Sometimes I like to offer my thoughts on things other than beer, but to give it some sort of tenuous connection here's a photo of big brother tart and subject of the most recent super injunction scandal Imogen Thomas taking a bath in some beer. Got a beer connection in. She's on the left. A different tart is on the right.
That's because I'd like to offer my thoughts on things freedom of speech and tittle tattle related.
I'm a child of television, the news when I grew up was on TV and the papers only offered yesterdays news and opinion and in the red tops tits and entertainment. However the Establishment have long controlled the news. I remember a report in the 80's regarding the miners strike. The report detailed the police response to violent strikers as they stormed them with horses and knocked seven shades out of them. Except it wasn't true. The police stormed a peaceful protest and the strikers stormed them back. The BBC edited it and the report was a lie.
I'm not one to defend Arthur Scargill. He didn't hold a national vote of his union and bullied many of his members with threats of violence to join his failed attempt to take on a democratically elected government. The fact he was a poor leader that used and abused his membership for a failed political gambit doesn't excuse the fact that the Establishment and the BBC lied in news reports.
Now unelected judges have failed in an attempt to silence the news media regarding what really is inconsequential tittle tattle regarding Ryan Giggs (if you've not heard) nailing a tart known for reality TV and getting her kit off in lads mags. The British courts even thought it possible to apply the injunction globally. I mean, you know, other countries have freedom of speech and care little for whatever idiocy British judges come out with. The arrogance.
All of this is irrelevant except of course if you wonder whether British High Court Judges (who of course have never been known to frequent brothels, enjoy a spanking and would never want to cover something up about themselves) might seek to cover up something in the public interest. Among the debate I think a change has come in regard to where we get the news and how we consume it.
If you want to know what is going on in the world, you don't look at TV. If you want to know who has been shagging it's not in the News of the World, it's on twitter and in the blogosphere. You know the days news before you get home from work, because Google News has streamed global news organisations to your PC or phone. You can read the paper of any country you like, when you like. You can compare the tits in Das Bild to The Sun to your hearts content, every morning. TV news is old news by the time you see it. If you want to know what occurred at a protest, it's on youtube. On youtube you can see the copper beating up the protester before Sky News & the Establishment have edited it to create the required narrative. The political class and judiciary cannot keep pace with a global tool of freedom of speech.
The shocker is that it is the British judiciary pondering how to control it. You'd kind of expect it to be one of these despotic regimes you read about.
On this scandal, the blogosphere and twitter became the source of news. Not just a bunch of nutters like me expressing opinions on things, but the actual news. Ha Ha Ha. I suspect we might be entering a time where you can honestly say "it's a free country, guv" and actually be correct in that assertion. It's cool this internet thing.