91–100 of 275 posts
Almost makes you think we only have terrorism just so the countermeasures can be exploited to keep the masses under total control. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Especially now that the (deeps state) ruling class consists ... Sorry I don't think you should state conspiracy theories as fact without someone calling you on it. There are reasons for police to spy on activists (even illegally) without needing to assert the existence of a "deep state" EDIT: to clarify, above where I say "reasons" I mean just that, not "reasons that I necessarily agree with"
And those reasons would be... what? These are people with political views the government disapproves of. They are not bomb-throwing anarchists or people with a history of violence. They are not organising or threatening acts of public violence. This is entirely a free speech issue.
Animal rights protestors have firebombed[1] several UK department stores (for selling fur), and abattoirs and milk distribution depots; dug up a corpse from a grave and held the body hostage; rescued animals from labs and caused damage to the labs;
Far right groups have rallies that attract considerable violence; an English politician was murdered by a far right extremist.
Illegal surveillance is obviously, unambiguously, wrong. The people who did it need to face both disciplinary action and criminal prosecution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only time people in power make concessions is when there is a credible threat to them maintaining that power.
If you can suggest one?
It's fairly pointless to list examples, as they are everywhere. Sometimes the goal is achieved more easily, sometimes it takes decades. But it can work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make it sound as if the article was written by a journalist, not a person who had been leaked to and is a part of the story. Anyway, that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws: The Guardian failed to point out in its report that new legislation proposed by the Law Commission would make the author of the anonymous letter, Jones herself, and the journalists at…
>that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws Why do we have to consider what essentially is treason to a nation to be ok? You have to go to the electorate and tell them "you see, this guy just leaked these documents which put our nation's security at risk. Shall we just set him free?". I'm sure that'll go well... you have Snowden/Assange to see how it went.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make it sound as if the article was written by a journalist, not a person who had been leaked to and is a part of the story. Anyway, that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws: The Guardian failed to point out in its report that new legislation proposed by the Law Commission would make the author of the anonymous letter, Jones herself, and the journalists at…
>that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws Why do we have to consider what essentially is treason to a nation to be ok? You have to go to the electorate and tell them "you see, this guy just leaked these documents which put our nation's security at risk. Shall we just set him free?". I'm sure that'll go well... you have Snowden/Assange to see how it went.
If we as a nation want those activities, then we should make them legal and clearly defined. If not, then stopping those activities from taking place hardly sounds like "treason".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most British subjects would probably want their police to be subject to the law, the same as all other subjects I'm now 38 years old and have seen little evidence to support your statement, either in the UK or elsewhere. Most people seem _totally_ okay with members of their ruling class being drone-murdering, tax-thieving, law-breaking, crotch-grabbing assholes.
You forgot: pedophiles.
Outrageous. I worry we in the USA are going this direction too.
Have you seen the FBI files on people like MLK and Malcom X? In fact this goes as far back as the 19th century if not more, with workers rights activists, human rights activists and others. And doesn't stop at collecting data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot: pedophiles.
Oh, right - although one could argue that's a subclass of crotch-grabbers.
If only the subjects of the UK had a spine, as a people, and the willingness to confront the dire evil that has usurped their political infrastructure .. alas, they don't. A nation of cowards, really.
That article is based on an article and an opinion piece that were published in the Guardian last month: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/whistl... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/21/ipcc-investi...
You make it sound as if the article was written by a journalist, not a person who had been leaked to and is a part of the story. Anyway, that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws: The Guardian failed to point out in its report that new legislation proposed by the Law Commission would make the author of the anonymous letter, Jones herself, and the journalists at…
No, that's not a proposal of the Law Commission report (which isn't a proposed new law).
Here's the document. It's over 300 pages long. The consultation is still open.
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/protection-of-official-data...
The report gathers information about all the whistleblowing protection law in the UK; all the secrecy protection law (which exists in some weird places; and laws in other countries.
The 14 years comes from 2 places:
1) comparing the English "Official Secrets Act" maximum sentence (currently 2 years) with the equivalent in Canada (currently 14 years). But the report does not propose, even tentatively, that the English maximum is extended to 14 years.
2) Comparing the maximum sentence under the official secrets act with other laws. For example:
> 3.184 The maximum sentence for the offences contained in the Official Secrets Act 1989 is the same as many other offences that criminalise the unauthorised disclosure of information. For example, it is an offence punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment for an employee of the National Lottery Commission to disclose information that has been supplied by Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs that relates to a person whose identity is specified in the information or whose identity can be deduced from the information. This is the same maximum sentence available for an unauthorised disclosure that, to take one example, damages the capability of the armed forces to carry out their tasks.
One effect is to lengthen the maximum sentence under the Official Secrets Act, but another might be to reduce the sentences in all these other laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>that whistle blower and the leaker could both get 14 years under proposed anti-whistleblower laws Why do we have to consider what essentially is treason to a nation to be ok? You have to go to the electorate and tell them "you see, this guy just leaked these documents which put our nation's security at risk. Shall we just set him free?". I'm sure that'll go well... you have Snowden/Assange to see how it went.
Is it treason to expose abuses of power and illegal practices?
Anyone who works in a classified/borderline field signs multiple documents that skirt around this, limit rights, and especially allow some form of nonjudicial prosecution.
As for that being right or wrong on either side, that is a long and frustrating argument.