The 20 year rule... or was it 30?

  

Get the party poppers and champagne out; this is only going to be a short article. Phew. But still, however, one I think that is extremely important, owing to my whole 'free speech' obsession. Which, to be honest, I don't even see as a bad thing. Because Free Speech is, I think, one of the most important things to have in a country, because in a way it is the building blocks of everything else. I read an article once in 'The Spectator' that argued, interestingly, that granting a country full democracy before free speech becomes common place can only end in tears, because free speech gives people the chance to actually make an educated decision about who they are going to vote for. In fact, the way I see it, democracy is the icing on the cake, and  free speech is the cake. So democracy without free speech is like icing without cake, and eating purely icing tends to result in a slightly sicky feeling (believe me, I’ve tried). I’m aware the metaphor is once again running away with itself, so I’ll get to the point.
   In Britain, we have this law that after 20 years information that previously was kept private from the public can be published, which is how I knew about Margaret Thatcher’s plans to deploy the army onto striking minders. And I think that's a great plan. Because it means that we actually get to know what went on behind some of our most controversial moments, and that give a better backdrop and therefore chance of understanding our history. Except the more mathematically minded of you may of realised that the 1984 miners strike was 30 years ago. And the most observant of you may have noticed that 30 years is actually a little bit longer than 20 years. 50% longer, in fact.
  And it's not just with information about Thatcher that the rules have proved to be extremely lenient. The Royal Family’s idea of 20 years is also 30 years. And unless someone’s going round with a Tardis, it seems to me that, actually, no-one quite seems to stick to '20 years'. 20 years is like speeding laws. You know it’s there, but if you have to, then they can be broken.
  If you've been reading my posts for a while, you'll be able to work out exactly how I feel about this. I'll give you a hint: my current mood is a close to 'annoyed' as a bullet in the brain is to a headache. Because could somebody please explain to me that point of a law promoting, basically, free speech, that be changed whenever the government sees fit? That doesn’t say to me that the government is doing it's best to be on the level of the public, really. You can’t form educated opinions without the facts, and we are being denied the facts...
 So anyway, you lovely lot, my oven timer is beeping to tell me that my cookies have just finished baking, and I think that a burnt mouth is worth the first taste of cookie. Thanks for reading, again, and it won’t be long until my next article!
 E.C

Well isn't that strange...

    I think I probably should begin ‘Lib-Dem’ style, with an apology. I have been woefully absent from your computer screens, and honestly I struggle to imagine how you have all survived. But if some of you have made it through those bitter days free of nonsensical drivel, I am back. You don't need to resort to dramatic measures to hear nonsense. So put down that copy of Twilight, turn off Jeremy Kyle and welcome to the world again.
      Now really this article is something that, strangely, hasn't got a lot of press recently, though the BBC has got an article on their website. But then again, what do you say about something that disappears? Do we speak in hushed voices of the fond memories that we had, before laying down a rose and moving on, one tear rolling dramatically down our cheeks? Maybe there should be an international day of mourning, for The Lost Speeches of the Conservatives. Because, as the more clued-up of you may know (or just those who watch Have I Got News for You) several of the Conservatives speeches outlining policies and promises have vanished in an Orwellian-style purge. I mean, when I heard this I was genuinely shocked. Deleting speeches and hiding them in a little corner of the internet unknown to anyone? Sounds more '1984' than Cameron’s England. And if we're totally honest (which I always try to be), this is all a little Men in Black.
       The technology people, which we will now call them for the sake of my brain, have done some technology stuff (this is not a technology blog, so go with it) and found out some technological things. And as far as I can understand them, they are as follows: the records have been removed from the 'Internet Archive', which aims to keep a record of all documentation on the internet in order to preserve Free Speech (take note, Mr Cameron), and hidden the speeches in a little corner of the internet, the size of the 'Things Joey Essex knows' list. There's also some techy stuff about a 'robots.txt.' file which the more intelligent of you can try to decipher, but there’s the basics as I understand them.
       'So', I hear you say,' these Conservatives can’t have just left this issue, they must have had a response!'. Right you are, public, right you are. They did, and that was to tell the public, quite convincingly that ''changes [to the website] allow people to quickly and easily access the most important information we provide - how we are clearing up Labour's economic mess, taking the difficult decisions and standing up for hardworking people'', although I assume that if you check for that it will have gone in a few years...
    So there we are. Things They Don't Want You To Know. But hey, unfortunately for you, you know me. And I'm a little obsessed with free speech. Because its important. Anyway, hoped this little bit of drivel brightened this winter day for you, and I won't be away for long!

E.C

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24924185
Heres the link, by the way, in case you want to hear how this is written by someone who knows what they're doing!