Parliamentary Porn: U.K. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith: Before banning Savage, she tried to claim her husband’s porn on her expenses…Gordon Brown Team in disarray

Wow. I don’t listen to Savage, but the UK has just gone off the rails and frankly they deserve a defamation suit for this IMO…

Gordon Brown is in total disarray over in the UK, here is yesterday:

Apparently the Home Secretary who banned Savage was already reeling from a label of incompetence in the unpopular and spend crazy Brown Team:

Mail Online:

..Miss Smith’s future has been hanging by a thread ever since it came to light that she tried to claim the costs of her husband’s pornography on her Parliamentary expenses.

A ministerial source told the Mail that colleagues think she is ‘overwhelmed’ by the pace of the Home Office and distracted by her personal problems.

‘She appears to be utterly defeated by everything and you can’t have someone like that at the Home Office,’ a source said.

Miss Smith is expected to be offered a downwards move but Mr Brown is content for her to leave the Government altogether.

In keeping with the porn theme, she will likely be replaced by Mr Balls:

…Chief among the likely beneficiaries of any changing of the guard is expected to be Mr Balls who could replace Miss Smith as Home Secretary…

And the ACLU made a supportive statement for Savage, good, but they should send a lawyer to help him too!

Jameel Jaffer, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, told the San Francisco Chronicle that the move showed countries were prepared to ‘use their borders as a weapon of censorship’.

‘While some of these people may express views that others find disagreeable, often the cure is worse than the disease,’ said Mr Jaffer. ‘It also deprives the citizens of that country of their ability to hear dissenting views.’

Methinks the UK will be paying Mr Savage:

..Mark Stephens, of the London law firm Finers Stephens Innocent, said: ‘The people on the list who have been banned are supposed to be advocating extreme violence and so to put him into that category is clearly defamatory.

‘His views, such as those on homosexuals, may be offensive but that is another thing entirely. The Home Secretary appears not to have appreciated the difference between tolerance and defamation.’…

May 6, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Economy, Politics, Popular Culture, Uncategorized.

4 Comments

  1. Frank replied:

    Every sovereign nation has a right to exclude those individuals they deem as promoting values and beliefs so extreme as to threaten the basic core tenets of their nation. It is done ALL the time all over the world. Remember, free speech is not yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre. How is it possible for a defamer to be defamed? Speech is controlled every moment of every second of every day in the course of lifes living, we hold our tongues and edit our speech as we go along lest we offend, insult, incite, manipulate, cajole, compliment everyone we meet. The ony damage done here is to the ego of a loudmouthed bully who hides behind a microphone in a locked studio in a non descript secure building.

    Like

  2. Frank replied:

    It is the height of absurdity to cloak this neanderthal’s justifiable listing as an assault on free speech. Daily on America’s radio waves this loudmouth spews the most hateful and racist bile aimed at Hispanics, Gays and others he deems as non Western warriors of EuroCentric values and dogma. It is a wonderful spectacle to hear this loudmouthed bully whine and cry at being given a taste of his own medicine. Bravo to Ms. Smith, you have brought honor to Britain and stood up to virulent hatred and demonization.

    Like

    • ginaswo replied:

      if you open the door to restrictions based on speech you are not a Democracy

      Like

%d bloggers like this: