egafd.com

The Home Secretary Reid is fast tracking new legislation to prevent anyone who has criminal convictions from writing a biography and selling it. He wants to muzzle people with convictions from telling their side of the story and perhaps proving their innocence.

The attitude of the Home Office is that everyone who is convicted must accept their guilt and cannot be allowed to write a book in order to cast doubt upon the verdict of the court or the fairness of the justice system.

I have written a biography detailing the corruption I myself have encountered in the English courts. So far it has been too hot to handle for any publisher as I allege corruption at extremely high levels.


Mike Freeman

Talk about deja vu, Remember all that aggro when the government of the day tried to stop Peter Wright form publishing his memoirs in Spycatcher.
Governments of all persuasions seem to get a bit rabid, Any one would think they had something to hide !grin!

This will meen a few MPs wont be able to write their memoirs ,and one in mind is a well known published novelist !love! and now are very own Prime Minister looks like he could be interviewed by the police along with a few of his cronies, corruption starts from the top. !sad!

?The Home Secretary Reid is fast tracking new legislation to prevent anyone who has criminal convictions from writing a biography and selling it. He wants to muzzle people with convictions from telling their side of the story and perhaps proving their innocence.?

I hadn?t heard about this proposal, Mike. But if it?s true it?s pretty monstrous. Everyone, no matter who they are or what they have done, should be afforded a voice ? to air their view or their side of the story, no matter how nutty or unpleasant. We should be very, very, wary of anyone who proposes gagging or silencing any member of our society. This is how those in power maintain the status quo and their positions of power and privilege. Once they have gagged the people in society who most of us might despise or who have a different view, they will then move on to all those who take an opposite (though less contentious) view to the party or state (smokers, foxhunters, porn viewers, etc?). The slimy bastards will make it sound like it?s the right thing to do, the best thing for society, and that no ?right thinking? person could possibly object. Don?t let ?em get away with it. Kick your apathy and complacency in the metaphorical ball-bag. Tell ?em to fuck off!



Officer Dibble

I'd like to see this challenged. Perhaps it would be a reasonable gesture if a percentage of profits were paid to victim support and other relevant charities, but I don't support a ban. Where would Reid stand with regard to 'chequebook journalism'? Isn't it the same thing and potentially much more lucrative.

Perhaps it's just an unworkable idea and is merely a 'soundbite' which is intended to create a certain perception of the Government to appeal to a specific segment of the electorate? How many of these ideas are never actioned ?

In your case Mike, you always maintain you were a scapegoat, or you were made an example of etc! fair enough, you have an interesting story to tell, and one that a reader can make his or her mind up about, but how do you feel about some fucking lowlife who battered a pensioner, did 4 years, then made a profit from telling thier story, or say...That cunt Huntly that murdered those 2 small girls in Soham, should he be allowed to write his version of events and profit, I dont think so, he should have been given a lethal injection, never mind a word processor..

See my letter in TheTimes Saturday November the 4th.
Mike Freeman.

Here is the link


Mike Freeman.