Longrider

Via the Exile, I see that the issue of blog control has, yet again, reared its ugly head.

Internet users will be protected from abusive bloggers and malicious Facebook postings under proposals to set up an independent internet watchdog, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

The body, made up of industry representatives, would be responsible for drawing up guidelines that social networking sites, the blogosphere, website owners and search engines would be expected to follow.

This, presumably, will be the model that has worked so well with newspapers, will it? The reasoning given is thus:

A source who has seen the report said that the committee wanted to give the public “a form of redress” “At the moment consumers don’t know where to go if they want to complaint about something they have seen on the internet,” the source said. “The absence of any industry body is leading to a great deal of confusion and to widely differing practices.”

Oh, give me a fucking break, please! You’d have to be a politician to be so fucking stupid as to not know how to complain about a site. For example, if you read something on this site that you object to, you click on the “comments” link and make yourself known to me – there you are, an instant right of reply. There is also a contact form, should you wish to communicate privately. If I have said something that is materially inaccurate, then I will retract it and apologise. If, however, you are merely offended because I have said something that you do not like, you can whistle. I believe in free speech and that is more important than hurt feelings. There is no right not to be offended by the things people say.

People can become animated when discussing politics or religion and will doubtless make intemperate remarks from time to time. If people are so thin skinned that they want this censored, then tough. Either grow a thicker skin or don’t read it.

I am not, under any circumstances whatsoever, succumbing to any such nonsense.

Under the proposals, the new internet watchdog would operate in a similar way to other industry bodies such as the Press Complaints Commission, which enforces a code of practice for the UK newspaper and magazine industry, covering accuracy, discrimination and intrusion.

The watchdog would not have any statutory powers to impose fines but would investigate complaints and most likely publish its decisions in instances when its guidelines have been breached.

If this body has no statutory powers, how, exactly, can it enforce its rulings. If someone complained about my blog – because, for example, I said something rude about a politician (as if). Then what?

It is understood that it would also be able to order bloggers and social networking sites such as Bebo and MySpace to take down offensive messages or photographs.

Oh, I see… They will order me to take it down. I don’t do orders. No one gives me orders and I don’t obey them. My response to such an order will be an impolite instruction about where, exactly, they can stick their order. Then what? They could try the host, but as it’s in the USA, they will be reluctant to contravene the first amendment.

The idea is that a self-regulatory body like the Advertising Standards Authority would be set up to make sure that members, including, internet companies and search engines, subscribe to the code and abide by rulings.

Nothing, then. Not least, given that I have no intention whatsoever of joining up with any such body. I decide what goes here, not the government and not some quango. If I am guilty of libel, then the law already provides redress. In the case of blogs, it is usual that an apology and retraction is a simple matter as one deals directly with the author. Try getting it sorted as efficiently with a newspaper and see where it gets you. If I libel you, I will deal with it immediately and it will cost you nothing in legal fees and any damage done will be limited by the speed of response and unequivocal retraction. If I merely offend you – get over yourself.

The proposals follow a rash of complaints about malicious and inaccurate postings on Facebook and other social networking sites.

A British businessman was last week awarded £22,000 libel damages from a school friend who made false accusations against him on a fake Facebook profile.

Mathew Firscht launched the High Court action after inaccurate claims about his sexuality and political viewers were posted on the site.

All of which rather suggests that people do have the ability to work out how to obtain redress.

Late last year, I discovered that one of my images had been hotlinked by one of the scrotes who contributed to the B3ta message boards. That image was subsequently vandalised by another contributor without my permission. I contacted the site owners and they dealt with the matter – very efficiently in my opinion. It really isn’t that difficult. At least, it isn’t if you are a normal, rational person with a grain of common sense. If you are a politician, you need an unwieldy quango to sort it out for you.

Just in case I have not made it abundantly clear – I will not be subjected to any censorship by an “industry body”. I decide what is published here and my word is final. That word is, to the twats in New Labour who want to censor me; fuck off!

Oh, sod it, that was two words.

———————————————————

Update: Tim Ireland doesn’t get it.

Iain Dale’s idea of self regulation

“I’d be interested in your views on this. In my view, self regulation works perfectly well. I someone makes a complaint to me about an abusive comment - or something I have writen which they believe is incorrect or offensive - I look it up and then decide whether to remove it, amend it or leave it as it is. If people don’t agree with my decision they don’t come back to my blog. It’s a simple, free market, and it works.” - Iain Dale

There you have it… straight from the horse’s arse.

