13 2 mins 9 yrs

Just 24 hours after the Westminster gang agreed to regulate the press, Max Mosley was in there telling MPs that the state should be prepared to make some websites verboten for Britons.

Max Mosley: We Can ‘Cut The Wires’ To Websites Who Break Press Laws

Responding to a discussion about the impracticality of regulating sites based abroad, Mosley suggested that the British public could be banned from seeing such sites, if they routinely break British codes of conduct or publish falsehoods.

“Of course in the worst case you can, figuratively speaking, cut the wire. An order of the English court is enforceable in England. Of course nobody wants to do that,” he said.

He added: “But don’t pretend it’s not practical, because it is.”

Mosley, the son of British Union of Fascists leader Sir Oswald Mosley, can sod right off. Sites hosted abroad cannot, by definition, break British codes of conduct because they’re not subject to British codes of conduct. One day is all it took and the mega-shady shysters of the Hacked Off campaign are already calling for more.

Can we all please stop demanding more laws and more regulations now?! In demanding ever more laws to regulate everyone else, society has fed a beast which restricts everyone’s liberties in ever more ways. If just one website were somehow made inaccessible, in no time at all the list will grow to hundreds and then thousands of them.

Please, everyone, stop demanding more laws to curtail the things you don’t like.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. Am I correct in thinking that Blogspot is hosted in the U.S., if so then is my blog outside of the remit of this law ?

  2. I wonder why Jim Sheridan wants the press kept away from him?

    Jim Sheridan, a Scottish MP who defended how the Speaker of the House of Commons handled the expenses scandal, used his allowances to reclaim the cost of a 42-inch plasma TV, leather bed and hundreds of pounds worth of furniture.

    That might be why.

  3. Many thanks Phantom , I thought that I may be safe , but I guess not . In future I will have to ” publish ” conjecture and not opinion to stay safe .

  4. The internet is the only part of the media which is still free to present opinions and information which the Money Power does not control. It is inevitable that moves to control the internet would be made using the bought-and-paid-for idiots like Church and Grant to front the efforts.

  5. Assume that all you write here is being reviewed by British government snitches and would be censors. Pre-regulation, if you would. I’m quite serious.

  6. Phantom – I don’t disagree. Whatever is written here by me for example would be cited at some ‘tribunal’ into my political views when these come about. But not only government. one could easily see a snitch on this site attempting to get me fired from my work on grounds of my holoco$t denial if he had the necessary info on my work locations.

  7. Phantom –

    You’ve just realised that? You should read what someone has been saying in here for a long time. He’s been telling you that it’s all filed away by the NSA too, the fat doughnut munching parasites.

    How does the tin foil hat fit?

  8. Pete

    I’ve long known that. In a world of terrorism, the NSA had better be doing electronic surveillance for counterterrorism purposes.

    I am speaking of more than that. I am speaking of police reading blogs, not for any purpose of anti terrorism or anti criminal behavior as a normal person would understand it.

    I speak of police and maybe others reading things over time for purposes of tracking unpopular opinion. This is something relatively new under the sun. I think that it is happening there, now.

  9. Phantom – would you believe that the CIA was the principal financier of Facebook?

  10. I don’t have a facebook profile, but I do sense more than a hint of paranoia here amongst the ATW clan. Relax, we’re not all about to be thrown into the gulags.

Comments are closed.