Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Future War Cultist wrote: Wait, isn't hacking someone's phone or emails already illegal anyway? If journalists resort to that then yes, bring charges against them, but otherwise to me this proposed legislation just sounds like they're* trying to muzzle the press to guard against investigations into their sorted dealings.
* they being the usual suspects of course.
Indeed; Ian Hislop gave some excellent statements at the various investigations into the press, basically saying that pretty much everything that was done which people were complaining about was already illegal, and was a result of the law not actually being applied.
The press has a right and duty to use its journalistic powers of investigation to uncover bad behaviour, corruption and so on. This is in the public interest. The problem is that some newspapers, mainly tabloids, have used their journalism to muck-rake stuff that isn't remotely in the public interest except for prurient entertainment value.
In the Millie Dowler case, the misuse of phone hacking potentially compromised the police investigation, and definitely affected her family's life. This was unconscionable and it was quite right that the papers involved got spanked. They should have got spanked harder.
I agree, however you can't criminalise the target, only the method. However its specifically worded in response that the methods proscribed are those which effect soft targets. Clever bit of work frankly.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
People seem to be overlooking the fact that some of the greatest scoops in British journalistic history were only made possible by criminal means.
Section 40 should be opposed tooth and nail by anybody who values press freedom.
It seeks to do two things:
i) bring in a licensed press, something we haven't had since the 1600s or there about
ii) create the conditions that would allow the rich to batter magazines and publications into silence, more so if publications were forced to pay all legal costs, even if the publication won its case.
It's a very slippery slope.
We already have the farce of libel tourism in England, new spy powers coming into play, and so on...
Whatever you may think of the British tabloids (I wouldn't wipe my rear with them) let's try and hold onto something that props up democracy in this nation.
Give me a bad free press over a 'good' regulated press any day of the week.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Give me a bad free press over a 'good' regulated press any day of the week.
I disagree with this to be honest. In general the British press is appallingly bad, churning our scurrilous gak in a failing bid to sell papers and doing their damnedest to influence and direct political thought.
Investigative journalism is a vital pillar in a liberal democracy but at the same time the tabloid, even sometimes the 'quality', press needs to be reigned in. Section 40 isn't what is needed though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/30 09:28:29
Reading through the proposed legislation I can see what Orlanth is getting at, this is legislation intended to curtail the use of illegal means of data gathering.
I don't think that harms the press, but it does make it trickier for them to get away with poor behaviour and standards.
My personal belief is that I don't think we have much of a free press anyway. Highly politicised, and a lever to means of unelected power, the ownership of the press is a real issue. Non-domiciled billionaires such as Rupert Murdoch, are able to exert enormous influence over the country.
"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”
Anthony Hilton
Evening Standard
Feb 2016
At risk of opening up another Leave Vs Remain debate, the fact that this billionaire has such influence is a real concern. If the cost of a "free" press is a Govt enslaved to foreign influence, then ensuring that they act legally, within the law, is not unreasonable.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Give me a bad free press over a 'good' regulated press any day of the week.
I disagree with this to be honest. In general the British press is appallingly bad, churning our scurrilous gak in a failing bid to sell papers and doing their damnedest to influence and direct political thought.
Investigative journalism is a vital pillar in a liberal democracy but at the same time the tabloid, even sometimes the 'quality', press needs to be reigned in. Section 40 isn't what is needed though.
I think the influence of the press is vastly overrated. Newspaper readership has been in decline for years now, more so given the rise of social media.
Two cases illustrate my point:
1) Attlee was hated by the press in 1945, and yet, he wins by a landslide.
2) The SNP are loathed by the unionist press in Scotland, but have won 3 elections in a row, despite a hostile media. Yes, the opposition being urine poor has helped, but the press did the SNP no favours and they still swept to victory.
I don't know if you read Private Eye, but a few weeks back, an ex-policeman was found guilty of child abuse in Wales some years ago.
Private Eye investigated it in the 1990s, the case was brought to court, but the policeman was cleared.
Sadly, a witness later killed themselves
Anyway, the case returned to court this year, with new witnesses and new evidence and the ex-policeman was jailed, and Private Eye was vindicated.
If section 40 had been in place back in the 1990s, the Eye would have been in big financial trouble and justice might not have been served years later.
That's the danger of section 40, so I'm glad I'm not the only one to be against it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/30 12:58:26
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ....I don't know if you read Private Eye, but a few weeks back, an ex-policeman was found guilty of child abuse in Wales some years ago.
Private Eye investigated it in the 1990s, the case was brought to court, but the policeman was cleared.
Sadly, a witness later killed themselves
Anyway, the case returned to court this year, with new witnesses and new evidence and the ex-policeman was jailed, and Private Eye was vindicated.
If section 40 had been in place back in the 1990s, the Eye would have been in big financial trouble and justice might not have been served years later.
That's the danger of section 40, so I'm glad I'm not the only one to be against it.
Perhaps the police officer was cleared because the evidence had been obtained illegally? I don't know the facts of the case you're talking about but that is the danger of prejudicing criminal proceedings.
Frankly I don't believe the press should be above the law, which appears to be the stance you are taking?