If Iain Dale publishes something on his ‘blog’ that you don’t like (up to and including anonymous comments from people who wish to undermine your reputation without risking their own) and you complain about it, one of two things will happen:

1. Iain will kindly* and graciously** remove or alter the content that you believe “is incorrect or offensive”

2. Iain will refuse to change it, and you will be free to walk away and leave him to it, thereby fixing the problem.

Wait… what?

How does that fix the problem for anyone but Iain?

(*Isn’t that big of him?)
(**Yeah, right.)

Sigh… if Iain publishes something that is materially incorrect – i.e. it is libellous or defamatory, the law already covers it. It isn’t gracious of him to remove it, it is a legal obligation.

On the other hand, if you complain about something that is offensive, then yes, it is entirely up to him to choose what action (if any) to take. I repeat – no one has the right not to be offended. If someone comments and uses insulting language or common abuse and you feel that this undermines you then grow a thicker skin or don’t read it. That’s how private property and freedom of speech works. As a general rule – I will remove such comments, but not everyone will do so and I’ve had to put up with trolls on other sites making derogatory and untrue comments about me and the blog owner has left them in place as they have a policy of not removing any comments. Somehow I’ve managed to cope.

There is a time and a place for cheap partisan political shots. This is not one of them. This proposal threatens all of us. Just for once, we are all on the same side. Let’s try to remember that… Please?

No, I’m not supping with that Devil… Rather, belatedly, I’m commenting on Lord Carey’s article in the News of the World whereby he presents what is an example of chutzpah so far unsurpassed.

I appreciate that I am a little late with this – I was too busy yesterday to comment – and frankly, what I wanted to say has been pretty much said by Jonny Wright (must add that one to my blogroll – jolly good stuff), and rather well, too. Do go and read it all.

No, I just wanted to make a couple of points; firstly, Carey in his muddled thinking seems to be suggesting that the law should not be applied equally. That if one’s behaviour so offends Christian values, then the News of the World should, indeed, be free to splash it across their front pages and you should have no legal recourse. Is it me or is there a whiff of rank hypocrisy in the air?

As Jonny points out, not everyone in this country is a Christian and therefore should not be measured by Christian values and should feel under no compunction to abide by them. Secondly, for a man who claims the high moral ground, who expresses concern about public morality, to be doing so in an article in what is, perhaps, the most immoral rag in the country is priceless.

There’s an old saying about supping with the devil. One is supposed to do so with a long spoon. I do trust that Lord Carey’s spoon is very, very long indeed.

There’s another old story that Carey may be familiar with; it involves thirty pieces of silver…

Neville Rigby’s article on the speech by Alan Johnson encapsulates neatly for me everything that is detestable about socialism:

Alan Johnson, Britain’s health secretary, got it right when he called for a national movement to tackle obesity in his Fabian Society speech. He’s taken on board the sound advice offered to governments over many years now that to have any hope of stemming the tide of overweight and obesity, you need a societal approach that involves everyone in becoming part of the solution.

No, he was wrong. It is a matter for individuals to live their lives as they please. I once considered myself a socialist. I was bewitched by the idea of social justice; whereas, in fact, I believed and always have, that there should be a safety net, not that there should be a something for nothing culture or that the wealthy should be squeezed for no other reason than envy and hate. I certainly did not sign up for this constant poking about in our private lives.

I did not choose to belong to society. I do choose to interact with others for mutual benefit. Therefore, I reject any suggestion that society has any rights whatsoever over how I live my life. Equally, I seek no rights over the lives of others. If you want to smoke your lungs out, drink your liver to cirrhosis or fill your arteries up with sludge to the point where Jabba the Hutt could outrun you to the convenience store, then that, as far as I am concerned, is your lookout. You know the risks, you are all grown up now and you take the consequences of your decisions – just as I take mine every time I hop on a motorcycle and play skittles with the trucks on the M4.

No sooner had he spoken than the Advertising Association, trumpeting a publicity package they value at £200m (over four years), declared it would “embed” health messages in commercials and hoped we would all get into shape in time to sit down and watch the Olympics. It sounds so easy, we might wonder why no one thought of it before.

Groan… That’s the last thing I need. I’ve just about recovered from the singing cows telling me how bad salt is for me – when it isn’t and I can make my own decisions about how much is too much. Oh, and I will not be sitting down to watch the Olympics – I’d sooner poke my eyes out with red hot needles than watch that over-inflated, over-priced, ego-driven pile of corrupt arsewash.

When the government announced it would spend £75m on an anti-obesity advertising campaign, the director-general of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, Hamish Pringle, confided with somewhat alarming frankness to the New York Times: “If you just run some advertising and then forget about it, it’s going to have zero effect. If we’re seeing obesity as a societal problem, it could be a decade before it shows results.”

