notably by Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo), I wouldn't take these warnings too seriously. Yes, it doesn't spoonfeed us, but it does give us ample explanation of what's going on. I was slightly apprehensive about it myself, ensuring I was wide awake before seeing it. But that wasn't too necessary. For one thing, it's got enough explosions and gunfire to keep the doziest viewer awake. I wouldn't want people to miss out on seeing the best film of the summer just because they don't fancy having to make too much effort. Inception is thoughtful - but it's also rip-roaring, dizzying fun. Whether it would survive a second viewing with as much praise is hard to say, but everyone should give it a first. Tweet
Now with added Spotify goodness
I've finally got around to adding a link to my Spotify account, on the left hand column.
Click on it and explore my fantastic music taste. Tweet
Click on it and explore my fantastic music taste. Tweet
... on #TweetDelete
Over the past few days, Jack of Kent has been having a discussion over whether people on Twitter should have a "#TweetDelete" - a mass deleting of their Twitter feed.
He says that based on the recent debacles over Scientology (local councillor in Wales was taken to the standards board due to making a joke about that cult) and the Paul Chambers/Twitter Joke Trial (who was convicted for making a clearly jokey bomb-threat) it's good practice to regularly remove items from your Twitter feed, as long as it's not done to deceive.
In my view, that's the problem. It would be difficult to determine whether or not it was done in such a way. *
There's also the fact that, by Jack's argument, people should also delete blog posts and threads on messageboards, as soon as they're written. After all, what's to stop people issuing claims based on what's contained in those?
In any event, you shouldn't be encouraging people to delete evidence - it may come back to haunt you in the future - and in fact this was one of the issues in the Dave Osler and Alex Hilton cases: Ms Kaschke's post which they linked to disappeared for some unknown reason, which made it difficult to raise a defence.
Jack has said that he's happy defend anyone who is sued for anything written on their blog/Twitter, like he did with Osler and Hilton. While I fully support this sentiment - and am happy to help out in any way possible, should such claims be issued - I think that systematically deleting stuff in an attempt to head-off any potential issues is the wrong way to go about it.
In short: in my view deleting stuff can cause more problems that it solves, and it just looks dodgy!
* Note: I have deleted stuff in the past, but that's just been down to pressing enter too quickly, so the messages are garbled/littered with typos. Tweet
He says that based on the recent debacles over Scientology (local councillor in Wales was taken to the standards board due to making a joke about that cult) and the Paul Chambers/Twitter Joke Trial (who was convicted for making a clearly jokey bomb-threat) it's good practice to regularly remove items from your Twitter feed, as long as it's not done to deceive.
In my view, that's the problem. It would be difficult to determine whether or not it was done in such a way. *
There's also the fact that, by Jack's argument, people should also delete blog posts and threads on messageboards, as soon as they're written. After all, what's to stop people issuing claims based on what's contained in those?
In any event, you shouldn't be encouraging people to delete evidence - it may come back to haunt you in the future - and in fact this was one of the issues in the Dave Osler and Alex Hilton cases: Ms Kaschke's post which they linked to disappeared for some unknown reason, which made it difficult to raise a defence.
Jack has said that he's happy defend anyone who is sued for anything written on their blog/Twitter, like he did with Osler and Hilton. While I fully support this sentiment - and am happy to help out in any way possible, should such claims be issued - I think that systematically deleting stuff in an attempt to head-off any potential issues is the wrong way to go about it.
In short: in my view deleting stuff can cause more problems that it solves, and it just looks dodgy!
* Note: I have deleted stuff in the past, but that's just been down to pressing enter too quickly, so the messages are garbled/littered with typos. Tweet
Labels:
blogosphere,
freedom of expression
Kaschke v Gray & Hilton
I've previously mentioned a libel case which Johanna Kasche issued over claims of her links to '70s German terrorists against two Labour bloggers: Gray and Hilton, in a similar to her case against Dave Osler.
The judgment was originally due to be issued two weeks agao, but was delayed.
