Friday, 18 October 2013

the story about a story's inside story

The Ralph Milliband story has become a media
miracle. It is left out in public and no light can
pass through it. It's such a complex story about
subjective opinions, and politicians interfering
with the media by saying "hey, wait a minute!"

Ed Milliband came to the defence of his father
whose good name was being impugned in the
Daily Mail.
The DM used unprovable concepts to scare up
a Red Menace feeling in the people. Ed fell
into the trap of talking sense to f^%&*&king

So, when the opposition leader tries to correct
some barely-logical guilt-by-association insults,
he's seen as the bad guy because opposition
leaders are well-known "imprisoners" of
law-abiding people for no good reason. Actually,
you idiots, that's what the government does.
and it censors news stories (more on that in
the next stories) and lies to the public
regularly about its own statistics.

But, no! Ed is a danger to free speech in this
democratic country. H-uuuuh!
So, this story morphed into a Leveson roast.
And a commie-witch hunt.

Ed should have done what we used to do
in my home town. Just prove in no uncertain
terms that the DM are a bunch of assholes,
as if they can't do it on their own.

the inside story to this story's real story is
that we are ignoring the exploits of one
ignorant father and another ignorant mother.
David Cameron's father stashed millions
in overseas tax havens with the express
purpose of robbing the country his son now
runs of its proper tax money. Yet, we don't
talk about that ignorant father.
We also don't talk about Lord Rothermere,
an ignorant motherf5^&ker who has so
many offshore shells that he's vying for
recognition from the Guinness Book of Blarney.
Who hates Britain? Everybody who undermines
the country. That could well include the
ConDems, but that's another story.

Ed stands next to Telegraph editors
and says:

checkit: Telegraph
An ominous threat to shackle our free press
How a newspaper runs its affairs in a free country is none of Ed Miliband's business
By Telegraph View
9:13PM BST 04 Oct 2013
There are few more preposterous sights in politics than the Left in high moral dudgeon. Now, once again, there comes from the Labour Party and its cheerleaders at The Guardian and the BBC the same unmistakeable whiff of phoney rectitude that has hung like a miasma over our national discourse for decades. No one described it better than George Orwell, when he wrote witheringly of the “self-righteousness of the Left-wing intelligentsia”.
Today, that same self-righteous intelligentsia is in full-throated pursuit of the Daily Mail, which stands accused of exhibiting all the British-hating characteristics that it purported to identify in the late Ralph Miliband, the father of the Labour Party’s leader. This hue and cry is led by Alastair Campbell, now the self-appointed defender of truth and honesty. Of course, the Left’s beef with the Daily Mail goes back to the publication of the Zinoviev letter in 1924, which probably cost Labour the election that year. It is also using the hacking scandal as a means to seek revenge for its misplaced belief that newspapers brought about Labour’s defeat in 1992.
[1924's election, which Ralph had nothing to do with, is a long way to go to insult a dead man-Cos67]
There is, in other words, a more pernicious agenda at play here than the settling of old scores. Ed Miliband alluded to it yesterday when he suggested that Lord Rothermere, the Mail’s proprietor, should take “a long, hard look” at the “culture and practices” of his titles. How a newspaper runs its affairs in a free country is none of the Labour leader’s business. Moreover, Mr Miliband also said last week’s article about his father “had crossed a line”. But which line is that; and who is to decide what it is?
The context for this is extremely important, not least to the continuation of a free press in this country. Next week, discussions will resume – in the wake of the Leveson Report – over the establishment of a new self-regulatory body for the newspaper industry to replace the Press Complaints Commission. Many politicians do not want this to be left to the Press, and are anxious instead to bring newspapers under some form of statutory control. They maintain that this would not interfere with the right of the media to print what they wish; but it is clear to see, in the light of Mr Miliband’s comments, how easily it could.

It is understandable that the Labour leader should feel his late father has been traduced, and to want to defend him. But to say that, in offering a critique of his Marxist outlook, the Daily Mail “overstepped the mark” is an ominous remark from a man who wants to be prime minister. It suggests, at the very least, an ambivalence towards the concept of free speech.
The suggestion that Ralph Miliband “hated” Britain is naturally one with which his son disagrees [but not Ralph, the dead man-Cos67]; but it is an opinion that the newspaper – or anyone else for that matter – is entitled to have. In fact, as Charles Moore observes on the page opposite, it is perfectly legitimate to criticise Miliband senior, in view of the British Left’s inglorious record in opposing the menace of Communism during the Cold War. Is it seriously being suggested that we should only pick from an approved menu of acceptable views – which will, inevitably, be those that the progressive Left regards as palatable?
This brouhaha has blown up at a particularly crucial moment in the post-Leveson debate over the future of press regulation. The newspaper industry has drawn up plans for what would be the toughest regulatory structure in the world; but the politicians object because it is self-policed, as it should be in a free country. Mr Miliband, his party and many other MPs want a system that gives them a say – a rope they can tug when newspapers, as the Labour leader put it, overstep the mark.
Yet the very implication that permission should be required before voicing an opinion, even if it does offend, is so inimical to the idea of a free society that it is hard to believe it could be contemplated by a British Parliament, 300 years after newspaper licensing was abolished. We recognise Mr Miliband’s filial sincerity in defending his father’s memory; but it should not be used to undermine one of this country’s most precious liberties. If the Left wants a moral cause worth fighting for, then let us hear it defending, unequivocally, the freedom of the press.