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
r_squared wrote: Reading through the proposed legislation I can see what Orlanth is getting at, this is legislation intended to curtail the use of illegal means of data gathering.
I don't think that harms the press, but it does make it trickier for them to get away with poor behaviour and standards.
My personal belief is that I don't think we have much of a free press anyway. Highly politicised, and a lever to means of unelected power, the ownership of the press is a real issue. Non-domiciled billionaires such as Rupert Murdoch, are able to exert enormous influence over the country.
"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”
Anthony Hilton
Evening Standard
Feb 2016
At risk of opening up another Leave Vs Remain debate, the fact that this billionaire has such influence is a real concern. If the cost of a "free" press is a Govt enslaved to foreign influence, then ensuring that they act legally, within the law, is not unreasonable.
Part of the problem was the Met police not doing their jobs properly. They were too close to some of these journalists when instead they should have been giving them a boot up the rear for their criminal actions.
If British politicians had some positive ideas for the country and got out of the Westminster bubble, then we wouldn't have to worry about undue media influence( which is over rated in my book) on elections.
Our MPs are poor. I watched the Syria debate the other week and the ignorance about Syria and geo-politics in general was astounding.
I'm no Middle East expert, just a layman, but even I knew that Russia has been a Syria ally for decades, a fact that seem to surprise one or two of our MPs when it was raised.
They probably think Sykes-Picot is a tailor down Savile Row
I don't think our MPs read any history or politics books at all.
I would like to see all our MPs have a basic working knowledge of economics, foreign affairs, Middle East and Asian history, and some knowledge of Military history and how a modern military operates.
That's not too much to ask for.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
@Orlanth. I'm going to spoiler this to save a lot of folks here from text overload!
Spoiler:
No detected pattens are not conjecture, multiple sourced cases are not hyperbole. There is a reason why multiple sourcing is considered good sourcing, its the reason why you at a minimum double source. This is not considered anecdotal, its considered the beginnings of evidence of a trend.
Patterns are not anything such if they are from a biased selective source. I will put this in a more 'simplistic' example:-
A salt factory has 10 manufacturing lines each creating 1 kg bags of salt. They employ a friendly scientist to monitor these lines to ensure that there is a consistency to the weights and that within a few 10's of grams. However as a scientist and director they know that statistically speaking every 1000 bags or so in each line there will be a bag that is 50grams from this nominal value. The scientist and company accept this as part of natural variation of each of the lines and nothing in particular to worry about because it is just a statistical likelihood. However a reporter from the Salty Daily Fail are only interested in the bags that are 50g under the stated weight as that is what they get paid to do. So they wait and every so often from one of the ten lines a 950g bag of salt appears. And they splash it across their headlines and how bad things are whilst ignoring those above the weight or the vast majority that have 'nominal' weights. Sometimes because of statistical randomness several different lines produces 950g bags close together or one line produces a couple together and that makes their days even happier as they get paid for each of these stories. Now an angry political analyst is reading the Salty Daily Fail and goes 'a ha' there is a pattern here I see many bags of Salt under 1kg. That must mean there must be many more not being reported and the company are covering some up! My analysis is that the salt factory has wide spread corruption going on. Indeed look there have been more instances recently. I have no actual evidence for this just these reports, but then I don't need evidence I just need to look at what is being reported whilst ignoring the bias in the reported sample! So they bang on Whitehalls doors and demand action is taken. The company director gets pulled in, rather bemusedly, for questioning where they reiterate that there isn't any systematic fraud being undertaken, it is just a natural cycle and that the Salty Daily Fail and Angry Political Analyst are failing to look at all the data and just those specific instances where a bag of salt turns up at 950g. However they agree to one thing. They will review their processes and produce a report; which they do and they present their findings. Again they show there is no systematic fraud in salt bag weights. They do identify that if they increase their maintenance regime they can reduce their vulnerability that the 1/1000 chance of an underweight bag does not increase. But the Salty Daily Fail and angry political analyst jump on this and say "See look they admit there is large scale salt bag fraud because they have found areas of improvement". At which point the friendly scientist and company director look at each other roll their eyes and realise that they are fighting groups that don't really want to see the overall wider statistical picture and are much more interested individual cases as that justifies their views.
You are clutching at straws with white knuckle desperation.
you wish, inane arguments that I'm not coping with your arguments is like mud slinging when you know you are losing the debate . And to point out again relative to this comment
The very source you are harping on about one thousand cases is from the very same source which is since that time handing out warnings that THERE IS A PROBLEM. If you wont take it from me, take it from them.
It recognises that there are incidents of fraud. It recognises that some areas are vulnerable to increased fraud because of lack of political engagement. It does not state that it is widespread and endemic throughout such communities. There is no evidence for this. You are twisting what it is saying to justify your own perspective of the world. You own link to the article in the Telegraph even repeated the words "vulnerable to" not "actually happening in a large scale manner".
Sigh. We know it is due to extended asian families because in the known cases the postal votes were tracked there. Too late to take action legally, but the paper trail was clear and unambiguous.
