Yes she does tweet: @@BritishMonarchy:disqus 

The problem we have is that there has been a very large scale betrayal of trust on the part of journalists, police, and politicians. This is our Watergate if you like. The fallout is still continuing with potentially *600* more cases of “phone hacking” [sic] announced last week. The effect of this has been traumatic. Yes we have laws to cover this, but they did not deter a large number of editors and journalists, and they don’t seem to have produced the kind of redress that most people want. The Royal Charter idea (sent in by a member of the public) is designed to provide oversight of current laws. Since what happened seems to have been a failure of oversight on a massive scale, it seems reasonable to have more oversight.
The Charter is voluntary and at least two high profile editors have said they won’t sign it. And they are free to do so. The Charter provides for the industry to regulate itself, which is a compromise because a lot of people wanted external regulation and oversight.The idea that the British press is “free” is laughable. They can say what they like, so they are free in that sense. I can call the Queen a whore if I so wish and I won’t be put in jail. But the press is largely *owned* by plutocrats who shape what the papers say. Rupert Murdock was at the forefront of this shaping of what UK papers said. Murdock dominated the media in the UK to an extraordinary extent. He corrupted politicians. He decided who papers would support for elections. And his lieutenants sanctioned the illegal accessing of many many cell phones to check people’s messages. This is not freedom of the press, it is control of the press by corporate interests for the benefit of corporate interests. Anyone who still believes in a free press must have forgotten Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent – or never seen it. It’s not free here, or in the USA. We aren’t free – we have the illusion of freedom, but are everywhere in chains.

Some newspaper / news site somewhere would eventually fall prey to your persuasion.  And Twitter is fantastic for spreading the word.

The times, they are a-changing.

“The nasty foreigners are dangerous – but they cloak themselves in human rights to prevent their just and right punishment”

I’m thinking of kickstarting organised bus trips from the tory stronghold villages into Central London.  Let the blue rinse brigade actually take a look.

They should also take a look at UCL’s slavery compensation database – might be a bit embarrassing.  There are a few people in there with my family name – although I hasten to add this is not a story in my family, and if there was money, neither I nor my parents saw a penny, about which I am not sad.  Voodoo cash.

The Great British Public is so politically naive it makes me weep.  Even Chris Evans’ morning broadcast on BBC Radio 2 has higher substantive political content than the majority of brits.

Mind you, I could say that for anywhere really couldn’t I?  Fuck it.  I’m announcing today that I am great leader.  Finito.

If the Tories get another term after ToryBot v1.0 (Cameron) then quite frankly we don’t deserve human rights.

You’re not likely to be at the leading edge of suffering when that happens.

With the greatest of respect, Cory, that’s a very easy attitude to adopt when you are a best-selling author and a leading contributor to one of the most widely-read sites in the blogosphere. You’re privileged to have all the speech anyone could ever want; what about those of us who don’t enjoy such access?

I can shout all day at the top of my voice, but I will never be able to make myself heard against the Daily Mail. Absent regulation and/or defamation law, I would be utterly devoid of recourse against even the most grotesque and malicious of allegations.

Does the Queen tweet?

Shit, I’m already sitting down.

If the Tories get another term after ToryBot v1.0 (Cameron) then quite frankly we don’t deserve human rights.

But if you and three friends edit a joint Twitter account or blog or Facebook group, you fit the bill. To those who say that a Twitter account isn’t a website, I think they’re erroneously assuming consensus about what is and isn’t a webpage.

But what about those that say the qualifier “in the course of a business” means it doesn’t make any difference to them one way or the other?

It sort of strains at the boundaries of the social contract.

If someone loaded wants to come after you, they’ll bankrupt you before you can get there.

At wiki, a point of view on English defamation law:

English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and is considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sue in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in US courts if they don’t comply with US free speech law, largely in response to the English laws.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Defences

Not looking good for my “this is gossip” defence.

Second of all, because strong libel laws always amount to a rich bastard’s charter for out-spending critics (cf Simon Singh and the chiropractors)

But most of all, what we’re talking about here isn’t publishing libel without consequence. Under the rules, even if the “publisher” (by which we may mean, “Two ordinary people maintaining a joint Facebook group where they express strong opinions about the local council”) is totally exonerated, he still have to pay the compainant’s legal fees. Which means that complaining is free, and being complained about costs money, no matter whether you are in the wrong. It’s a moral hazard so glaring you can see it from space.

I don’t like it one bit, but if this tyrannical crap gets in, are there precedents for how to avoid being defamatory?

In which case do what I do when the UK implements laws that contravene European Law. Ignore them.