UK at it again...


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : UK at it again...

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author Message
Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32045
Credit: 13,719,141
RAC: 26,115
United Kingdom
Message 1405869 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 8:30:59 UTC

I an see where both Hev and Es come from, in that the response to this Miranda business does seem disproportionate given the circumstances. First of all Snowden abused his position of trust to leak secrets from two major world powers, to the press. He says he did this as the people have the right to know what is being secretly done behind the scenes without their knowledge, and in their name. However it is quite possible that in so doing he has left both countries more vulnerable to further terrorist attacks.

The whole thing Miranda underwent was probably because it was thought that as Snowdens partner, he may have known as much as Snowden did about anything, and they wanted to find out if their suspicions were true. That is simply assuming guilt by association though. This hard drive business in the papers basement, when there copies elsewhere in the world was for two reasons. By handing over the hard drives their sourcs may have been compromised, and secondly the officials that oversaw the destruction were clearly trying to make a rather heavy handed point.

There needs to be a balance struck between personal freedoms and national security, and I don't think we have that yet. Wouldn't it be a lot easier all round to give government statements along the lines of "After 9/11 and 7/7 our countries governments are committed to protecting the people from further outrages as far as is practically possible. To this end anyone that comes to our attention as being involved in such activities, or likely to be in any way, are liable to be monitored and have their communications intercepted".

But if governments are routinely intercepting everyone's phone calls and emails etc on a daily basis, as a matter of course just in case they might need to look closer at the data in future, that is not acceptable to the majority of people. However you could look at it this way. Say in the future a terrorist with a bomb is intercepted and imprisoned. It would be very useful to look back a couple of years on that persons activities prior to the arrest to see what planning was done, and with whom? Who were their associates who maybe took no part in it, but had agreed with what they were doing, and might themselves take over. Terrorists rarely work alone there is usually a cell or backup support behind them, that also need to be rooted out.

I'm not sure there is ever going to be answer to this that will suit everybody.

Profile John Neale
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 00
Posts: 514
Credit: 3,174,329
RAC: 2,087
South Africa
Message 1406020 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 16:16:17 UTC - in response to Message 1405869.

The whole thing Miranda underwent was probably because it was thought that as Snowdens partner, he may have known as much as Snowden did about anything, and they wanted to find out if their suspicions were true.

David Miranda is not the partner of Edward Snowden, but of Glenn Greenwald, a Guardian journalist.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12709
Credit: 7,199,380
RAC: 15,084
United States
Message 1406023 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 16:36:17 UTC - in response to Message 1406020.

The whole thing Miranda underwent was probably because it was thought that as Snowdens partner, he may have known as much as Snowden did about anything, and they wanted to find out if their suspicions were true.

David Miranda is not the partner of Edward Snowden, but of Glenn Greenwald, a Guardian journalist.

Yes, a not a journalist, who was highly likely to be in possession of state secrets and preparing to pass them on to the terrorist enemy via publication.

____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32045
Credit: 13,719,141
RAC: 26,115
United Kingdom
Message 1406084 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 18:36:28 UTC

My apologies everyone, I got the names wrong as you have all kindly pointed out. But my amended assertion remains cogent nevertheless.

"The whole thing Miranda underwent was probably because it was thought that as Greenwalds partner, he may have known as much as Greenwald did about anything, and they wanted to find out if their suspicions were true."

Sorry folks.

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11495
Credit: 1,723,426
RAC: 1,729
Israel
Message 1406086 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 18:51:25 UTC - in response to Message 1406084.

My apologies everyone, I got the names wrong as you have all kindly pointed out. But my amended assertion remains cogent nevertheless.

"The whole thing Miranda underwent was probably because it was thought that as Greenwalds partner, he may have known as much as Greenwald did about anything, and they wanted to find out if their suspicions were true."

Sorry folks.