These were still recorded in the report. I deliberately included accusations and ones that weren't pursued by lack of evidence to ensure that this argument was included. The total number is still less than 1000, so still not a significant number compared to the whole voting population.
You are making the standard excuse of the left wing press. Ethnic illegal activity is due to underrepresentation or lack of opportunity. Its always someone else fault. Again, this doesn't bear up with the facts known, from where the paper trails lead time and again, to extended family of candidates. Elected officialdom is not an underclass.
No you are misquoting them, more that a lot of illegal activity is due under-representation or lack of opportunity. That applies to all areas of society. It is the right wing press that gets hung up on the ethnic issue and highlights those situations where it happens in an ethnic community rather than examining the wider data. It's is also a failing of the right wing for there always have to be someone to blame. It is looking at the effect and ignoring the cause. Catch some acting illegally and throw them in jail solves the problem, yet it doesn't because it doesn't solve the cause of why it happened in the first place.
Politics is art not science. As stated earlier to more eloquent critics, if you wait for proof through data its too late. You look at patterns. Tried to teach you this, but you just aren't listening to reason.
I am not 'entrenched', I am standing on logical grounds. Perhaps you are entrenched, in a policy of denial of logical conclusion you dislike. Its odd that you consistently accuse me of what you are in fact doing, and are continuing to do so even when my position is now supported by the primary electoral ombudsman in the UK.
Erm, you know there is a complete field called "political science" don't you? . I think what you maybe referring to is political manipulation of the public is an art, because in that I agree. We only have to look at actors like Boris the Clown ad so on to see how people can be persuaded by the act rather than facts. On the other hand if you mean I'm entrenched in believing that data and proper scientific analysis to determine an appropriate view then yes I am, but I would argue until the world ended that using unbiased, non-selective data sampling is a better way than what an analyst (although I say this in the loosest possible way) perceives is correct from a few biased articles to reinforce an ideology that they are unwilling to change. But then that is also tory UK politics at the moment.
What root causes? You are looking for secondary factors that were never there. Again the perpetrators are time and again shown to be extended family. The Electoral Commission in their warning labels these 'community' problems, its a problem due to networking of people in a community for dishonest ends. What is your solution to community problems, a ban on brothers-in-law? criminalise second cousins?
That's the point I'm trying to make, no one has studied the root causes. You are claiming the issue is because of the relatives but why is that. It could be that they live in impoverished households where access to wider, broader perspectives is restricted. As for solutions I'd start with the engagement ones the electoral commission proposes, like actually having MPs from the parties turning up and engaging with the communities so the community at large can see different perspectives; maybe local MP Question time at the local school and so on. You propse that the problem is with the relatives whereas the reports highlight engagement as the issue which leads to relatives filling that gap.
I will burn your strawman. Why ask the question if this would be your reply. You could say that of anyone but the oldest.
My first basis is the one I use logically throughout. Postal votes, the major vector for electoral fraud, were not introduced until 1997.
As for the perspective of life in the 50's and our nations decline in precision, there is truth to this. The information age makes people lazy, administration in a pre-computer age required greater mental discipline. This is a noted phenomena worldwide.
I am generally intrigued. What do you mean by that there is decline in the nations precision; that more metal discipline was needed in the pre-computer age. Have you ever seen a lines of code for programming, I think you'd be surprised just how much mental discipline you need for this. Come on humour me where is the evidence for these statements? Is it because we now have calculators rather than slide rules, excel spreadsheets instead of graph paper?
You would like to insist on this. It is the standpoint of a weak mind to make the opposing positions arguments for them and represent them heavily in order to try and si argument.
Why don't you ask rather than assume
As evidenced above, I looked for the patterns, the change in how procedures are operated, and the fact that the major fraud vector didn't at the time exist in the system. I could add that the 60's was a more patriotic age, and that the sanctity of the vote was better understood then, but while I do believe this I cant include them as flat factors as indeed nostalgia does get in the way of those who know the age..
Not really I'm asking out of genuine curiosity and trying to provide examples of what I'm trying to get at to answer my query? You avoid providing any actual argument and just use broad waffle words with little meaning therefore I'm trying to show you what I would like you to provide as evidence. Where is the evidence of the same level critical reports on voting in the 50's or 60's that backs up what you are saying actually happened?
Think about it for a minute. We know for a flat fact that in many cases excesses are not reported or dealt with because of inflaming multicultural tensions. Whether over rotherham, or vote rigging etc.
Why would this be? The general excuse is because of how the public might react.
So let me get this straight, you criticise New Labour for wanting to hush up any in summary of your words "any inconvenience" (despite introducing FoI legislation) and yet now you are supporting that the current government is doing the same?
I doubt that. To be sceptical you have to think through the issue, there is no evidence for rationality in your replies.
Mudslinging by any chance are we? Child's playground have we now become?
No it doesnt 'appear' that way at all. You are being intentionally dishonest by placing words in my mouth in order to make your critique manageable.