It was eventually handed down last Friday, with the case being struck out again on the grounds of an abuse of process, again because there was no real damage to her, like Kaschke's claim against Osler. Tweet
The judgment was originally due to be issued two weeks agao, but was delayed.
It was eventually handed down last Friday, with the case being struck out again on the grounds of an abuse of process, again because there was no real damage to her, like Kaschke's claim against Osler. Tweet
Labels:
freedom of expression,
good news,
laura norder
15 July 2010
Latest libel ruling: Flood vs Times
Just after I pressed "Publish Post" on my Kaschke vs Osler post, I realised that I hadn't covered another libel ruling from this week.
On Tuesday, there was an appeal in the case of Gary Flood vs Times Newspapers Ltd.
Flood is a Detective Sergeant in the Metropolitan Police. He sued for libel over allegations of "taking bribes".
The Times won the first case in the High Court on the basis of a Reynolds defence which gives qualified privilege to articles in the public interest. However, this only covered the period up to 5th September 2007 because Flood had subsequently been exonerated of the charge, and because the Times's archives kept mention of it, it was found to be libellous and not covered by Reynolds after this date.
Flood appealed the decision regarding the Reynolds defence and the Times cross-appealed, i.e. appealed against another part the ruling - the post 5th November '07 position.
Flood won; the Times Lost.
It remains to be seen whether the Times will appeal to the Supreme Court, but the Guardian's report says they plan for permission. Tweet
On Tuesday, there was an appeal in the case of Gary Flood vs Times Newspapers Ltd.
Flood is a Detective Sergeant in the Metropolitan Police. He sued for libel over allegations of "taking bribes".
The Times won the first case in the High Court on the basis of a Reynolds defence which gives qualified privilege to articles in the public interest. However, this only covered the period up to 5th September 2007 because Flood had subsequently been exonerated of the charge, and because the Times's archives kept mention of it, it was found to be libellous and not covered by Reynolds after this date.
Flood appealed the decision regarding the Reynolds defence and the Times cross-appealed, i.e. appealed against another part the ruling - the post 5th November '07 position.
Flood won; the Times Lost.
It remains to be seen whether the Times will appeal to the Supreme Court, but the Guardian's report says they plan for permission. Tweet
Labels:
freedom of expression,
laura norder,
media
Latest libel ruling: Kaschke vs Osler
Back in May, I mentioned the case of Joanna Kaschke vs Dave Osler.
Briefly, Osler was sued by Kaschke for a post on his blog in which he mentioned that in the 1970s she had been arrested on suspicion of being part of a German terrorist organisation.
After two years (!) the case was kicked out of court on the grounds of an abuse of process.
Kaschke said she'd make a written appeal, which she did.
On Monday the Court of Appeal rejected her appeal, stating Judge Eady was "plainly right for the reasons he gave", i.e. Eady's ruling was the obvious decision on the facts.
Kasche says that she'll - how should I put it? - go down the "Simon Singh route" by requesting an oral hearing.
We'll see what happens next.
The related case of Kaschke vs Gray and Hilton has a ruling tomorrow an whether it will also be thrown out of court. Of course I'll let you know the result.
UPDATE (17/07): Kaschke vs Gray & Hilton has been referred to another judge. Tweet
Briefly, Osler was sued by Kaschke for a post on his blog in which he mentioned that in the 1970s she had been arrested on suspicion of being part of a German terrorist organisation.
After two years (!) the case was kicked out of court on the grounds of an abuse of process.
Kaschke said she'd make a written appeal, which she did.
On Monday the Court of Appeal rejected her appeal, stating Judge Eady was "plainly right for the reasons he gave", i.e. Eady's ruling was the obvious decision on the facts.
Kasche says that she'll - how should I put it? - go down the "Simon Singh route" by requesting an oral hearing.
We'll see what happens next.
The related case of Kaschke vs Gray and Hilton has a ruling tomorrow an whether it will also be thrown out of court. Of course I'll let you know the result.
UPDATE (17/07): Kaschke vs Gray & Hilton has been referred to another judge. Tweet
Labels:
freedom of expression,
good news,
laura norder
Movie review: The Collector
D-Notice has been posting lots of heavy political stuff over the last couple of days so I thought I'd repost this from my Chaos, Hostility and Murder film review blog for a bit of light relief.
John Fowles' first novel, The Collector, describes with insight and tension the relationship between a bizarre, socially awkward man and the young student he kidnaps and keeps locked up in his basement. It's a page-turner with a unique voice, similar in that sense to The Wasp Factory and The Catcher in the Rye. As when White Noise came out a few years ago, my initial delight at seeing one of my favourite novels adapted for cinema was displaced by disappointment when I discovered they shared only a title. But I heard The Collector was the latest so-called 'torture porn' horror from Marcus Dunsstan who made Saw and so, as I am quite fond both of the sub-genre and the franchise, I gave it a go regardless.
The premise: Arkin, a softly-spoken former jailbird, is renovating a rich family's home. They like him, and reward him with cash and praise. Unfortunately, not enough cash - he owes his ex-wife money she needs before midnight in order to pay loan sharks: or else...
He decides the only way to obtain this money at such short notice is to break into his employers' home and steal from their safe. There's gratitude for you. But he has a stroke of bad luck - wouldn't you just know it, the local hooded psychopath has done a Home Alone and turned the place into a massive booby-trapped deathpit.
And that's about it. Arkin tries to rescue the family from the collector - for it is he - with fairly predictable results. There's plenty of gore (much of it not too easy to make out because of the darkness of the setting), several deaths, no plot beyond that described above, and very little character development. In fact, about the collector himself - whose motivations and background are surely the most intriguing - we learn nothing. Oh, apart from the fact that if he likes you, he might 'collect' you (a fate little better than what awaits if he doesn't like you). For all we know, this is Macauley Culkin's Kevin McAllister grown up, traumatised by the horrific injuries he was led to inflict in his formative years and reliving those events in an increasingly violent destructive spiral. (I'd be happy to come on board, if anyone at Lionsgate is reading this and wants my help writing Home Alone 5.)
As Mark Kermode pointed out on his 5Live show, in a section that might have made me think twice before seeing the film if I'd heard it in time, it might as well be called "the Trainspotter - because if you look like a train, he lets you live".
I concede that the film isn't entirely without merit. The high-tension chases around the house were fairly well done, especially considering the dark set (something I normally despise). And the gory stuff was quite well-shot without being hugely inventive. But why not wrap this up in a bit of plot and character stuff, I wonder? It seemed to be aimed squarely at the audience with whom I found myself sharing the cinema when I saw it: teenage boys determined to show their mates how insensitive to nasty violence they are by laughing through the goriest scenes.
So, congratulations, Dunstan and Co, for letting torture porn sink to its ground state: providing cheap, unexciting thrills for idiots. I hope you're proud of yourselves. Tweet
John Fowles' first novel, The Collector, describes with insight and tension the relationship between a bizarre, socially awkward man and the young student he kidnaps and keeps locked up in his basement. It's a page-turner with a unique voice, similar in that sense to The Wasp Factory and The Catcher in the Rye. As when White Noise came out a few years ago, my initial delight at seeing one of my favourite novels adapted for cinema was displaced by disappointment when I discovered they shared only a title. But I heard The Collector was the latest so-called 'torture porn' horror from Marcus Dunsstan who made Saw and so, as I am quite fond both of the sub-genre and the franchise, I gave it a go regardless.
The premise: Arkin, a softly-spoken former jailbird, is renovating a rich family's home. They like him, and reward him with cash and praise. Unfortunately, not enough cash - he owes his ex-wife money she needs before midnight in order to pay loan sharks: or else...
He decides the only way to obtain this money at such short notice is to break into his employers' home and steal from their safe. There's gratitude for you. But he has a stroke of bad luck - wouldn't you just know it, the local hooded psychopath has done a Home Alone and turned the place into a massive booby-trapped deathpit.