So with no "hard evidence" whatsoever, this country's Police Officers who are there to Uphold the law are now Law Enforcement Officers?
____________

Profile The Simonator
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 04
Posts: 5187
Credit: 2,073,436
RAC: 2,625
United Kingdom
Message 1406356 - Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 9:08:23 UTC - in response to Message 1406086.

So with no "hard evidence" whatsoever, this country's Police Officers who are there to Uphold the law are now Law Enforcement Officers?

I don't see what you're getting at.

____________
A man reading a thesaurus effects an ambulatory ingress of a tavern.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32045
Credit: 13,719,141
RAC: 26,115
United Kingdom
Message 1406361 - Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 9:19:45 UTC
Last modified: 22 Aug 2013, 9:45:04 UTC

I see very little difference between upholding the law and enforcing the law. Unless you are unconsciously associating the letters "force" with guns or something. Smuggling of drugs is illegal, if detected and found by police officers, it is reported. Then a specialist agency like HMRC will take them to court. Perhaps that is what you meant?

My apologies for quoting the Mail today, but this bit is just mind boggling.

Bongo bongo land' UKIP politician now says employment law should be torn up to allow small firms to sack women workers who get pregnant, UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom has suggested.

The Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire MEP said that owners of smaller businesses were too scared to hire women of childbearing age because of maternity and anti-discrimination laws. Mr Bloom called for the tearing up of 'draconian' employment legislation which burdened small employers by giving women the right to take maternity leave and expect their jobs back. He said there should be 'liberty of contract' which would see a woman replaced for a job if she had children.

Totally outrageous, I can just imagine what Es & Hev will have to say about that ..... And there's more

He predicted that feminism was a passing fashion, created by 'shrill, bored, middle class women of a certain physical genre'. The only male supporters of feminism were men 'who seem to have no link with the usual social and sporting male preserves, the slightly effete politically correct chaps who get sand kicked in their face on the beach'. The feminists of the 1970s were actually 'hostile to other women' and had done 'the sisterhood no favours'.

The former businessman said he was puzzled that women had produced so few great works in the arts despite having much more time on their hands in the 18th and 19th centuries. 'Most wives do not regard putting petrol in the car as any part of their responsibility. Men cannot see the point in making the bed if you are going to get back in it tonight.'

He also said he would be 'happy to punch the first man who tries to steal my beer'.

You couldn't make it up .... Hope he's made his will!

UKIP Bloom

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 3976
Credit: 2,031,794
RAC: 923
United Kingdom
Message 1406374 - Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 9:59:15 UTC

Refreshing to see someone speaking their mind and not worried about political
correctness. With regards to the UKIP, their open, aggressive in opinion and
have a healthy following something that worries the mainstream parties very much.
If they survive long enough they will eventually change the face of politics in
the UK, the latter I believe has already started.

I listened to the LBC phone-in programme last week regarding the quoted
Employment law and the programmes presenter summed-up quite succinctly at the
end, "Well, I think it's pretty unanimous that this law is working against small
businesses". The same conclusion that I drew listening to all those who rang in
to this radio programme.

____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11495
Credit: 1,723,426
RAC: 1,729
Israel
Message 1406383 - Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 10:34:40 UTC

Lawyers seek judicial review

Interesting comment made though.....

"But former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said this was not what the powers were meant for."
____________

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 3976
Credit: 2,031,794
RAC: 923
United Kingdom
Message 1406386 - Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 10:42:14 UTC
Last modified: 22 Aug 2013, 10:42:34 UTC

Mr Miranda's lawyers said he had nine items, including his laptop, mobile phone and DVDs, seized during the detention.

Law firm Bindmans said it had started legal proceedings to "protect the confidentiality of the sensitive journalistic material".

It said the judicial review application aimed to secure a temporary restriction to stop the authorities using the material.

I wonder what material that is then, something prejudicial to the Guardian
newspaper by any chance?
____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32045
Credit: 13,719,141
RAC: 26,115
United Kingdom
Message 1406390 - Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 10:51:36 UTC

Refreshing to see someone speaking their mind and not worried about political correctness.

