"No guinea pigs...
"... were tasered during this operation" a Police Spokesman announced...
5948 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
"... were tasered during this operation" a Police Spokesman announced...
Any politician is naiive if they're gullible enough to be suckered by a newspaper's weasel-worded question.
One that starts eg "Do you support..." or "Do you think..." or "Would you say that..." should be treated with utmost caution because it's almost guaranteed that they're looking for anything they can hook an accusation of "MP says..." onto it.
... if they have a BofH working there and, if so, were any managers trapped at the time...?
... is still dead!
Click here for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalissimo_Francisco_Franco_is_still_dead
You should be able to figure out the answer to that question from previous posts I've made, but if not, ask Jane Fae :-)
(And it's only icky if someone consents to it being icky!)
You're getting off on those puns, aren't you...? ;-)
Did Birgitta Jónsdóttir "illegally steal" (do you know the meaning of the word "tautology"?) the information? No.
Is making the information available "illegal" simply because the USA doesn't like it? No.
Is the USA going on a fishing expedition to try to find something incriminating against her a breach of their own laws? Quite possibly and certainly hypocritical.
Is Twitter right to refuse to just hand over this information? I would certainly say so and so do lawyers in America.
PS as I said in a previous post 'I also feel that you should look up the term "Straw Man"...' but clearly you haven't as you clearly still have no idea of the meaning of the expression.
The first point is that it seems a little more than hypocritical for the US to be objecting to people "unofficially" distributing *their* politicians information, but then deciding that they can *demand* information from others.
The second point, following on from that is that this seems to be more of a fishing expedition ("Let's see who she's been talking to and what she's said, maybe we can find something incriminating") than a request for actual *evidence* of wrongdoing.
Do you think they care?
"America. Fuck Yeah!"
... is that the US Patent system is totally broken.
Wow, who would have guessed, huh?
... said Pooh as he realised there was a typo in his table...!
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true."
The Hunting of the Snark
- Lewis Carroll
Unfortunately, unlike the Bellman, your repeatedly claiming that I "blindly hate" the USA and following that false assumption up with the equally false conclusion that I therefore "blindly stick up for Assange" does not make it true.
Try some facts some time.
How do I really feel?
Well I really feel that you've rather missed the point.
Yes, there's a lot of chaff amongst the wheat here. Yes, there's trivial stuff there, but that doesn't mean that *all* the content is trivial and not worth releasing, nor does it mean that Wikileaks should decide *for themselves* what is or isn't worth releasing.
I also feel that you should look up the term "Straw Man"...
"Blind hatred of the United States"? Err, no. Just a dislike of policies promulgated by a country that calls itself "The Land of the Free" when that should really be "The Land of the Free to Say Stuff We Approve of".
"Assange a flake and egomaniac"? Doesn't mean that the stuff Wikileaks was publishing is wrong or that people shouldn't have a right to know it.
"Guardian reading"? Nope, don't read it any more than I watch Fox News. Do you?
The sound you hear is more high-fives being exchanged in the USA because the story is now about Assange instead of what the US Government has been up to behind people's backs...
Don't you know, punters aren't supposed to make a *profit* in casinos?
"[...] will not have the capacity to influence climate"
Erm, no, but surely they'll be devastating for sea-life which relies on the dissolved oxygen in the water?
... to protect the profits of big companies, just like those who got the EU to introduce legislation to prevent "grey imports" from outside the EU which could be sold at cheaper prices than "official" products on the grounds of "trademark infringement"...
"...used to simulate one aircraft to be used to simulate another."
I'm sure a lot of governments and military organisations could (and should) learn a *lot* from this!!
A follow up to that post:
Kevin Webster has just been cleared of any wrong doing.
"It's good to know ordinary members of a jury can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, even if the law and its enforcers decide that the distinction doesn't matter."
Trust me, I'm not muddling anything up.
Both cases involve the same law (Sections 63 - 68 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) and involve *possession* of these images, the one that I cited just goes even further that the one mentioned in the article and takes it to its ludicrous extreme that *even though* the Prosecution accepts that the images are fakes, it falls under Paragraph 7 of Section 63 ie:
(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic
way, any of the following—
(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s
anus, breasts or genitals,
and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person
or animal was real.
My sincere hope is that the Jury will see sense and say "This is a stupid law, we don't care what it says, we're going to find the defendant Not Guilty".
"surely there are a large amount of horror films which are now illegal to view"
No, because the law contains a specific exclusion for films which have been BBFC classified, but only in their *entirety*
64 Exclusion of classified films etc.
(1) Section 63 does not apply to excluded images.