Well, they could spend that £75m more wisely, I suspect. And, Pringle is right about the likely effects. I, for one, take no notice whatsoever of patronising government information films. That’s the time to put the kettle on (or fast forwarding if it’s recorded). I certainly don’t waste thirty valuable seconds of my life watching the bloody things.

Rigby decides that Pringle is right, too.

Hamish Pringle got it right. Obesity is a societal problem requiring us all to be involved in long-term solutions (which do involve quite a lot of more complex changes of the type identified in the government’s Foresight Report on obesity last year). But if the only thing actually running is an advertising campaign along with Olympic competitors on the TV, the only pounds lost will be from the public purse.

Well, yes – and can we shut up about the fucking Olympics, please? I won’t be watching, so will naturally be able to avoid any propaganda education targeted at me.

Rigby concludes by pointing out that it is up to private companies to get involved and force our hands – because, naughty children that we are, we won’t be told.

It isn’t really acceptable, as many of the companies’ products lead to consumption that is far from balanced – skewed by a heavy load of cheap fat, oil and sugar – or a tasty overdose of salt. If there is broad support from industry to be part of the solution, let the support be unbranded. When it comes to public health, campaigns need to be seen to be independent to retain the public’s trust. But let’s also be clear about what kind of collective national movement is needed alongside efforts to persuade individuals to change their behaviour.

There must be a movement by companies, to make healthier choices over the products they make available. There needs to be a movement to tailor environments to favour people and public transport. Most of all there needs to be a movement to protect younger consumers, and that must not mean fudging the issue of health. We are all involved in becoming part of the solution, especially in grappling with the challenge of reducing childhood obesity. It takes a village, or nowadays the global village, to raise our children.

So, we are not to make our own choices. We are to be manipulated and coerced into making the “right” choices.

Much of my repugnance is summed up by Danot in the very first comment and I quote it in full:

We had this sort of stupid logic applied in schools and it has been an unmitigated failure. Children voted against the Jamie Oliver option with their feet and stopped eating the stuff because they simply didn’t like it.

There are plenty of healthy choices in the supermarkets, try buying a yoghurt in one of the main supermarkets that hasn’t had all the fat taken out of it. There’s no shortage of healthy options for people who want to take them. People buy “unhealthy” food because they prefer the taste. A government campaign isn’t going to stop that. I’ll walk past ten rows of Shredded Wheat and down into the basement if I have to in order to get my coco pops.

If supermarkets start cutting more fat and sugar from their foods, I’ll shop elsewhere. The fat and sugar are what give those foods their taste. Essential fatty acids are just as essential for life as vitamins and minerals, a completely fat free diet would be a killer.

The problem is that people eat too much of what they like and don’t do enough exercise. The supermarkets will happily stock anything that people want to buy, and if they sell more healthy foods then those foods will be given more shelf space.

Now there is the voice of common sense. I can cite a recent personal example of this reaction to “healthy” choices being no choice at all. Mrs Longrider was complaining that the milk in her workplace is either skimmed or semi-skimmed. On asking whether they can get some proper milk in for the tea, she was told in no uncertain terms that they could not (it’s not “healthy” you see). So, she takes her own in and makes her tea with that – neatly sidestepping the dictatorial decision making of her employer.

We don’t do skimmed or semi-skimmed milk in the Longrider household (it’s the quickest way to turn a cup of tea or coffeee into disgusting, undrinkable muck) – if we are going to drink milk we want something that tastes of milk. We also like a few sprinkles of salt on our chips. Both of us are moderately fit and healthy. We neither want nor need to be educated, cajoled or forced to change our behaviour (because we have no intention of altering our behaviour) and the more that society tries to make us change our behaviour the more we will dig our heels in and refuse. We will live our lives in the manner that we see fit and it is no one else’s business. And, before someone bleats about costs to the NHS, so far we have paid in rather more than we have caused in cost. We pay our dues, the NHS is not free and if at some later date, our lifestyle causes health problems, we have more than paid that cost over our working lives.

So, society – keep your nose out of our business and I am damned if I will take any part in some societal solution to obesity. It’s not my business, just as my life is none of yours.

Marina Hyde comments on the bottled water fad that has swept the country in the past few years. I have some sympathy with her points, but not all.

And yet - perhaps because bottling water is precisely the sort of business that would entrance Dick Cheney - we’ve yet to alight on the killing fields that would get us out of this mess. Not that bottled water giants such as Nestlé and Coca-Cola would class it as a mess, what with the global industry being worth £30bn and rising. For the rest of us, I’m afraid it’s time to swallow the bottled water lecture again. Come on: more of it is being sold than beer - you and I know that can’t be right.