Thank you :-) Now hold on here, you are mixing up three issues in one.

Firstly Bloom. He is clearly an MCP and has all but effectively blown it for his future. There are figures somewhere I have seen that suggest that, the female vote in some elections may be higher than the male vote. Not done himself any favours there then.

Next UKIP. They are the popular protest vote. They are to England what the SNP are to Scotland. If you want to join apply here Join UKIP although as you can see they desperately need to raise some cash because they don't have a penny to their name. God, even the MRLP has more assets than they do!

Lastly SME's. Everyone agrees that the current legislation is overburdening to small businesses and nees to be reviewed. The small ones today can become the big ones and employers of tomorrow, but not if they are smothered as they are now. People who ring into radio programs seem to me to be a bit of a funny breed to be honest. Who listens to a disembodied voice from a little box on the table, then is enamoured to pick up a telephone and give an opinion.

Scene : in deepest Berkshire

I say Mildred old thing did you hear that?
Yes dear.
Cant have that, I must say something.
Don't be too long dear, dinner is in 10 minutes
Dash it all old gel, gotta put ones point of view
But you wrote to the Observer last week
Yes but they didn't print it.
Ring ring ring, hello?
Good morning, Major Cholmondley-Smythe here, now about these small businesses

Voice off : On the Table .....



Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32045
Credit: 13,719,141
RAC: 26,115
United Kingdom
Message 1406393 - Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 10:55:46 UTC

I wonder what material that is then, something prejudicial to the Guardian
newspaper by any chance?

Oh don't say that, Polly Toynbee will wet her knickers. Assuming of course that it's her turn to wear any this week.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8682
Credit: 24,916,215
RAC: 27,824
United Kingdom
Message 1406395 - Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 11:02:14 UTC - in response to Message 1406383.

Lawyers seek judicial review

Interesting comment made though.....

"But former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said this was not what the powers were meant for."

But isn't that the problem with a lot of "Laws". Unless written so that they are absolutely watertight, and that is almost impossible, then the law is what the lawyers say it is, if they can get the other people who "understand" law, The Judges, to agree with them.

You only need to see the results of the Human Rights laws, and the US 2nd Amendment.

Profile The Simonator
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 04
Posts: 5187
Credit: 2,073,436
RAC: 2,625
United Kingdom
Message 1406405 - Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 11:25:31 UTC - in response to Message 1406361.

I see very little difference between upholding the law and enforcing the law. Unless you are unconsciously associating the letters "force" with guns or something. Smuggling of drugs is illegal, if detected and found by police officers, it is reported. Then a specialist agency like HMRC will take them to court. Perhaps that is what you meant?

My apologies for quoting the Mail today, but this bit is just mind boggling.

Bongo bongo land' UKIP politician now says employment law should be torn up to allow small firms to sack women workers who get pregnant, UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom has suggested.

The Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire MEP said that owners of smaller businesses were too scared to hire women of childbearing age because of maternity and anti-discrimination laws. Mr Bloom called for the tearing up of 'draconian' employment legislation which burdened small employers by giving women the right to take maternity leave and expect their jobs back. He said there should be 'liberty of contract' which would see a woman replaced for a job if she had children.

Totally outrageous, I can just imagine what Es & Hev will have to say about that ..... And there's more

He predicted that feminism was a passing fashion, created by 'shrill, bored, middle class women of a certain physical genre'. The only male supporters of feminism were men 'who seem to have no link with the usual social and sporting male preserves, the slightly effete politically correct chaps who get sand kicked in their face on the beach'. The feminists of the 1970s were actually 'hostile to other women' and had done 'the sisterhood no favours'.

The former businessman said he was puzzled that women had produced so few great works in the arts despite having much more time on their hands in the 18th and 19th centuries. 'Most wives do not regard putting petrol in the car as any part of their responsibility. Men cannot see the point in making the bed if you are going to get back in it tonight.'

