@MarkLewisLawyer I've read it, as far as 1 is allowed! (Ha!) Can't see why U think Leveson frees press of Gov oppression, not opposite?
-
-
Replying to @Jay_Ramella
@Jay_Ramella @MarkLewisLawyer there is no prohibition on reading it. Do you think 1st amendment to US constitution is govt regulation?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MLewisLawyer
@MarkLewisLawyer Meant 2 B ironic! I'm not pro-Leveson but not following U re 1st Am. If US gov is based on Const surely FOS part of gov reg
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Jay_Ramella
@Jay_Ramella @MarkLewisLawyer that is the whole point. Statutory underpinning to ensure no government interference3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MLewisLawyer
@MarkLewisLawyer
@Jay_Ramella Even that relies upon who actually staffs the eventual regulator, its remit & not venturing outside it tho no?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY @MarkLewisLawyer@Jay_Ramella Think that's what I can't avoid - it's subjective. U're lawyers, U know what that means!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Jay_Ramella
@Jay_Ramella @MarkLewisLawyer I'm no lawyer Jay. Just a bloke who's not stupid!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Jay_Ramella
@Jay_Ramella @MarkLewisLawyer Worth considering what purposes some might have in common with others when such organisations are born?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@Jay_Ramella @MarkLewisLawyer Nothing wrong at all. There's a genuine sense of secrecy moving into the business of imposition recently.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.