And that's about it. Arkin tries to rescue the family from the collector - for it is he - with fairly predictable results. There's plenty of gore (much of it not too easy to make out because of the darkness of the setting), several deaths, no plot beyond that described above, and very little character development. In fact, about the collector himself - whose motivations and background are surely the most intriguing - we learn nothing. Oh, apart from the fact that if he likes you, he might 'collect' you (a fate little better than what awaits if he doesn't like you). For all we know, this is Macauley Culkin's Kevin McAllister grown up, traumatised by the horrific injuries he was led to inflict in his formative years and reliving those events in an increasingly violent destructive spiral. (I'd be happy to come on board, if anyone at Lionsgate is reading this and wants my help writing Home Alone 5.)
As Mark Kermode pointed out on his 5Live show, in a section that might have made me think twice before seeing the film if I'd heard it in time, it might as well be called "the Trainspotter - because if you look like a train, he lets you live".
I concede that the film isn't entirely without merit. The high-tension chases around the house were fairly well done, especially considering the dark set (something I normally despise). And the gory stuff was quite well-shot without being hugely inventive. But why not wrap this up in a bit of plot and character stuff, I wonder? It seemed to be aimed squarely at the audience with whom I found myself sharing the cinema when I saw it: teenage boys determined to show their mates how insensitive to nasty violence they are by laughing through the goriest scenes.
So, congratulations, Dunstan and Co, for letting torture porn sink to its ground state: providing cheap, unexciting thrills for idiots. I hope you're proud of yourselves. Tweet
Labels:
film review,
movie review,
the collector,
torture porn
14 July 2010
UK GOVT HELPED TORTURE PEOPLE
From the Guardian (via 10% and @MikeTMM):
I don't know what I can say, other than when will Bliar, Straw et al be shipped off to the Hague? Tweet
The true extent of the Labour government's involvement in the illegal abduction and torture of its own citizens after the al-Qaida attacks of September 2001 has been spelled out in stark detail with the disclosure during high court proceedings of a mass of highly classified documents.The Guardian has scans of the documents in question.
Previously secret papers that have been disclosed include a number implicating Tony Blair's office in many of the events that are to be the subject of the judicial inquiry that David Cameron announced last week.
Among the most damning documents are a series of interrogation reports from MI5 officers that betray their disregard for the suffering a British resident whom they were questioning at a US airbase in Afghanistan. The documents also show that the officers were content to see the mistreatment continue.
Other disclosed documents show how:
• The Foreign Office decided in January 2002 that the transfer of British citizens from Afghanistan to Guantánamo was its "preferred option".
• Jack Straw asked for that rendition to be delayed until MI5 had been able to interrogate those citizens.
• Downing Street was said to have overruled FO attempts to provide a British citizen detained in Zambia with consular support in an attempt to prevent his return to the UK, with the result that he too was "rendered" to Guantánamo.
I don't know what I can say, other than when will Bliar, Straw et al be shipped off to the Hague? Tweet
Labels:
for your own good,
laura norder,
stupid government,
torture,
TWAT
Let them Eat Ca(r)ke
In what appears to be a bizarre attempt to remove any remaining doubts as to the so-called "TaxPayers' Alliance"'s true leanings, comes an article on their site about the evils of subsiding buses.
It isn't the most coherent article I've ever read - hell, even the stuff on here makes more sense - but after asking for a translation on twitter, TonyCross, my co-writer Xorandorx and the Other TaxPayers' Alliance and myself have managed to summarise it as "Car: good; Owt else: bad".
To be honest, there isn't much that I can be add to the comments on the "TPA"'s post:
Anyway, what stands out for me is that is calls the Campaign for Better Transport (ex-Transport 2000) "radical anti-car campaigners".
Assuming that this moronic hyperbole isn't just there to get a reaction - and, frankly, that isn't much of an assumption - I don't see how anyone can legitimately claim that a group whose aims include cheaper train fares (bastards!), reducing congestion by - get this - encouraging people to use buses (hanging's too good for them!); extensions of tram networks (enough already!) and, worst of all, encouraging the use of teleconferencing facilities!