Indoctrination by any group is unacceptable. There are faith schools and secular schools and they can exist under law, as they are open parents know what they get and choose to sent children to a school that reflects their outlook. I defend this with no exception for Islamic faith schools. However the Islamification goes to indoctrination stages well beyond the soft introduction to specific faiths in faith schools, furthermore it happens at a far younger age - in the UK there is no religious education at primary school level. In addition in the Trojan horse schools not only was the indoctrination overt but the discrimination against non-Moslem students was direct and very heavy. Non Moslem students did not receive one-to-one attention, or access to consumable resources, and were directly treated as inferiors at a very impressionable age.
Actually it does. You are highlighting a specific religion as causing issues again in the terminology of "Islamification". You are stating that this type of religion is the route of the issue, where it is not. It is the individuals involved (and a failure of the academisation process of schools and their review) that were the cause of the issues. It is not an issue with any particular faith. Because it happened in Birmingham in Islamic schools then the faith itself is being vilified. However it could easily have been any other faith. Christianity has just as many examples of trying to indoctrinate children (take the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda for example). Oh an to point out there are many jewish, Christian, Hindu, Islam, Sikh and other primary schools. It took me about 30 seconds to google that, but then I'm surprised I could seeing as I should have low mental discipline!
Then you should include a provision from banning atheism from schools also, you cant have everything, of course this would not work. Also the faith schools are consistently the best performing in the nation, particularly the CoE ones, much to New Labour's chagrin, why ban whats working? Also parents have the right also to their opinion, I would judge a parents right to choose a faith school for thier child as weighted higher than your call for all children to obtain a fully secular education. The former is freedom and equality, the latter intolerance and doctrinarian.. Why should you have the right to refuse a child a place in a faith school? Why should you choose to ban them? Frankly you would be the bigot for doing so and would have zero room to accuse bigotry in others.
Yes atheism wouldn't be taught either, nor would agnosticism, nor would any religion from paganism to Jediism and so on. The assumption is false that only faith schools can provide the best education. The France state system is similar and they have excellent schools as well. In all likelihood what you are highlighting is an issue of wealth distribution in types of schools rather than anything else. Schooling should be for education, faith development is best left for outside to ensure that faith and education don't become dangerously mixed up (for example the Creationism argument). I'm not sure you are understanding the term bigotry to be honest, if you treat all faiths and creeds equally then it isn't bigotry, so having all schools not teaching religion is not bigotry because none have been included/excluded, nor are children pre-selected on their (or parents) race/religion. Bigotry is when people start highlighting one group or another as 'a problem'.
Also on your bigotry jibe, nobody is saying ban Moslem faith schools. You are just insisting that is my position because its easier to assume than to read and see accurately what my position is. I am against Islamification of schools not Islamic schools, notice the difference. You can have a Moslem school, you shouldn't have a school which is secular by the front door but 'infiltrated' with hardcore Islamic teaching staff who treat non-Moslems as second class citizens.
I challenge you to find anything I wrote that implied that a Moslem faith school is the problem.
Erm you said you are against Islamification? You are highlighting a specific religion as an issue? That Muslim means someone that practice Islam? The bigotry comes from highlighting one specific religion as being the problem. It wouldn't be bigotry to say for example being opposed to any hardcore teachers, it is to highlight one specific religion.
On that note have you actually read anything on the Trojan Horse school plot in Birmingham, or are you just making random assumptions on problems you are ignorant of......again.
Yes I have, but apparently I read more open and unbiased discourse on the subject.
They were found institutionally racist because of the data. Data on stop and search, number of people arrested and so on. It *was* hard data that was used to determine this.
Actually it wasn't, it was the arbitrary conclusion of the head of the public inquiry. Stop and search data was actually inconclusive.
Yes, that was it, no evidence used at all in the public inquiry. I guess they just asked the Daily Fail what the decision should be. Heaven forbid they actually used some data to come to a conclusion! Why that is what public inquiries aren't about surely?
A fair assessment but it doesn't go far enough, some in Europe have an active hate agenda and want to stick the knife in. <cough> France <cough> Others smell opportunity by weakening our position. Normally these intentions are voiced indirectly. Though one of Trumps advisors was more candid recently. Again here is an example of pattern based analysis. What can you make of this?
Fairly simple political pattern reading test I actually thought you should be able to read, it was very unsubtle move of Barnier to demand this, it had a specific meaning that is easy to read. Ok, so I overestimated your ability. There were plenty of clues in the article, did you read it?
Ah more mudslinging, pity your aim is so poor, I might actually get worried. Yes I did read the article. A biased paper, quotes an unknown source quotes a conversation or statement that may have been heard either out of context or sub-consciously or consciously misinterpreted. All I read was that the guy wants the discussions in his native language, it isn't too much to believe that he simply stated he wanted the discussions translated into French as that was his native language. That is a much more reasonable and less childish interpretation of what was said. But then I wasn't there so as it is whisper of a whisper of a whisper my overall value on the story is pretty low.
That one was easy too, Let me help you here. Belfast had checkpoints, armed soldiers on the streets, snipers frequently active etc, that aspect of a warzone. I never said it was a warzone it just had certain characteristics of a warzone. Nothing to be triggered over. Now one of the things that comes with checkpoints are.... wait for it.... security passes! Yay. So you had checkpoints in NI so you had mandatory passes, so you have a culture of accepting carrying of mandatory ID cards.
