your argument is flawed. i assume you're responding to tessa jowell's remarks on the brass eye programme. granted, what she is saying is a load of rubbish, but calling for her to be censored in order to protect freedom of speech, which i think is your aim, is surely using the wrong tactics and defeating your own point of view.

any elected politician (regardless of personal views on how fair the electoral system is and also on how functional our democracy is) should be allowed to say whatever they feel to be right - their arguments can then be countered and opposed in the public forum. censorship in this respect is not the way forward. as it is, she seems to be making a fool of herself, so why not let her get on with it? you cannot advocate freedom by calling for restictive controls.

I do not think anyone can seriously be saying that an elected politicians has any more right to go uncensored than anyone else?

If that is what you are suggesting, I suggest you are propsing one type of authoritarianism for another.

Apart from that, have a look at voter support. Even by the rules of parliamentary democracy, these people in general have no real mandate, and therefore there opinions do not hold any special value over others- unless you are talking of the interests of the businessmen that fund their propaganda wars.

"Free speech for all including my enenmy"

:-)

I heartily agree the Madam Jowell - if thats not how you spell it, i'm not that concerned, is about as ignorant daily-hate mail reading and anachronistic as you can get, and it only serves that small band who actually realised what (demi god) Cris Morris was actually trying to achieve. He achieved his greatest measure of success sprcifically because he knew those wind-bag whitehall types would play their hands exactly as they did - just like those tuppence rent-a-gob "celebrities" who would sell their own mothers for 5 nano seconds in front of a camera ( - i've just sniffed my keyboard sitting here, and i'm definately feeling more suggestible) - fucking idiots.
I do feel however, that although Tessa's innane ramblings were necessary to the ultimate success of the program and giving untold daily mail readers one more peptic ulcer, (yay) - (it all helps the nhs in the end) the real crime was the way Chris was LEGALLY allowed to let "THE STARS" make such utter cunts of themselves. Afterall, in a shiny plastic consumerist society such as ours, our "celebrities" provide a lead - our kiddies look upto their plastic chins and noses, and into their botoxed eyes and say "mummy when i grow up, can i be like (read whoever is in steps - thankfully i don't know their names)...

AND REMEBER KIDS - CAKE IS A MADE UP DRUG...

perhaps the Government will ally itself with Bernard Manning again?

;-)

Referring to the disparity in govt comment, Hugo Young surprislingly wrote the following criticism:-

'This is not a party point. The degeneration that has unfolded under Mr Blair builds on that which was well developed under Thatcherism. Maybe it's characteristic of governments everywhere. But seldom has there been such a revealing mismatch of responses, such a woeful reaction to two events that had in common the fact that television encompassed them.'

The whole revealing article is at:-