Rumours of backlash against bloggers

Jacintha Saldanha.  Sacrificed by the elite.  They need to bring in privacy laws. 

More details surface after Slog asked to delete links

Having been tipped off last week about the pulling together of a Government plan to attack bloggers via McAlpinesque legal threats, The Slog received in short order a series of requests from a variety of blogospherists, asking for links to articles about leading politicians to be deleted. Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson were the anti-free speech fanatics most often cited. Now more details of a new Bill to complement that strategy are starting to surface. It isn’t looking pretty.

Useless legislator and empty suit Nick Clegg may be about to pull off the one achievement of his risible Deputy Premiership: new powers to monitor email and internet use need a “fundamental rethink”, he says. And he “vowed” (always beware the vow) to block the draft Communications Data Bill, instead pushing alternative plans that would reduce liberty infringement to a minimum.
His comments came as a committee of MPs and peers criticised the bill’s scope, with several voices on all sides at Westminster increasingly prepared to view the Leveson Report as a Trojan Horse crammed with new laws to stifle online debate, revelation and speculation. Leveson himself was notably quick to cite the Aussie DJ phone-call prank as another example of the need for tougher privacy laws….an interesting comment given that it has nothing whatever to do with the internet or the press media.

http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/rumours-of-backlash-against-bloggers-more-details-surface-after-slog-asked-to-delete-links/

TAP – This bears out the warning from Ben Fellows two days ago that the nurse (pictured at top) dying was going to be used as the excuse to bring in greater privacy laws.  Shame they had to kill her first, but that’s the kind of thing we’ve come to expect from our rulers nowadays.  After 1997, things have become obvious enough.  Killing people is regarded as normal business for maintaining their programmes.   The problem surely is that people are starting to notice.  It’s fifteen years since Diana was assassinated.  It’s been downhill ever since.

BEN FELLOWS wrote –  The prank call by Australian radio presenters who got a condition report from the Duchess of Cambridge’s nurse by pretending to be the Queen and Prince Charles proves the need for new privacy laws, Lord Justice Leveson has said.

ANONYMOUS –

Tap, a photo that has appeared in the mass media purporting to be of Jacintha Saldanha is actually taken from the Facebook page of another woman who lives in India, her namesake – who’s now in the Deccan Chronicle complaining about it.

This is all the more strange because – as you can see from the two photos in the Daily Mail article – this very photo which this still-alive woman in the Deccan Chronicle says is a picture of herself was recently held in the arms of the husband of the deceased.

What’s going on? Did the Daily Mail do a photoshop job?

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/121210/news-current-affairs/article/thank-you-i%E2%80%99m-okay-says-jacintha


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245881/Jacintha-Saldanhas-death-Nurse-left-suicide-note-family.html

TAP – This is really very confusing.  The correct children appear to be in the picture of the woman claimed not to be the correct Jacintha Saldanha, making the Deccan Chronicle picture of the correct Jacintha Saldanha – and the ones released earlier in London incorrect.

Here’s the picture used by the media in London and around the globe as well as the one used by the Deccan Chronicle –

Here are the kids without the mother grieving her loss –
Yet here is the mother writing in The Deccan Chronicle that she is still alive.  The Jacintha Saldanha at the top appears to be someone else.
The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

9 Responses to “Rumours of backlash against bloggers”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Useless legislator and empty suit Nick Clegg may be about to pull off the one achievement of his risible Deputy Premiership: new powers to monitor email and internet use need a “fundamental rethink”, he says. And he “vowed” (always beware the vow) to block the draft Communications Data Bill, instead pushing alternative plans that would reduce liberty infringement to a minimum.

    That actually shows there is no “achievement” here whatsoever. All Clegg disagrees with is the method. Ditto the committee that reported on this, its key line being “there is a case for legislation”. What they are most concerned about is the nitty-gritty, not whether or not such a law is needed in the first place. The proposed measure was developed by the civil servants of the Home Office, not by parliamentarians who are largely powerless frontmen anyway. Clegg is just on political manoeuvres, nothing more. IMO you can’t “reduce liberty infringement to a minimum” – to paraphrase: if you give up liberty to gain so-called “security” then you deserve neither.

    If one reads the committee’s report into the Bill, plus the reams of evidence submitted by a variety of witnesses, one would find very quickly that the traffic monitoring proposals are completely defeated by technologies that already exist, e.g. encryption; in fact the head of the ICO said all that would result from it being passed is that use of encryption would increase and all the bill would do was snare “incompetent criminals and accidental anarchists”. And lots and lots of the general populace. They admit the bill won’t catch the people they have publicly said it is meant to catch, so what’s it really for?

