|
|
Post by ARENA on Jul 21, 2016 7:58:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Jul 21, 2016 8:14:57 GMT
Yes. Rumours were always there but nothing was ever confirmed.
That's real power...when you can stand as virtuous in front of the people because of your ability to completely cover all traces of dirt....family, paedophiles, Hillsborough...
Staggering really! And still she is revered (not by me, I hasten to add)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2016 9:13:38 GMT
Yes. Rumours were always there but nothing was ever confirmed. That's real power...when you can stand as virtuous in front of the people because of your ability to completely cover all traces of dirt....family, paedophiles, Hillsborough... Staggering really! And still she is revered (not by me, I hasten to add) I think as time passes and more secrets of the great and the good are revealed I think we will find that they are all the same. The greatest shock so far was John Major's affair with Edwina Currie.........come on !!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by ARENA on Jul 21, 2016 9:59:39 GMT
In the UK the original D-Notice system was introduced in 1912 and run as a voluntary system by a joint committee headed by an Assistant Secretary of the War Office and a representative of the Press Association. Any D-Notices or DA-notices are only advisory requests, and so are not legally enforceable; hence, news editors can choose not to abide by them. However, they are generally complied with by the media.[1]
In 1971, all existing D-Notices were cancelled and replaced by standing D-Notices, which gave general guidance on what might be published and what was discouraged, and what would require further advice from the secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC). In 1993, the notices were renamed DA-Notices.
Thatcher totally abused this to hide anything she didn't want the public to know of.
Even insider dealings were deemed 'secrets', if she wanted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2016 11:31:27 GMT
In the UK the original D-Notice system was introduced in 1912 and run as a voluntary system by a joint committee headed by an Assistant Secretary of the War Office and a representative of the Press Association. Any D-Notices or DA-notices are only advisory requests, and so are not legally enforceable; hence, news editors can choose not to abide by them. However, they are generally complied with by the media.[1] In 1971, all existing D-Notices were cancelled and replaced by standing D-Notices, which gave general guidance on what might be published and what was discouraged, and what would require further advice from the secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC). In 1993, the notices were renamed DA-Notices. Thatcher totally abused this to hide anything she didn't want the public to know of. Even insider dealings were deemed 'secrets', if she wanted. With today's instant internet coverage and social media I don't think any government would get away with "D", "DA". or any sort of notice Seems that only the courts can restrict what us humble plebs are allowed to know, eg the recent high profile sex/celeb sexual antics revelations ban
|
|
|
|
Post by ARENA on Jul 21, 2016 12:04:10 GMT
Excuse me Gus but why are we humble plebs in any way entitled to know what some empty oiks are doing in the bedrooms of LA?
We are however entitled to know when husbands and sons of the highest profile politicians are insider dealing or buggering little boys!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2016 14:25:39 GMT
Excuse me Gus but why are we humble plebs in any way entitled to know what some empty oiks are doing in the bedrooms of LA? We are however entitled to know when husbands and sons of the highest profile politicians are insider dealing or buggering little boys! How do you know that the action was in LA. do you know something that we don't? I suppose it is the fact that they use their money and the courts to conceal something they did that they want to hide Bring back the News of the World, how we all loved the Sunday titillation
|
|
|
|
Post by lana on Jul 24, 2016 10:38:27 GMT
Thatcher - just the name makes my blood boil.  That link says "To read the full article, please answer this quick question" I have noticed this a few times,just lately,on links and it just makes me leave the page. |
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jul 24, 2016 13:44:35 GMT
Excuse me Gus but why are we humble plebs in any way entitled to know what some empty oiks are doing in the bedrooms of LA? We are however entitled to know when husbands and sons of the highest profile politicians are insider dealing or buggering little boys! How do you know that the action was in LA. do you know something that we don't? I suppose it is the fact that they use their money and the courts to conceal something they did that they want to hide Bring back the News of the World, how we all loved the Sunday titillation
The News of the World would not have touched Thatcher. In any case, we The Sun of Sunday is just the NOTW with a facelift, isn't it? |
|