(2) An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images
contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.
(3) But such an image is not an “excluded image” if—
(a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and
(b) it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been
extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally
for the purpose of sexual arousal.
... you've had plenty of time, there were enough responses to your Freedom Bill consultation objecting to this stupid law , so get your bloody fingers out and get rid it before we see more cases like this one
* * * * *
A MAN who downloaded staged images of sexual violence against women has gone on trial under new laws banning "extreme pornography."
In one of the first cases of its kind in the country, Kevin Webster is accused of having "grossly offensive or disgusting" pictures, even though they are "fakes".
Darron Whitehead, prosecuting, told jurors [...] "We know the images were fake. The question is whether it is realistic or portrayed in that way.
"The intentions of the persons within those images are irrelevant. It is what is depicted in those images which is material."
* * * * *
WTF? We know they're fake, but because they *LOOK* realistic, we're going to prosecute him anyway!
"A little bit censored" is like "a little bit pregnant".
Try looking at the history of the US FOI act and see how it's been fought over by various Administrations and how the definition of "for national security" has changed (currently it allows for a retroactive determination of "for national security" *after* an FOI request is made!) and then tell me that the USA is really being as open and honest as it purports to be.
The US Government wants to classify anything which it thinks that its people "don't need to know". The Chinese Government wants to deny people access to anything which thinks they "don't need to know".
How fine do you want to split that hair?
However it *is* hypocritical for the US to demand that people who reveal *their* secrets be censored (or even charged with "treason"!) whilst at the same time saying that it's ok when it's *other countries'* censorship!
"You're not supposed to be here at the same time as me!"
Well, yes, when I've had to phone the Emergency Services in the past I've heard the operator say to the Police/ Ambulance/ Fire Service "Connecting you with 023 92..." so this is hardly news.
And why would they *not* keep the details? "Err, guv, someone phoned up reporting hearing a woman screaming in Clifton, Bristol just before Xmas, but we didn't keep their number"??
As for "senior officers admitted the information could be used against people as part of any future police investigation" that sounds like someone asked a typical Daily Mail weasel worded question "So, Mr Senior Officer, would you say that this information could be used against people...?" (Senior Officer shrugs) "Well, yes". "AHA! Hack scribbles down 'Senior Officer admits...''"
Whilst I'm all in favour of authorities not keeping excessive amounts of data for longer than is necessary, unless there's any evidence of this information being data mined to innocent people's detriment, this seems a total non-story.
"price rises of between five and eight per cent as shops round up prices."
Or small businesses having to swallow the rise to keep prices down to stay competitive :-(
... have got in ahead of the rush by deciding to ditch their speed cameras and save a quarter of a million quid a year on cameras which are mostly badly sited and do damn all for actual road safety.
Perhaps they'd like to use that money put a few more traffic Police out on the streets to catch the drunks and the idiot drivers instead which would do a lot more good.
... And she cruised through the hamburger stand now.
But the car's got MyFord so she can't drive
More than the speed limit now.
And she can't have the radio blasting or
Go cruising just as fast as she wants now
She can't have fun fun fun
'Cos Ford's Thinking of The Children Today!
(With apologies to the Beach Boys)
Is that the sort of cloud that delivers a short sharp shower of s$$t?
... the Department of Pre-Astroturfing!
From the House of Lords on the 16th of December 2010:
Asked by Baroness Miller of Hendon:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of the public disorder that took place on 10 November and 9 December, they will introduce public order legislation prohibiting the wearing of masks or disguises at otherwise lawful demonstrations, marches and protest meetings.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the police already have powers under Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to require the removal of face coverings worn for the purpose of concealing identity. The police also have powers to seize such items.
Might I remind you that prostitution *is* "within the law", it's just that most everything around it (street-walking, "running a brothel", "living off immoral earnings" etc) which is illegal.
There is already the International Union of Sex Workers http://www.iusw.org/ who are affiliated to the GMB in this country who are lobbying for the right to decide for themselves how they are allowed to operate without threat of criminalisation.
We don't "need a debate" on this, the facts are already out there and the arguments boil down to a) As long as it doesn't cause problems for anyone else, it's their life and their business b) We don't like it, so they shouldn't be allowed to do it and c) The NIMBYs
Of those only one argument really makes any sense and, properly implemented, would deal with the NIMBYs as well.
So first of all get rid of the ridiculous law that say that two or more women working in the same building for their own safety counts as "running a brothel".