Frankly, more lectures are the last thing we need. I’m sick to the back teeth of being lectured by various politicians and journalists about what is or is not good for my health. I’m perfectly capable of working it out for myself.

I tend to agree with Marina when she points out – as others have – that the stuff from the tap is perfectly good and we have already paid for it (no, it is not free, we pay rates or by meter). I suspect that the “huge environmental damage” is a spot of hyperbole – but for the Groan, that’s nothing new. This industry also provides work and therefore is a benefit to the economy.

In her book Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It, the investigative writer Elizabeth Royte covers it all: the nonsense about mineral water’s “health benefits”; the struggles of the communities from where this stuff is pumped in its billions of gallons; the huge environmental damage; the debunked science behind the eight glasses a day recommendation; the incredibly rare health scares related to municipal water supplies that are hyped by persons unknown (who could they be?) and drive people to purchase yet more of this stuff - supplies of which are dwindling. She fears water wars. She wonders how unworkably inconvenient it is for people to refill a reusable bottle.

Precious little evidence of what, exactly, the huge environmental damage is – although I’m presuming this is the process of bottling and transport that she is referring to.

As I discussed earlier this week, the eight glasses a day is a pile of poo and I tend to agree that the health scares regarding tap water are nonsense. I’ve drunk tap water in the UK and abroad with no detrimental effect on my well being. I’m not sure about the supplies dwindling thing – since early June plenty of it has been falling here – and if you own shares in, say, Buxton Water, I suspect your investment is safe enough.

Ultimately, though, if people want to buy bottled water, why not? It’s their money they are spending. As I’ve pointed out before when this subject crops up, I’ll occasionally buy a bottle of carbonated water when travelling – but Marina thinks maybe I shouldn’t:

You know who needs drinks carried round at all times because they may require one in transit? Babies. Mewling, puking, lovably helpless - and in blissful ignorance about the concept of self-discipline. In short, they have no control over what happens at either end of their alimentary canal. Perhaps the marketing men could reposition adult nappies, so that the same misguided urbanites could cosset themselves in one of those, in case they need to “go” while walking between appointments.

What a silly, silly argument. On a long journey, taking supplies of food and drink makes sense. As someone who cannot allow their blood sugar to drop too low, I make absolutely sure that I have some iron rations with me at all times. Equally, it makes sense to have something to drink on board, too – particularly if you are travelling during unsociable hours. Yes, I agree that clutching a bottle of water all the time and glugging constantly is daft and unnecessary, but to presume that only babies need or should carry drinks with them is equally so. Also, I can only presume from her dismissive remarks that Marina has no understanding of how crippling an over sensitive bladder or irritable bowel syndrome can be. If she had, she would not have made such a stupid remark.

One point Marina glosses over when she presents this as some sort of conspiracy theory – if you want to guarantee that the water you drink has not been chlorinated or fluorinated, then bottled water is one way to go. I presume a filter would do a similar job; but if you are out and about on a hot July day, then buying a bottle of water makes eminent sense.

Bottom line; if people want to buy bottled water, then that is their business.

Was there ever a campaign group more aptly named than Plane Stupid? One of these little wankstains decided to pull a stunt earlier this week and glue himself to the prime minister.

Today, the Guardian gives this self-righteous little poltroon a column in its ever more ludicrous comment is free, thus cementing its reputation as a mouthpiece for the extreme lunatic fringe of the envioloony movement.

With a team from Plane Stupid backing me up, I put on my second-hand suit wearing a device in my pocket that was linked up to an anonymous Skype account on a computer in front of the team. At 6.15pm Brown came out into the audience to shake our hands. I knew what I was about to do as I squeezed the superglue into my left hand.

I grabbed his arm, and started to deliver my speech. This is what I started to say as I superglued myself to his arm before the PM tore my hand away from his suit.

If I could have continued talking to my captive, here’s what I would have said:

Frankly, you arrogant, self-righteous little wanker, who gives a shit what you were going to say?

I can’t say that I have strong feelings one way or the other regarding more terminals at Heathrow, but if unpleasant little fuckers like Dan Glass and his egregious bunch of moronic cronies are against it, then on balance, it is probably a good thing.

Worrying, though, the lack of security surrounding the PM. If some half-witted little shit-for-brains like Dan Glass can smear superglue over his sleeve, just think what could happen if a really determined attacker wanted to do him real harm, eh? Someone with half an ounce of competence, that is.

