Mistress blogs......... heads up

[ricci]

I don't think that a blog written by a Mistress would be covered by this.

It's not totally clear at the moment but the general consensus seems to be that the blogs that would be considered relevant publishers are ones that are written by a range of authors rather than one and blogs that publish news related material.

It was also specifically stated that special interest blogs would not be covered and small scale bloggers are protected.

So a Mistress's personal blog would not be regulated any more than it is now.

It is a dreadful 'law' though, set up because some politicians want to get at Murdoch and some celebrities don't much like having their most embarrassing moments getting into the papers.

[electrocbtslave]

Originally Posted by ricci

I don't think that a blog written by a Mistress would be covered by this.

It's not totally clear at the moment but the general consensus seems to be that the blogs that would be considered relevant publishers are ones that are written by a range of authors rather than one and blogs that publish news related material.

It was also specifically stated that special interest blogs would not be covered and small scale bloggers are protected.

So a Mistress's personal blog would not be regulated any more than it is now.

It is a dreadful 'law' though, set up because some politicians want to get at Murdoch and some celebrities don't much like having their most embarrassing moments getting into the papers.

Whilst I fully respect your opinion etc etc

a) Go to the Royal Charter (Use the ScribD link already given)

b)Put out of your mind "the general consensus",the "specific statements" etc etc etc etc etc etc-we'll come to these in a moment

c) READ THE FVCKING LAW!! specifically section 4 (1) (b) where you will find that a "relevant publisher" is "a PERSON (think about this very carefully) who publishes ....a website containing news"

Nothing about multiple authors,editorial control or any other irrelevant crap


Now think about where that "general consensus" and those "specific statements" came from.Track them back and you'll find that they came from a press statement issued by 10 Downing Street this morning which breezily asserts that a "relevant publisher" "Could" (think about this weaselly little word really,really ,really hard) include "sites that are written by multiple authors,have editorial control and are published in the course of business"

Two points may occur to you
a) It ALSO includes single bloggers and everybody else as defined by the actual law.10 Downings Streets opinion is completely worthless and designed to soothe muddled souls but its not the law
b) Why did Downing Street word the statement the way they did? Answer because they wish to hide the fact that the actual Royal Charter casts a widefine net

To sum up the Royal Charter says that you fall within its provisions if you "publish a website that contains news"

Its that simple

[ex nihilo]

The definitions in the Royal Charter are wide ranging so there remains the possibility that the new scheme is intended to ‘regulate the web’ on the coattails of the Leveson recommendations which did not address the internet. It doesn’t at the moment but who is to say what the future has in store. The definitions can be narrowed by Parliament or redefined by them to include additional activity with minimal debate. This is where the crossing of the Rubicon comes in.

There is already a fairly wide legal framework that sits around the dead tree press and the internet which covers criminal activity, libel, defamation, copyright, privacy etc. Sure the press, bloggers and tweeters putting to one side blatant criminal activity need to play nicer but there would have been other options for achieving this without the thin end of the wedge on press freedom. The UK has always been at the top end for show casing press freedom. I’m sure we will not have much to worry about but the door has been left ajar…

The fact that you can decide whether or not to be a member of the new independent board will reveal the parts of the media where the critical issues lie.

As I’m still waiting for the autoclave to get fixed for my humour by-pass procedure, I thought I would end on a lighter note…

Either way there’s going to be plenty of new work for the lawyers…if things spiral out of control, I think I’ll go for the delightful freckle-faced, red-haired and porcelain skinned Josephine Karlsson. Sur vos genoux

As for Arsene Wenger, if anyone slags him off he’ll just step into a phone box and re-emerge as Judge Roban…

[electrocbtslave]

Originally Posted by ex nihilo

The definitions in the Royal Charter are wide ranging so there remains the possibility that the new scheme is intended to ‘regulate the web’ on the coattails of the Leveson recommendations which did not address the internet. It doesn’t at the moment but who is to say what the future has in store. The definitions can be narrowed by Parliament or redefined by them to include additional activity with minimal debate. This is where the crossing of the Rubicon comes in.

There is already a fairly wide legal framework that sits around the dead tree press and the internet which covers criminal activity, libel, defamation, copyright, privacy etc. Sure the press, bloggers and tweeters putting to one side blatant criminal activity need to play nicer but there would have been other options for achieving this without the thin end of the wedge on press freedom. The UK has always been at the top end for show casing press freedom. I’m sure we will not have much too worry about but the door has been left ajar…

The fact that you can decide whether or not to be a member of the new independent board will reveal the parts of the media where the critical issues lie.

As I’m still waiting for the autoclave to get fixed for my humour by-pass procedure, I thought I would end on a lighter note…

Either way there’s going to be plenty of new work for the lawyers…if things spiral out of control, I think I’ll go for the delightful freckle-faced, red-haired and porcelain skinned Josephine Karlsson. Sur vos genoux

As for Arsene Wenger, if anyone slags him off he’ll just step into a phone box and re-emerge as Judge Roban…

Strewth....get a grip!!!!!!!!

There isn't the SLIGHTEST imprecision in the drafting;the Charter is EXACTLY as I have set it out.

A steady diet of BGT,Kentucky Fried Chicken and Call of Duty seems to have rotted our ability to read plainly drafted law

LOOK AT THE FVCKING Charter and never mind what Polly Toynbee or Maria Miller tell you what it says.

You remain very sound on Madamoiselle Fleurot however.................

[southsub]

Surely if someone isn't identified specifically, no one can complain about it?

Saying that I have seen Domme's given out 'bad' submissive's contact details when they have annoyed them.

[electrocbtslave]

Originally Posted by southsub

Surely if someone isn't identified specifically, no one can complain about it?

Saying that I have seen Domme's given out 'bad' submissive's contact details when they have annoyed them.

The problem is that the complainant only has to think (or pretend to think) that they are the person identified and the whole ludicrous machine starts up-triggered by a complaint that costs nothing to make and which ensures that the complainant suffers no detriment

[electrocbtslave]

Somebody got it!

The statutory underpinning will be amended by virtue of a new s29 covering individual bloggers

The lawyers may well have some fun with the discrepancy between the Act and the Charter but Mr Skid Marks is no longer safe in his yellowing Y Fronts

[MrBromley]

I hear Mumsnet are asking for special exemption. Perhaps if UK-M sticks with its Fluffy Bunnies cloak then it could sneek into a special exemption too.

[electrocbtslave]

29 Carat shitstorm going on over at Hacked Off (no doubt pronounced 'hacked orf' ) over blogging.

The plebs are even having a go at Mr Floppy Hair.

Its outrageous

[electrocbtslave]

Lord Lucas now has a very neat little amendment down to exempt blog sites if the "publisher" does not exceed the size of small or medium sized enterprise as defined by SS382 and 465 of the 2006 Companies Act