24 posts • joined Wednesday 11th August 2010 12:19 GMT
I've not been anti-sky news for a while, because I'm often impressed at the nerve of their journalists. I'm thinking Holly Williams in a street in China confronting armed "police" on their behaviour, and Lisa Holland attempting to put herself physically between a rape victim and her Libyan captors.
Sky journalists act is if they're competing to see who can get the riskiest story. We need more like them, and less of dense journalists reporting what they saw on TV...or just making stuff up to sound important.
The retraction is here
"• Articles in the Guardian of Tuesday 12 July incorrectly reported that the Sun newspaper had obtained information on the medical condition of Gordon Brown's son from his medical records. In fact the information came from a different source and the Guardian apologises for its error (The Brown files: How Murdoch papers targeted ex-PM's family, 12 July, page 1; When Brown decided that the Sun was out to destroy him politically, 12 July, page 2)."
Which 'facts' are you seeking to verify - that NI's defence is that there was no hacking of the child's medical records?
http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-the-sun-denies-brown-allegations-as-murdochs-brooks-brace-for-mp-questi/ may be of some help.
Won't someone think of the children?
The "Damian McBride thing", if it is indeed the result of hacking, is a pretty good example of why such practice is entirely warranted in the right circumstances. That's why there's a public interest test in the UK that weighs against prosecution in such cases - and that same test would apply in the investigation of Brown's purchase.
Corrupt politicians want newspapers to shut the hell up about corruption.
Good for them
The investigation into Brown's finances and purchase of a flat from the Maxwell empire (at an absurd price) is unconnected to the story about Brown's child.
If the British press is legislated into a cage where it can't investigate possible corruption among public figures, we will be in a very unhappy place indeed. Except for politicians and bureaucrats on the take.
Them darn kids
The internet really does make things different - Hari's past works appear to getting combed-through on a scale that past plagiarists would probably not have experienced.
But so many of his stories - like the one where he claims to have laid both an "Islamist" and a "Nazi" - are so resistant to fact-checking, it seems doubtful he'll ever have the credibility to write on such a trust-me basis ever again.
Why We Must Disestablish School
Educationalist authoritarianism or feverish marketing: Ivan Illich had a point: "the institutionalization of values leads inevitably to physical pollution, social polarization, and psychological impotence"
"Is it coz i is gay?"
Indeed. And so unlikely does it seem that anyone ever, as part of a real conversation, put these words together in this order:
"I never noticed her leaving the house twice a day in a fluorescent jacket and a Stop Children sign."
- that it looks like the miscreants of Parliament are producing propaganda to encourage hatred of the poor, while continuing to demand receipt-free expenses for themselves.
That's because you're assuming that "anonymous" in corporate excuse-making language actually means what you think of as "anonymous". But the range of what consists of identifying information is wider than names and reg numbers. If data shows my car parking in my drive and repeatedly driving to my office, that's not anonymous. It's surveillance.
There is no reason at all to store this kind of data, let alone pass it on. Boycott Tomtom, IMO.
It's high *frequency*, not high volume.
These are systems that can see potential trends develop before that information is available to private investors, so execute orders based on information the entire market doesn't have, and possibly create price movements that otherwise wouldn't happen. Nothing to do with "investing", not much to do with liquidity, but - arguably - looking like a parallel of insider trading.
Headline: Police hate anonymity and judicial process
There's a reason we don't want police creating policy. They are enforcement-driven, and authoritarian by tendency.
Regulation to stop police from political lobbying, that's the reform we need.
"Nuclear safety" is a numbers game
It would be even greater if we didn't lobby for and build more nuclear power stations, thereby ensuring those "loads of people" don't have to die in the inevitable catastrophes.
Look harder (but not very)
They may not use the C-word, but they believe the bollocks (often watering down with waffle about "compatability" of religion and science
"We believe that all people are created in the image of God."
Yes, that's right, it's "official". No such thing as a troll.
Whatever sensitive types, wikipediots and their ilk (hi there, Monbiot and Mooney!) would have you believe, posting slightly harsh words on the internet is not a crime.
Nonsense - my BBC tax is not hypothecated - I pay toward all its operations, not just broadcasting, and the BBC's continual double-dipping (enforced by the time-limitation of "iplayer" offerings) is unfair to BBC taxpayers.
> Define "fair"
Without prejudice. As in, not judged before evidence is properly presented (with full benefit of rules of trial and evidence) - which this release would tend to make unlikely.
Leaking *by a state* is not so much ironic, as entirely asymmetrical.
Bring on "The Cuts"
It's so unlikely the police will ever accept that such propagandizing is not part of policing, it appears the most effective way of slowing them down will be starving them of the funds they waste.
(If they can bring themselves to sack the assorted marketing-driven idiots rather than getting rid of actual police, that is...)
Every time it's suggested police should actually do more low-level things like "increase patrolling on foot", ACPO will offer up some jabberer to point out this would distract from important stuff like "fighting international terrorism". And that fight consists of this kind of tosh?...
The problem this story is scratching isn't so much the rise of our own stasi, but something way more prosaic (and alarming in its own way) - UK police are confusing their prized "operational independence" with just "independence", and are morphing into a spinning, market-researching, advertising and political campaigning body. Only, being a bunch of middlebrow Express readers, they are, by-and-large, incredibly bad at it - and probably can't be trusted to keep their policy positions and subsequent prejudices distinct from their policing duty. Ms May, while pushing for elected police chiefs, ought to be prohibiting police-led campaigning of all stripes. Eliminating ACPO, which appears to do little else, would be a grand start.