Of course, I may be mistaken. It's entirely possible that CfBT's website is simply full of lies and propaganda and their members actually want to ban all private transport, upon pain of death, and to crush all cars into little cubes with the driver inside! ZOMG! WE HAVE TO STOP THEM BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!
PS. In case you're wondering, yes, the title does come from Marie Antoinette infamous phrase and by Xorandorx's comment. Tweet
It isn't the most coherent article I've ever read - hell, even the stuff on here makes more sense - but after asking for a translation on twitter, TonyCross, my co-writer Xorandorx and the Other TaxPayers' Alliance and myself have managed to summarise it as "Car: good; Owt else: bad".
To be honest, there isn't much that I can be add to the comments on the "TPA"'s post:
Anyway, what stands out for me is that is calls the Campaign for Better Transport (ex-Transport 2000) "radical anti-car campaigners".
Assuming that this moronic hyperbole isn't just there to get a reaction - and, frankly, that isn't much of an assumption - I don't see how anyone can legitimately claim that a group whose aims include cheaper train fares (bastards!), reducing congestion by - get this - encouraging people to use buses (hanging's too good for them!); extensions of tram networks (enough already!) and, worst of all, encouraging the use of teleconferencing facilities!
Of course, I may be mistaken. It's entirely possible that CfBT's website is simply full of lies and propaganda and their members actually want to ban all private transport, upon pain of death, and to crush all cars into little cubes with the driver inside! ZOMG! WE HAVE TO STOP THEM BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!
PS. In case you're wondering, yes, the title does come from Marie Antoinette infamous phrase and by Xorandorx's comment. Tweet
Labels:
blogosphere,
public stupidity,
public transport
13 July 2010
"World War II" - History Channel (2 stars)
I mentioned this on my Twitter feed last night, but feels it deserves more attention.
Someone has done a review of WW2 in the style of a film review.
It's funny and it makes you think about various aspects of WW2.
The only downside is that it misses out the Battle of Midway. Tweet
Someone has done a review of WW2 in the style of a film review.
It's funny and it makes you think about various aspects of WW2.
The only downside is that it misses out the Battle of Midway. Tweet
Labels:
humour
12 July 2010
ECJ to Govt: No, innocent people shouldn't be harmed by anti-terror laws
According to the Guardian's law blog, there an interesting ruling was issued by the European Court of Justice (ECJ, the top court in the EU)* in the case of R (M & Others) v HM Treasury back in April.
The case is about social security payments to family members of people who are alleged to high up in al Qaeda. It was referred to the ECJ by the then-House of Lords over a possible conflict between the UK's implementation of a UN Resolution, and a related UN Resolution which was implemented by an EU Regulation.
The government claimed that such payments indirectly support terrorism and so contradicted the Regulations. The House of Lords, in its referral, thought that they did not because they had to be used for specific items, and the ECJ agreed with the majority of what the HoL said.
One other thing to point out is that because it was an ECJ ruling, it becomes part of English law automatically. It's not like rulings from the ECtHR which the government can take time to decide whether or not to implement.
* The ECJ shouldn't be confused with the European Court of Human Rights, which is nothing to do with the EU or ECJ whatsoever Tweet
The case is about social security payments to family members of people who are alleged to high up in al Qaeda. It was referred to the ECJ by the then-House of Lords over a possible conflict between the UK's implementation of a UN Resolution, and a related UN Resolution which was implemented by an EU Regulation.
The government claimed that such payments indirectly support terrorism and so contradicted the Regulations. The House of Lords, in its referral, thought that they did not because they had to be used for specific items, and the ECJ agreed with the majority of what the HoL said.
One other thing to point out is that because it was an ECJ ruling, it becomes part of English law automatically. It's not like rulings from the ECtHR which the government can take time to decide whether or not to implement.