Secondly allow them to employ security staff who *won't* be classed as pimps "living off immoral earnings" (in fact get rid of that stupid phrase altogether)
Thirdly ensure that women (and men) working in the sex industry get the *full* protection of the law that they are entitled to, such that violence and other unacceptable behaviour against them isn't just considered to be "a risk of the job"
Finally just get rid of the attitude that these women are automatically "victims" and "need help to get out of prostitution" whether they have got into it of their own free will or not. By all means protect those who are forced or trafficked into it, but if not, we don't need ham-fisted efforts like those from Harriet Harperson to close down sites like Punternet or criminalise men for failing to prove that a woman hadn't been trafficked (an impossible task)
You mean a bunch of arrogant prats who would not listen to what people were telling them, who held "consultations" which were rigged to give the answers they wanted whilst ignoring any evidence to the contrary, who pi$$ed all over people's basic rights and freedoms in a vainglorious quest for more power, who believed that the Nanny State was the best way to go and that they were going to be benevolent Big Brother watching over us because we couldn't be trusted to act responsibly on our own...???
Yes, that sounds *exactly* like what the last government stood for!
... where patents go through virtually on the nod and then people start pointing out Prior Art?
Patent troll because...
... Who Cares...?
So, absolutely no change there, then.
... any noun in the english language can be verbed...!!
I'm sorry, but anyone who uses a word like that is digging their own grave...!
Again Scorchio!! misses the point.
At the moment the Government and the Civil Service can, effectively unilaterally, decide that "the people don't need to know this" and slap a 30 year rule restriction on it when the restriction on releasing the information involved is more to do with covering someone's political backside than risk to anyone's security.
Nobody is arguing that information on current military or security operations should be released willy-nilly without any care as to the results, so please stop bringing up this specious claim.
To pick one example: "By the time WikiLeaks published the study, the Army had begun to deploy newer technology, but some soldiers were still using the devices."
So a) the Army were aware of the problem and b) they *still* deployed the original technology *even though* they knew there were problems. Would *we* have known about this had Wikileaks not revealed it or would it have been hushed up, do you think?
You go on "IOW he's acknowledged the probability that he has harmed people" but you're distorting "might" into "probably has" which BTW still has nothing to do with him being "unelected/self appointed".
As for the rest of your "power without accountability" argument, you're really missing the point, go back and read again what I considered the "eminently good qualifications" I mentioned were and then consider whether the "standards" of our elected representatives are what you would expect in a responsible and democratic country.
If anyone should be arrested, it is those at the top of our power structures (such as those responsible for the lack of security of the computer systems that he hacked!) not someone who reveals *their* complacency.
"The point is that Assange is not someone who has either the authority, experience, or ability to correctly disseminate information on the behalf of any government."
In other words he's not a party flunky, political spin doctor or someone with a vested interest in protecting the careers of politicians.
Those sound like eminently good qualifications to me!
As for your supposition, why would Assange be treated any different from anyone else who has leaked embarrassing things about the British Government?
And why am I "wrong" because *you* and the Government think that the people that elected them don't "need to know" things that were done in their name? Does that include things like using our own troops as guinea pigs for biological, chemical or radiological research? Does that include co-operating in the USA's "extraordinary rendition" programme where people were illegally flown from UK soil to places where they could be tortured? Does that include forcibly shipping out the population of Diego Garcia island to allow the Yanks to set up a base there? Does that... (this list could go on for a long time).
I can accept that *some* information needs to be secret if it will affect existing operations or put at hazard those who have participated in past operations, but blanket impositions of "it's secret because we don't want you know and it might make me look bad" simply don't wash.
"Assange deliberately got good people killed and he profited from their deaths."
Really? Who got killed and how did Assange profit from their deaths? (BTW You might like to look up the definition of "libel" at some point...)
... Governments should be afraid of their people.
Alan Moore - V for Vendetta.
ITYM Gullible idiots who believe our advertising and can't be bothered to look further think that we actually offer good value for money...
... you *CAN'T* go around telling people that Chip and Pin isn't perfect and wonderful and absolutely impossible to fiddle or defraud as we've been lyin^H^H^H^H telling people for ages now!
If you did that, then everyone who's been scammed with a C&P card and been told "too bad, the technology is perfect, it must have been your fault!" might get the idea that they don't need to be fobbed off like this and *can* get their money back from us!
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF OUR PROFITS!!
- SIgned: The banks.
"[...] that have been staples of most websites for years."
Does this mean he's only just noticed, or only just decided that they're now valuable enough to make it worthwhile suing for...?