I see the ridiculousness of your statements is lost on you...I know let me make this really easy for you. There are people there! Shock horror. There are people in warzones too, and buildings, and air! So having people anywhere gives it a characteristic of a warzone. That means we are all in areas with characteristics of warzones from Antarctica to Siberia. See you're right we are all living in areas characteristic of warzones
Finally, as it appears you have deleted the comment on your field of work...
Yes I did, at first I answered your question, but I am not answerable to you.
Either that or it isn't true! However I'd point out that if you really are employed by the state then yes, yes you are answerable to me, and all of the UK population because you are effectively working for the betterment of all of us all. You should remember that *if* you are swanning around Whitehall.
Part of the problem was the Met police not doing their jobs properly. They were too close to some of these journalists when instead they should have been giving them a boot up the rear for their criminal actions.
If British politicians had some positive ideas for the country and got out of the Westminster bubble, then we wouldn't have to worry about undue media influence( which is over rated in my book) on elections.
I'm inclined to agree with this. Although I accept the press is a bit out of control (which is partly the UK populations fault for lapping up some of the c**p they produce) I am not sure that implementing a comply or face the costs policy is the right way forward. The risk is that whoever is chosen as the 'regulator' will be government favoured and therefore the regulator will naturally favour current government favoured papers and be accepted easier than those that are more government critical. The risk is that indirectly we have state opinionated media. Any method that upsets the incumbent government may suddenly become described as not acceptable. Hence I can see the arguments that it limits free press. On the other hand if something is illegal (or possibly litigable but not illegal) then not-stinking-rich person(s) that would claim are currently disadvantaged because of the risk that any litigation may effectively bankrupt them. This could be turned on it's head with these proposals though in that the press may stay reporting on very rich people just in case.
I think my preferred approach would be that they introduce a independent complaints body funded by (for example a 1% tax on all paid press articles). Any person could complain about an article and if the body decided there was a case then they would take it to courts on litigation grounds on their behalf. If they win then a share of the money goes to the complaints body as costs. This doesn't stop an individual taking a private claim though. However the body could still find in favour but not deem it a litigation issue and might for example fine the press in question (up to a certain amount) and/or require them to submit a retraction/apology in the same manner as the original story was released (so a front page full cover story proved to be wrong would require a full page front cover apology); none of these tiny corner page 43 released at 3am shenanigans. That way the majority of the readership should recognise the poor journalism rather than be 'kept in the dark' about it. Obviously illegal activities would be reported to the Police.
But a government awarded and approved regulator on who can be press with better protection is not something I think a free thinking western world country should be considering.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/30 15:09:01
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ....I don't know if you read Private Eye, but a few weeks back, an ex-policeman was found guilty of child abuse in Wales some years ago.
Private Eye investigated it in the 1990s, the case was brought to court, but the policeman was cleared.
Sadly, a witness later killed themselves
Anyway, the case returned to court this year, with new witnesses and new evidence and the ex-policeman was jailed, and Private Eye was vindicated.
If section 40 had been in place back in the 1990s, the Eye would have been in big financial trouble and justice might not have been served years later.
That's the danger of section 40, so I'm glad I'm not the only one to be against it.
Perhaps the police officer was cleared because the evidence had been obtained illegally? I don't know the facts of the case you're talking about but that is the danger of prejudicing criminal proceedings.
Frankly I don't believe the press should be above the law, which appears to be the stance you are taking?
This is the case I'm talking about: [url]https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/04/ex-police-chief-gordon-anglesea-jailed-child-sexual-abuse-north-wales
After the original case, Anglesea was awarded a considerable sum in damages and The Observor and Private Eye were left with a legal bill amounting to £1 million.
If Anglesea was innocent, then fair enough, the money for damages was merited, but we now know otherwise and the hefty legal bill for the publications involved could have put them out of business and justice would not have been served years later.
And for the record, I'm not arguing for the press to be above the law, but we should recognize that sometimes the law is broken in order to get information which is of vital public interest.
For example, if somebody stole or leaked information that showed MPs were milking the expenses system for millions of pounds, as what happened, then in my book, breaking the law to get that info was justified.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Whirlwind wrote: @Orlanth. I'm going to spoiler this to save a lot of folks here from text overload!
Spoiler:
No detected pattens are not conjecture, multiple sourced cases are not hyperbole. There is a reason why multiple sourcing is considered good sourcing, its the reason why you at a minimum double source. This is not considered anecdotal, its considered the beginnings of evidence of a trend.
