back to article UK Home Office: If we want Ofcom to break the law, that should be perfectly legal

UK Home Office ministers are to appeal against a High Court judgment, handed down a few weeks ago, that prevents them from ordering regulators like Ofcom to stop carrying out their statutory duties. Royal Courts of Justice/Law Courts in london, england (High Court & Court of Appeal of England and Wales) High Court confirms …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ofcom declined to comment, while the Home Office had not responded by the time of publication

    which is just a brilliant example to demonstrate why people vote the way they vote, i.e. "anti-establishment". Not that Mr Farage or any other populist is gonna help them, once they were to get "established" :)

    1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

      Re: Ofcom declined to comment, while the Home Office had not responded by the time of publication

      The real problem doesn't consist of the elected officials, but the layer just below. And that layer is the real establishment, there are no replacements at that level after a change of the guard because of election results.

      1. quxinot Silver badge

        Re: Ofcom declined to comment, while the Home Office had not responded by the time of publication

        The real power is not the layer below the elected. It's the layer above; the ones who purchased them. This group too will not change during an election year, as the new ones are the same as the old, though the price may vary.

        1. veti Silver badge

          Re: Ofcom declined to comment, while the Home Office had not responded by the time of publication

          The people who get to bend the law to their will are not simply a class - lobbyists, or politicians, or the rich. The people who succeed in this endeavour all have one thing in common: long attention spans. They're the ones who keep on trying, after the weekend campaigners and hashtag-bandwagon-jumpers have moved on.

          Of course, rich people and companies - if they're wise - employ full-time minions (lobbyists) to keep paying attention on their behalf. And protest voting does nothing to change this, because most of the protesters - even if they did, momentarily, happen to unite around one banner - will promptly move their focus on to their choice of "next bandwagon", thus diffusing any force they might otherwise have applied.

      2. Korev Silver badge

        Re: Ofcom declined to comment, while the Home Office had not responded by the time of publication

        Sir Humphrey, is that you?

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Ofcom declined to comment, while the Home Office had not responded by the time of publication

      "a brilliant example to demonstrate why people vote the way they vote"

      And not working things through comes into that. The actual anti-establishment powers here are the courts (so far) and the EU. The protest voters are removing the assistance of the latter and didn't take kindly to the Supreme Court telling HMG it had to follow the law in implementing their vote.

  2. nematoad Silver badge
    Unhappy

    I am the law!

    " Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? "

    Nope,

    More like "L'etat c'est moi."

    This is not a case of who watches and supervises Whitehall, this is the government deciding that yes, it really is above the law. I thought that we had done away with the divine right of kings nonsense when we topped Charles l.

    Maybe not.

    1. Kubla Cant Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: I am the law!

      I thought that we had done away with the divine right of kings nonsense when we topped Charles ll

      Point of fact: Charles II died in bed. He even apologised: "You must pardon me, gentlemen, for being a most unconscionable time a-dying".

      It was his dad, Charles I what got topped.

    2. Wellyboot Silver badge

      Re: I am the law!

      Divine right didn't disappear until William III was declared king by Parliament1 following not a small amount of high stakes political skulduggery and almost nobody (outside of Ireland2) wanting to support James II who did believe in Divine right.

      As Kubla says above Chas.II died in bed, he was popular (not too hard following Cromwells activities) and had quite a good time after the restoration.

      1 1688 - Setting the precedent followed by several 'Succession to the Crown' acts, The last one in 2013 removed primogenita.

      2 Kicking off a war in Ireland and the last 300 years of 'Problems'

      1. phuzz Silver badge

        Re: I am the law!

        I was under the impression that there was a certain amount of Catholic/Protestant disagreement which added to all of the above, was I misinformed?

        1. Teiwaz Silver badge

          Re: I am the law!

          I was under the impression that there was a certain amount of Catholic/Protestant disagreement which added to all of the above, was I misinformed?

          There's a certain amount of war by proxy.

          You'll often find Palestinian and Israeli flags flying in 'frontline' Housing Estates.

          If Mongoose flags were erected, Snake would probably follow in the other area.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: I am the law!

        "Chas.II ... had quite a good time after the restoration."

        I think he probably had a good time before it as well, once he got out of that oak tree.

  3. Velv Silver badge
    Flame

    This all sounds just so "American" in it's attempts by government lobbyists to screw over the working classes.

    So glad we're a member of the EU and therefore we as the little people get protections against such government interference.

    Oh, wait...

    1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
      Coat

      Those wanting to 'free ourselves from the shackles of the EU', who wish to 'regain our sovereignty', who seek to give our own the right to do what they want to do without higher interference or obstruction, don't appear to have considered what our own will choose to do when free to do that

      Or have, and think that's somehow a good thing.

      I don't see the vote to leave as securing our freedom and liberty; just securing our right to be bent over and shafted.

      I'm looking forward to when my grandchildren ask me; where were you when Brits voted themselves into oppression and slavery?

      The one with the "Turkeys voting for Christmas" badge.

      1. Rich 11 Silver badge

        I'm looking forward to when my grandchildren ask me; where were you when Brits voted themselves into oppression and slavery?

        "Driving the tumbril, which is why you're now free to ask that question without being summarily sent to the Yaxley-Lennon Memorial Re-Education Academy'n'Grill for five years of marching and saluting."

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Threat to National Security?

    So the Home Office now say "the operation of commercial multi-user gateways can have the impact of masking the identities of suspected terrorists and criminals which threatens our national security."

    What complete and utter rubbish with this totally misleading statement. A red-herring!

    Ofcom's own CLI guidleines do NOT require CLI to be a legal prerequisite. VoIP, without GSM Gateways, enables CLI spoofing which could be a serious threat. WhatsApp with wi-fi connectivity and end to end encryption is without doubt a very serious security issue. Lord Anderson QC in his report of Investigatory Powers for the Government makes no mention of GSM Gateways as a security threat. Surely any on-going Home Office or Ofcom defence of their completely indefensible positions is more public money wasted.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Threat to National Security?

      No threat, which they know. This is bad government. Dishonest, money-wasting with a career-saving agenda driven by those in the shadows..

  5. xpz393

    CLOSE THE WINDOW! (Ignore the wide-open door)

    "A spokesperson for the Home Office told The Register: "We have been clear that the operation of commercial multi-user gateways can have the impact of masking the identities of suspected terrorists and criminals which threatens our national security."

    Yet deliberate CLI spoofing via other methods is still OK.

    Not sure whether to call bullsh*t or stupidity?

  6. Dan 55 Silver badge

    This is so much arse-covering bollocks

    0845/0870 indirect access numbers which let you call abroad are still (barely) a thing, and at least when I regularly used them admittedly years ago the person at the other end saw a random number which maybe was from the UK or maybe from the foreign country. Yet somehow it wasn't illegal/didn't have to be be stamped out because terrorism/etc...

    GSM gateways are exactly the same thing only with a SIM.

    The Home Office is dysfunctional, they'll spend years burning money fighting till the bitter end over every single decision they screw up.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "But who will watch the watchmen?"

    Themselves?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020