He also said he would be 'happy to punch the first man who tries to steal my beer'.

You couldn't make it up .... Hope he's made his will!

UKIP Bloom


Serves you right for reading the Daily Mail! :)

If we want freedom of speech in this country (which i hope we do) then we have to allow such people to speak their minds.
Listening to him is not the same as agreeing with him. As it happens i disagree with him on this subject, and i wouldn't vote for him in an election, but i wouldn't try to censor him.

People have many opinions on many different topics. No doubt there are many subjects you and i would disagree on, but at no point will i say you shouldn't be allowed to express your opinion, then i can express mine, and perhaps a lively debate would result.

Actions however are a different matter, if he were to manifestly discriminate against any women he may employ then he should be corrected and prevented from doing so.
____________
A man reading a thesaurus effects an ambulatory ingress of a tavern.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32045
Credit: 13,719,141
RAC: 26,115
United Kingdom
Message 1406407 - Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 11:38:22 UTC

A very good post indeed, and I heartily agree with all the points you made.

Serves you right for reading the Daily Mail! :)

Yes, I know. I did buy the Mail once, but not any more, but they do have a good website. Actually I was looking for something else on the web and this came to my attention in passing. I had a chuckle as I imagined the steam rising in the air in Vancouver. I just couldn't resist posting it ;-)


NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 3976
Credit: 2,031,794
RAC: 923
United Kingdom
Message 1406416 - Posted: 22 Aug 2013, 12:31:55 UTC

can see they desperately need to raise some cash because they don't have a penny to their name. God, even the MRLP has more assets than they do!

Might be what the Employment law outburst is all about, trying to get small
business on their side and subsequent financial sponsoring from them...sort of
political lobbying but in reverse.


____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11495
Credit: 1,723,426
RAC: 1,729
Israel
Message 1407597 - Posted: 25 Aug 2013, 13:21:37 UTC

Still at it....

New law needed
____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11495
Credit: 1,723,426
RAC: 1,729
Israel
Message 1408810 - Posted: 28 Aug 2013, 13:35:01 UTC

Will be interesting if she wins....

Court ruling on airport questioning
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32045
Credit: 13,719,141
RAC: 26,115
United Kingdom
Message 1408848 - Posted: 28 Aug 2013, 15:24:23 UTC

A Muslim woman who says she was stopped at an airport "without reasonable suspicion" is awaiting a court ruling on whether her rights were breached. Sylvie Beghal was held at East Midlands Airport under anti-terrorism laws. Police did not suspect her of terrorism but wanted to speak to her about "possible involvement", judges heard.

She has asked the High Court to rule on whether Terrorism Act powers for police and border guards breach the European Convention on Human Rights. She pleaded guilty at Leicester Magistrates' Court and was given a 12-month conditional discharge. But she later took the case to the High Court on the grounds that stopping and questioning people without reasonable suspicion breached the European Convention.

I would have thought that the situation here was quite obvious to everybody. Some get rich quick lawyer has obviously convinced her that she can make a few bob out of this and him too.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12709
Credit: 7,199,380
RAC: 15,084
United States
Message 1408883 - Posted: 28 Aug 2013, 16:24:49 UTC - in response to Message 1408810.

Will be interesting if she wins....

Court ruling on airport questioning

Haven't a clue to your legal systems.

In the US, such discrimination based on look alone appears to be fine, with no change from Dr. King's speech. Lip service is paid to non-discrimination which is why granny gets pulled out of queue on occasion to be strip searched.

The issue here is the stupidity of quick look criteria. Once the terrorists or smugglers or whatever bad man finds out what the criteria is, he won't fit it. You have to give everyone an enhanced look or accept the risk in not giving enhanced looks.

If you can't afford the people to look at everyone, then give and enhanced look at every fifth. Put an eyeball on the queue and see if anyone is trying to count to see if they are going to be number 5. That person gets a super enhanced special look.

____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Politics : UK at it again...

Copyright © 2014 University of California