Patterns are not anything such if they are from a biased selective source. I will put this in a more 'simplistic' example:-
A salt factory has 10 manufacturing lines each creating 1 kg bags of salt. They employ a friendly scientist to monitor these lines to ensure that there is a consistency to the weights and that within a few 10's of grams. However as a scientist and director they know that statistically speaking every 1000 bags or so in each line there will be a bag that is 50grams from this nominal value. The scientist and company accept this as part of natural variation of each of the lines and nothing in particular to worry about because it is just a statistical likelihood. However a reporter from the Salty Daily Fail are only interested in the bags that are 50g under the stated weight as that is what they get paid to do. So they wait and every so often from one of the ten lines a 950g bag of salt appears. And they splash it across their headlines and how bad things are whilst ignoring those above the weight or the vast majority that have 'nominal' weights. Sometimes because of statistical randomness several different lines produces 950g bags close together or one line produces a couple together and that makes their days even happier as they get paid for each of these stories. Now an angry political analyst is reading the Salty Daily Fail and goes 'a ha' there is a pattern here I see many bags of Salt under 1kg. That must mean there must be many more not being reported and the company are covering some up! My analysis is that the salt factory has wide spread corruption going on. Indeed look there have been more instances recently. I have no actual evidence for this just these reports, but then I don't need evidence I just need to look at what is being reported whilst ignoring the bias in the reported sample! So they bang on Whitehalls doors and demand action is taken. The company director gets pulled in, rather bemusedly, for questioning where they reiterate that there isn't any systematic fraud being undertaken, it is just a natural cycle and that the Salty Daily Fail and Angry Political Analyst are failing to look at all the data and just those specific instances where a bag of salt turns up at 950g. However they agree to one thing. They will review their processes and produce a report; which they do and they present their findings. Again they show there is no systematic fraud in salt bag weights. They do identify that if they increase their maintenance regime they can reduce their vulnerability that the 1/1000 chance of an underweight bag does not increase. But the Salty Daily Fail and angry political analyst jump on this and say "See look they admit there is large scale salt bag fraud because they have found areas of improvement". At which point the friendly scientist and company director look at each other roll their eyes and realise that they are fighting groups that don't really want to see the overall wider statistical picture and are much more interested individual cases as that justifies their views.
You are clutching at straws with white knuckle desperation.
you wish, inane arguments that I'm not coping with your arguments is like mud slinging when you know you are losing the debate . And to point out again relative to this comment
The very source you are harping on about one thousand cases is from the very same source which is since that time handing out warnings that THERE IS A PROBLEM. If you wont take it from me, take it from them.
It recognises that there are incidents of fraud. It recognises that some areas are vulnerable to increased fraud because of lack of political engagement. It does not state that it is widespread and endemic throughout such communities. There is no evidence for this. You are twisting what it is saying to justify your own perspective of the world. You own link to the article in the Telegraph even repeated the words "vulnerable to" not "actually happening in a large scale manner".
Sigh. We know it is due to extended asian families because in the known cases the postal votes were tracked there. Too late to take action legally, but the paper trail was clear and unambiguous.
These were still recorded in the report. I deliberately included accusations and ones that weren't pursued by lack of evidence to ensure that this argument was included. The total number is still less than 1000, so still not a significant number compared to the whole voting population.
You are making the standard excuse of the left wing press. Ethnic illegal activity is due to underrepresentation or lack of opportunity. Its always someone else fault. Again, this doesn't bear up with the facts known, from where the paper trails lead time and again, to extended family of candidates. Elected officialdom is not an underclass.
No you are misquoting them, more that a lot of illegal activity is due under-representation or lack of opportunity. That applies to all areas of society. It is the right wing press that gets hung up on the ethnic issue and highlights those situations where it happens in an ethnic community rather than examining the wider data. It's is also a failing of the right wing for there always have to be someone to blame. It is looking at the effect and ignoring the cause. Catch some acting illegally and throw them in jail solves the problem, yet it doesn't because it doesn't solve the cause of why it happened in the first place.
Politics is art not science. As stated earlier to more eloquent critics, if you wait for proof through data its too late. You look at patterns. Tried to teach you this, but you just aren't listening to reason.
I am not 'entrenched', I am standing on logical grounds. Perhaps you are entrenched, in a policy of denial of logical conclusion you dislike. Its odd that you consistently accuse me of what you are in fact doing, and are continuing to do so even when my position is now supported by the primary electoral ombudsman in the UK.
Erm, you know there is a complete field called "political science" don't you? . I think what you maybe referring to is political manipulation of the public is an art, because in that I agree. We only have to look at actors like Boris the Clown ad so on to see how people can be persuaded by the act rather than facts. On the other hand if you mean I'm entrenched in believing that data and proper scientific analysis to determine an appropriate view then yes I am, but I would argue until the world ended that using unbiased, non-selective data sampling is a better way than what an analyst (although I say this in the loosest possible way) perceives is correct from a few biased articles to reinforce an ideology that they are unwilling to change. But then that is also tory UK politics at the moment.
What root causes? You are looking for secondary factors that were never there. Again the perpetrators are time and again shown to be extended family. The Electoral Commission in their warning labels these 'community' problems, its a problem due to networking of people in a community for dishonest ends. What is your solution to community problems, a ban on brothers-in-law? criminalise second cousins?
That's the point I'm trying to make, no one has studied the root causes. You are claiming the issue is because of the relatives but why is that. It could be that they live in impoverished households where access to wider, broader perspectives is restricted. As for solutions I'd start with the engagement ones the electoral commission proposes, like actually having MPs from the parties turning up and engaging with the communities so the community at large can see different perspectives; maybe local MP Question time at the local school and so on. You propse that the problem is with the relatives whereas the reports highlight engagement as the issue which leads to relatives filling that gap.
