The use of social media sites as both a political campaigning tool and a method of intimidation has burgeoned in recent years; and authorities' attempts to keep the lid on the internet, particularly in countries with regimes we would consider outwith the pale, has been stepped up since the so-called Arab Spring.

The latest was reported by the BBC and concerned new laws introduced in China to compel internet users to 'fully identify themselves' to service providers.
According to the report: "The announcement will be seen as evidence China's new leadership views the internet as a threat.

"The Chinese authorities closely monitor internet content that crosses its borders and regularly block sensitive stories through use of what is known as the Great Firewall of China."

There has long been an awareness that the Chinese authorities see the anarchic and free-speech nature of the internet as difficult to square with an ordered society, with many major search engines (OK – Google) being at odds with attempts to control their content.

It's not just in China that the issue is causing a stir. Much closer to home, our own Government has taken a panning for its Communications Data Bill from a Parliamentary committee and been forced to go back to the drawing board by Cleggie himself.

In language that some opponents of the bill would consider offensive, Home Secretary Theresa May was quoted by the BBC as saying: "People who say they're against this bill need to look victims of serious crime, terrorism and child sex offences in the eye and tell them why they're not prepared to give the police the powers they need to protect the public."

• The really entertaining thing for any student of political history at this time of year is the release of papers under the 30-Year Rule. This year is particularly intriguing as it involves 1982, the year of the Falklands War. The material includes evidence by then-PM Margaret Thatcher to the Franks Committee, in which she reveals her astonishment that the invasion took place. There were those of us at the time who were equally astonished (and still are!) that the 're-invasion' should have taken place.

The big shock, however, has been the revelation that the government considered pulling the home nations out of the World Cup in Spain over fears of a possible clash with Argentina – the first time we'd had three teams in the competition since 1958!

• The other good thing about this time of year is that there are always some nutters convinced Armageddon is happening. In this case a not-insubstantial number of people thought the end of the world was going to be on 21 December – the Solstice – because that's when the Mayan calendar ran out. Funny that: my calendar runs out every year but we just keep plodding on. Anyway, among those who saw the impending doom as an excuse for a day off was an attorney from Montana in the US.

According to the highly-entertaining legal blog Above the Law, he filed a 'Notice of Non-Availability' with the local court, stating: "Plaintiffs' counsel hereby gives notice he will not be available any time after December 21, 2012, due to the end of the world." He offered a report in The Independent as Exhibit A.

The case in question has as two of its protagonists the City of Whitefish and the Board of Commissioners of Flathead County; so it's a spoof, right? Well, it might be, but those two places actually exist!

Chris Stokes