Cry freedom and, er... oh.

If there is one word-in-context in the whole of the blogosphere which never fails to make me laugh out loud, it's the Liberal in Liberal Conspiracy. I mean, do you really think they really think they are really, you know, liberal? Really?

I think they should be stopped. Liberal Conspiracy is a handful of people with a particular political viewpoint, pushing their own agenda and trying to influence opinion. Why are people so worried about limiting that? 

Oh look, a woman at Liberal Conspiracy agrees with me. Kinda.

If a rich man can buy a newspaper to push his own agenda do you not think he will? why are people so worried about limiting that? 

She really needs to ask? Seriously? Yes, she does.

Would the same apply, in her self-righteous lefty fantasy world, to a not-rich chap, let's call him Chap A, starting to publish stuff (let's call it, oh, a 'newspaper') which lots of people like to read and want to pay him for? Would she stop him writing what he thinks about how other people ought to think, whenever he wants to write it? Like pretty much every writer throughout the ages and like, erm, she does herself?

My, my. The world's full of conundrums.

Or is her bile reserved for another bod, let's call him Chap B, who, just like Chap A, wants to publish ideas, but who doesn't need to bother with starting his own newspaper because Chap A already did it?

Yes, it is.

And yet the only difference between Chap A and Chap B is that Chap B has more money than Chap A, which fact alone must, ipso facto, cause the tribunes of the people to limit Chap B's freedom, making  him a second-class citizen. Simply because he's got more money than someone else. Meanwhile on another part of the planet, the Tribunes have set up an Equality Commission to... no, wait... there may be a flaw there...

So, if her Tribunes, in a moment of madness, allowed Chap A and Chap B to do as they wished with their private property, Chap A selling his newspaper to Chap B, would They - the Tribunes - reserve to Themselves the power to tell Chap B he could only publish what They permitted and when?

Which they never did with Chap A because he didn't have the sort of money which fired up their wrath. And of course, he was careful only to publish ideas acceptable to the Tribunes of the People.

But how could I say such a thing? The lady is a doughty defender of free speech - for everyone except people with money. But I digress. Actually, I don't. This is the whole fucking point, written en clair for the benefit of my extremely fucking stupid, hate-filled and delusional lefty reader who calls himself a freedom fighter but wants to control the press, you, me and - let's not beat about the bush - the entire sodding planet.

So, would they tell rich Chap B what he could publish and when? Why, yes, they would.

No-one’s suggesting the journalists should be restricted, [ oh, that's all right then ] just the power of a corrupt handful to influence opinion

Define 'corrupt'. How about someone for whom 50,000 people around the world, you know, work, as opposed to following her own career.

But those wanting things to stay the same are simply enforcing a bias that on the whole suits them. If you doubt me, imagine the bias was in Labour’s favour and tell me Conservatives would not be spitting with white fury, totally convinced that the system was unfair.

Gotta love that 'imagine'. Doesn't get out much, does she? I suspect too much time spent in dingy Labour Party Committee rooms but one can't be sure, and Labour may be too, you know, bourgeois/establishment. After all...

As for those who claim Newsnight or Ch4News are “leftie” just confirms everything I said even more. Our press is so right wing, even a balanced programme offends

Define 'balanced'. Ah shit, no, forget it.

There's a phrase... wait... it'll come to me. Oh, yes.


h/t Tim Worstall