I will burn your strawman. Why ask the question if this would be your reply. You could say that of anyone but the oldest.
My first basis is the one I use logically throughout. Postal votes, the major vector for electoral fraud, were not introduced until 1997.
As for the perspective of life in the 50's and our nations decline in precision, there is truth to this. The information age makes people lazy, administration in a pre-computer age required greater mental discipline. This is a noted phenomena worldwide.
I am generally intrigued. What do you mean by that there is decline in the nations precision; that more metal discipline was needed in the pre-computer age. Have you ever seen a lines of code for programming, I think you'd be surprised just how much mental discipline you need for this. Come on humour me where is the evidence for these statements? Is it because we now have calculators rather than slide rules, excel spreadsheets instead of graph paper?
You would like to insist on this. It is the standpoint of a weak mind to make the opposing positions arguments for them and represent them heavily in order to try and si argument.
Why don't you ask rather than assume
As evidenced above, I looked for the patterns, the change in how procedures are operated, and the fact that the major fraud vector didn't at the time exist in the system. I could add that the 60's was a more patriotic age, and that the sanctity of the vote was better understood then, but while I do believe this I cant include them as flat factors as indeed nostalgia does get in the way of those who know the age..
Not really I'm asking out of genuine curiosity and trying to provide examples of what I'm trying to get at to answer my query? You avoid providing any actual argument and just use broad waffle words with little meaning therefore I'm trying to show you what I would like you to provide as evidence. Where is the evidence of the same level critical reports on voting in the 50's or 60's that backs up what you are saying actually happened?
Think about it for a minute. We know for a flat fact that in many cases excesses are not reported or dealt with because of inflaming multicultural tensions. Whether over rotherham, or vote rigging etc.
Why would this be? The general excuse is because of how the public might react.
So let me get this straight, you criticise New Labour for wanting to hush up any in summary of your words "any inconvenience" (despite introducing FoI legislation) and yet now you are supporting that the current government is doing the same?
I doubt that. To be sceptical you have to think through the issue, there is no evidence for rationality in your replies.
Mudslinging by any chance are we? Child's playground have we now become?
No it doesnt 'appear' that way at all. You are being intentionally dishonest by placing words in my mouth in order to make your critique manageable.
Indoctrination by any group is unacceptable. There are faith schools and secular schools and they can exist under law, as they are open parents know what they get and choose to sent children to a school that reflects their outlook. I defend this with no exception for Islamic faith schools. However the Islamification goes to indoctrination stages well beyond the soft introduction to specific faiths in faith schools, furthermore it happens at a far younger age - in the UK there is no religious education at primary school level. In addition in the Trojan horse schools not only was the indoctrination overt but the discrimination against non-Moslem students was direct and very heavy. Non Moslem students did not receive one-to-one attention, or access to consumable resources, and were directly treated as inferiors at a very impressionable age.
Actually it does. You are highlighting a specific religion as causing issues again in the terminology of "Islamification". You are stating that this type of religion is the route of the issue, where it is not. It is the individuals involved (and a failure of the academisation process of schools and their review) that were the cause of the issues. It is not an issue with any particular faith. Because it happened in Birmingham in Islamic schools then the faith itself is being vilified. However it could easily have been any other faith. Christianity has just as many examples of trying to indoctrinate children (take the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda for example). Oh an to point out there are many jewish, Christian, Hindu, Islam, Sikh and other primary schools. It took me about 30 seconds to google that, but then I'm surprised I could seeing as I should have low mental discipline!
Then you should include a provision from banning atheism from schools also, you cant have everything, of course this would not work. Also the faith schools are consistently the best performing in the nation, particularly the CoE ones, much to New Labour's chagrin, why ban whats working? Also parents have the right also to their opinion, I would judge a parents right to choose a faith school for thier child as weighted higher than your call for all children to obtain a fully secular education. The former is freedom and equality, the latter intolerance and doctrinarian.. Why should you have the right to refuse a child a place in a faith school? Why should you choose to ban them? Frankly you would be the bigot for doing so and would have zero room to accuse bigotry in others.
Yes atheism wouldn't be taught either, nor would agnosticism, nor would any religion from paganism to Jediism and so on. The assumption is false that only faith schools can provide the best education. The France state system is similar and they have excellent schools as well. In all likelihood what you are highlighting is an issue of wealth distribution in types of schools rather than anything else. Schooling should be for education, faith development is best left for outside to ensure that faith and education don't become dangerously mixed up (for example the Creationism argument). I'm not sure you are understanding the term bigotry to be honest, if you treat all faiths and creeds equally then it isn't bigotry, so having all schools not teaching religion is not bigotry because none have been included/excluded, nor are children pre-selected on their (or parents) race/religion. Bigotry is when people start highlighting one group or another as 'a problem'.
Also on your bigotry jibe, nobody is saying ban Moslem faith schools. You are just insisting that is my position because its easier to assume than to read and see accurately what my position is. I am against Islamification of schools not Islamic schools, notice the difference. You can have a Moslem school, you shouldn't have a school which is secular by the front door but 'infiltrated' with hardcore Islamic teaching staff who treat non-Moslems as second class citizens.