* The ECJ shouldn't be confused with the European Court of Human Rights, which is nothing to do with the EU or ECJ whatsoever Tweet
Labels:
EU,
for your own good,
laura norder,
stupid government,
TWAT
8 July 2010
Stop and search err... stopped, III
I've previously covered the on-going saga with s. 44 Terrorism Act 2000, AKA stop & search.
Back in January the then-government lost a case in the European Court of Human Rights. They appealed and last week the appeal was also lost.
In a surprising and heartening turn of events, the new government has not only accepted the decision, but has decided to scrap it forthwith.
I agree with the actions of the Tories (see also ID cards) Tweet
Back in January the then-government lost a case in the European Court of Human Rights. They appealed and last week the appeal was also lost.
In a surprising and heartening turn of events, the new government has not only accepted the decision, but has decided to scrap it forthwith.
I agree with the actions of the Tories (see also ID cards) Tweet
Labels:
good news,
intelligent government,
laura norder,
TWAT
#Cloaca
We should stop using the word "cunt" and instead start using the more biologically correct term "Cloaca" according to Tim Ireland, especially when it comes to writing about Richard Littledickjohn.
I would do, but that'd involve actually using "cunt" in the first place.
Anyway, I agree with what Sim-O says.
UPDATE: [Previous picture deleted.]
Hopefully this will work instead...
Tweet
I would do, but that'd involve actually using "cunt" in the first place.
Anyway, I agree with what Sim-O says.
UPDATE: [Previous picture deleted.]
Hopefully this will work instead...
Labels:
admin,
blogosphere,
media
Too many Twits make a Twat...
... as somebody once said...
Wah-hoo!
I'm famous!
Well, if you can call appearing on the Twitter front page famous, as I managed to do it twice yesterday.
In the morning, I put the following message on Twitter:
this was then taken up and adapted by John Band and it went "viral" to use a phrase.
In the afternoon, I wrote the following about our ex-Great Leader appearing on Twitter:
... which had a similar result...
Thanks to all who RT'd me and followed me as a result.
What I need to do now is to start off a hashtag which takes over and lives on, á la #nickcleggsfault, which Chicken Yoghurt started. Tweet
Wah-hoo!
I'm famous!
Well, if you can call appearing on the Twitter front page famous, as I managed to do it twice yesterday.
In the morning, I put the following message on Twitter:
Kiddies giving away lemonade is teh Evul!!!! http://www.suntimes.com/business/savage/2464546,CST-NWS-savage05.savagearticle
Gareth Winchester
dnotice
this was then taken up and adapted by John Band and it went "viral" to use a phrase.
In the afternoon, I wrote the following about our ex-Great Leader appearing on Twitter:
Twitter is open to all. Even lying, war-mongering, power-crazed, freedom-hating bastards. Oh hello @tonyblairoffice, didn't see you there...Gareth Winchester
dnotice
... which had a similar result...
What I need to do now is to start off a hashtag which takes over and lives on, á la #nickcleggsfault, which Chicken Yoghurt started. Tweet
Labels:
admin,
blogosphere
2 July 2010
Stop and search err... stopped, II
Back in January the European Court of Human Rights ruled that s. 44 Terrorism 2000 - the stop and search laws - were illegal.
The government stamped its feet and appealed the ruling.
It lost.
Hopefully it'll finally be got rid of in the forthcoming Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill, which, coincidentally, the government has launched a public consultation into.
Thankfully the repeal of s. 44 does have a lot of support.
By the way, I've also made a contribution to the Bill... Tweet
The government stamped its feet and appealed the ruling.
It lost.
Hopefully it'll finally be got rid of in the forthcoming Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill, which, coincidentally, the government has launched a public consultation into.
Thankfully the repeal of s. 44 does have a lot of support.
By the way, I've also made a contribution to the Bill... Tweet
on #libelreform, II
Back in December I had an article published in the London Progressive Journal regarding the on-going saga whit the libel laws in England & Wales.
I've done a follow-up.
Read it! Tweet
I've done a follow-up.
Read it! Tweet
Labels:
freedom of expression,
laura norder,
media
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)