    Brian was actually rather dismissive of bloggers in his document, although I appreciate that such an opinion may be a facade – giving a low opinion of the net could lead one to believe they don’t care too much about it, which isn’t the case at all, even though Brian’s “official” remit did not include the internet – and I equally appreciate the nature of the warning you mention. A couple of things Brian said about blogs:

    “… However, it is noteworthy that although the blogs cited here are read by very large numbers of people, it should not detract from the fact that most blogs are read by very few people. Indeed, most blogs are rarely read as news or factual, but as opinion and must be considered as such.” (Part C, Chapter 3, Section 4, Paragraph 4.6)

    “…the internet does not claim to operate by any particular ethical standards, still less high ones. Some have called it a ‘wild west’ but I would prefer to use the term ‘ethical vacuum’. This is not to say for one moment that everything on the internet is therefore unethical. That would be a gross mischaracterisation of the work of very many bloggers and websites which should rightly and fairly be characterised as valuable and professional. The point I am making is a more modest one, namely that the internet does not claim to operate by express ethical standards, so that bloggers and others may, if they choose, act with impunity. The press, on the other hand, does claim to operate by and adhere to an ethical code of conduct.” (Part F, Chapter 7, Section 3, Paragraph 3.3)

    Labour has called for the judiciary to oversee the new press regulation body with the Lord Chief Justice signing off on it, an idea that is not just absurd but fundamentally dangerous.

    Who’s one of the candidates for the Lord Chief Justice position when it becomes vacant next year?

    Step forward, Brian Leveson…

  2. Anonymous says:

    Interesting quote Anonymous 10:10 -I hate to disagree with such an august personage but, contrary to what Leveson asserts, it seems to me that the only place in the media that ISN’T an ethical vacuum is the internet. Sure there’s plenty of dross there but it’s still the only place where people are actually trying to find out and report the truth, not just about establishment paedophile rings, but about banking, Syria, Libya,Iran,9/11, the surveillance state, etc., etc. Which is precisely why the likes of Leveson want its wings not so much clipped, as chainsawed off.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Tap, a photo that has appeared in the mass media purporting to be of Jacintha Saldanha is actually taken from the Facebook page of another woman who lives in India, her namesake – who’s now in the Deccan Chronicle complaining about it.

    This is all the more strange because – as you can see from the two photos in the Daily Mail article – this very photo which this still-alive woman in the Deccan Chronicle says is a picture of herself was recently held in the arms of the husband of the deceased.

    What’s going on? Did the Daily Mail do a photoshop job?

    http://www.deccanchronicle.com/121210/news-current-affairs/article/thank-you-i%E2%80%99m-okay-says-jacintha

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245881/Jacintha-Saldanhas-death-Nurse-left-suicide-note-family.html

  4. Anonymous says:

    There’s been some speculation about that photo being altered but yeah why was her husband holding a photo of a woman who was not his wife, just said to be by the mass media?

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jacintha-saldanha-first-picture-of-nurse-1479304

    and there’s the other fuzzy photo of Jacinta, and people wonder at the sheer lack of photos of this person and if indeed she really existed.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jacintha-saldanha-nurse-left-suicide-1484664

    ^ this has her husband holding the other woman’s photo.

  5. Anonymous says:

    also note in that last link the necklace she is wearing has two strands at the neck whereas in other examples of the ‘same’ picture it only has a single strand. Gotta have been some image doctoring to get that discrepancy.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Tap – the pictures that you currently have positioned above and below the picture of husband are the same image…the lower one is a tight crop of the top one.

    the facebook picture of Jacintha 2 is not even shown on your blog. this is the link to it

    https://www.facebook.com/jacintha.saldanha.1

    i am having problems posting this

  7. Anonymous says:

    the folk from the DECCAN chronicle have used the wrong picture for the story that they are telling.

  8. Toad Hall says:

    Right now at a UN meeting in Dubai, authoritarian regimes are pushing for full governmental control of the Internet in a binding global treaty — if they succeed, the internet could become less open, more costly and much slower. We have only 2 days to stop them.
    To the ITU and all nations meeting at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai:
    As citizens of the world and Internet users, we call on you to reject any changes to current Internet regulations that would weaken or alter the free and open nature of the Internet, or give any government or body the ability to infringe on Internet users’ rights to free speech, free access to information or privacy. We also demand that any proposed changes to current international Internet regulations be publicly debated, and subject to citizen input and approval.

    http://www.avaaz.org/en/hands_off_our_internet_i/

  9. Anonymous says:

    Funny how Leveson happened to be addressing a Sydney conference on privacy and the internet just 3 days after the Australian DJ prank call.
    He actually flew business class with his wife on Dec 4th. Date of the prank call.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/dec/07/lord-justice-leveson-australia

    http://www.news.com.au/news/british-press-complaints-commission-head-urges-australian-editors-educate-lord-leveson/story-fnejlrpu-1226528879212

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.