———————————————————————————

Update: Courtesy of TheNuclearOption commenting on Dan’s little ego trip, I am drawn to his profile:

Dan is a freedom fighter organising with Plane Stupid Scotland, AirportWatch Scotland and Workers Climate Action and with popular education programmes to tackle climate change around the UK.

A freedom fighter!?! Clearly the entry requirement for freedom fighters has been lowered somewhat. As TheNuclearOption says, can I stop laughing now? What a hubristic little wankstain.

I see that in the wake of the Mosley judgement, the media has been getting its collective knickers in a knot claiming that today marks a less free press. I’d have a little more respect for them if they took it on the chin and accepted that this was an unwarranted intrusion into someone’s private life for the express purpose of titillation and selling a scummy rag to an indiscriminating public who are prepared to pay for what amounts to soft porn.

The proffered argument being that this means privacy laws by the back door. Generally, I don’t see a need for privacy laws and this judgement confirms that feeling. The law worked as it is supposed to. The News of the World breached Mosley’s privacy and he sought and obtained redress through civil law.

There are those who argue that he brought F1 into disrepute, but there are two points to make on that one; firstly, the activities were private and no one else’s damned business and secondly, the F1 world is so far up its own self-righteous arse that it is doubtful it has a reputation to tarnish.

The BBC asks will the case affect the media?

Instead we have “a privacy law by the back door” - a series of legal judgments that may or may not create precedents on which subsequent legal decisions can be based.

They are based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Caroline Kean, head of litigation at the media law firm Wiggin, said: “The Human Rights Act introduced a statutory right to respect for one’s private life, home and correspondence and a corresponding right to freedom of expression.”

“Ever since, the courts have been struggling to find the balance between the two.”

I’m not a great fan of the Human Rights act; again, deeming it an unnecessary piece of statute law. But to suggest that this case will create a privacy law is absurd. The press stepped across a line. Oh, sure it’s a fine line they tell us. True enough, as is the Great Wall of China. Look, if these people are so dense they are unable to determine the difference between what is in the public interest and therefore publishable and what the public may find interesting but is in fact no one else’s damned business, then the journalists and editors concerned are in the wrong jobs. There is no need to struggle to find a balance – it is blindingly obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

Rees-Mogg has a whinge in today’s Times. He uses press freedom as a justification. He argues (weirdly) that Mosley cannot expect confidence from, say, a lawyer under new legislation, so should not expect it from a dominatrix.

It seems absurd to argue that he should nevertheless be entitled to a higher degree of confidentiality from the women that he hired to play dominatrix roles in sadomasochistic ventures.

What is absurd, is Rees-Mogg’s conclusion. This has nothing to do with recent legislation on client confidentiality (which I oppose, incidentally). Nor is it about confidentiality in the S&M world. It is about a bunch of sleaze merchants invading a private function and plastering it all over their website and newspaper. They did so in order to sell more copies of their disreputable little rag – not because it was in the public interest. This activity is beyond the pale, it is indefensible.

Any reduction of the ability of the press to investigate and to publish is likely to have serious consequences against the general welfare of society.

This is the canard trotted out by journalists in defence of the indefensible. No one and no judgement is affecting their ability to report truthfully on matters of public interest. They are perfectly at liberty to go after politicians who preach one thing and do another or to hound illicit criminal activity. Mosley was engaging in an activity that was legal and private – it was none of the press’ business. That the more prurient may have got off on letting everyone know how “disgusted” they were – in the most lurid detail possible, of course – is neither here nor there. Nothing in this case affects the ability of the press to engage in legitimate investigative journalism. Simply invading the privacy of celebrities for the benefit of titillating their readers is not legitimate journalism, it is the behaviour of bottom feeders and quite rightly has been judged as such.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Eady followed a line that many English judges might also have followed. He was more worried about a breach of confidentiality than by the proceedings that were disclosed. He virtually abolished the “defence of inequity” that used to give some protection to the disclosure of scandalous but not criminal events. Mr Mosley’s employment of prostitutes to indulge his masochistic fantasies was not criminal, but it was not reputable. It did not deserve the protection of the law.

The judge was absolutely on the button. There should be no “defence of inequity”. What arrant nonsense. In effect; because we disapprove, exposing it is okay. What planet is this man on? Rees-Mogg may find S&M activities iniquitous, but others do not. It absolutely did deserve the protection of the law and while there are idiots like Rees-Mogg about, will continue to do so. Just who the fuck is Rees-Mogg to decide whether activities using paid-for participants are reputable or not?

My only regret is that the damages payment was not significantly more. One year’s turnover might have caused the shareholders to pull the bastards up.