I challenge you to find anything I wrote that implied that a Moslem faith school is the problem.
Erm you said you are against Islamification? You are highlighting a specific religion as an issue? That Muslim means someone that practice Islam? The bigotry comes from highlighting one specific religion as being the problem. It wouldn't be bigotry to say for example being opposed to any hardcore teachers, it is to highlight one specific religion.
On that note have you actually read anything on the Trojan Horse school plot in Birmingham, or are you just making random assumptions on problems you are ignorant of......again.
Yes I have, but apparently I read more open and unbiased discourse on the subject.
They were found institutionally racist because of the data. Data on stop and search, number of people arrested and so on. It *was* hard data that was used to determine this.
Actually it wasn't, it was the arbitrary conclusion of the head of the public inquiry. Stop and search data was actually inconclusive.
Yes, that was it, no evidence used at all in the public inquiry. I guess they just asked the Daily Fail what the decision should be. Heaven forbid they actually used some data to come to a conclusion! Why that is what public inquiries aren't about surely?
A fair assessment but it doesn't go far enough, some in Europe have an active hate agenda and want to stick the knife in. <cough> France <cough> Others smell opportunity by weakening our position. Normally these intentions are voiced indirectly. Though one of Trumps advisors was more candid recently. Again here is an example of pattern based analysis. What can you make of this?
Fairly simple political pattern reading test I actually thought you should be able to read, it was very unsubtle move of Barnier to demand this, it had a specific meaning that is easy to read. Ok, so I overestimated your ability. There were plenty of clues in the article, did you read it?
Ah more mudslinging, pity your aim is so poor, I might actually get worried. Yes I did read the article. A biased paper, quotes an unknown source quotes a conversation or statement that may have been heard either out of context or sub-consciously or consciously misinterpreted. All I read was that the guy wants the discussions in his native language, it isn't too much to believe that he simply stated he wanted the discussions translated into French as that was his native language. That is a much more reasonable and less childish interpretation of what was said. But then I wasn't there so as it is whisper of a whisper of a whisper my overall value on the story is pretty low.
That one was easy too, Let me help you here. Belfast had checkpoints, armed soldiers on the streets, snipers frequently active etc, that aspect of a warzone. I never said it was a warzone it just had certain characteristics of a warzone. Nothing to be triggered over. Now one of the things that comes with checkpoints are.... wait for it.... security passes! Yay. So you had checkpoints in NI so you had mandatory passes, so you have a culture of accepting carrying of mandatory ID cards.
I see the ridiculousness of your statements is lost on you...I know let me make this really easy for you. There are people there! Shock horror. There are people in warzones too, and buildings, and air! So having people anywhere gives it a characteristic of a warzone. That means we are all in areas with characteristics of warzones from Antarctica to Siberia. See you're right we are all living in areas characteristic of warzones
Finally, as it appears you have deleted the comment on your field of work...
Yes I did, at first I answered your question, but I am not answerable to you.
Either that or it isn't true! However I'd point out that if you really are employed by the state then yes, yes you are answerable to me, and all of the UK population because you are effectively working for the betterment of all of us all. You should remember that *if* you are swanning around Whitehall.
Part of the problem was the Met police not doing their jobs properly. They were too close to some of these journalists when instead they should have been giving them a boot up the rear for their criminal actions.
If British politicians had some positive ideas for the country and got out of the Westminster bubble, then we wouldn't have to worry about undue media influence( which is over rated in my book) on elections.
I'm inclined to agree with this. Although I accept the press is a bit out of control (which is partly the UK populations fault for lapping up some of the c**p they produce) I am not sure that implementing a comply or face the costs policy is the right way forward. The risk is that whoever is chosen as the 'regulator' will be government favoured and therefore the regulator will naturally favour current government favoured papers and be accepted easier than those that are more government critical. The risk is that indirectly we have state opinionated media. Any method that upsets the incumbent government may suddenly become described as not acceptable. Hence I can see the arguments that it limits free press. On the other hand if something is illegal (or possibly litigable but not illegal) then not-stinking-rich person(s) that would claim are currently disadvantaged because of the risk that any litigation may effectively bankrupt them. This could be turned on it's head with these proposals though in that the press may stay reporting on very rich people just in case.
I think my preferred approach would be that they introduce a independent complaints body funded by (for example a 1% tax on all paid press articles). Any person could complain about an article and if the body decided there was a case then they would take it to courts on litigation grounds on their behalf. If they win then a share of the money goes to the complaints body as costs. This doesn't stop an individual taking a private claim though. However the body could still find in favour but not deem it a litigation issue and might for example fine the press in question (up to a certain amount) and/or require them to submit a retraction/apology in the same manner as the original story was released (so a front page full cover story proved to be wrong would require a full page front cover apology); none of these tiny corner page 43 released at 3am shenanigans. That way the majority of the readership should recognise the poor journalism rather than be 'kept in the dark' about it. Obviously illegal activities would be reported to the Police.
But a government awarded and approved regulator on who can be press with better protection is not something I think a free thinking western world country should be considering.
Good post. It's not often we agree on something
I'm always wary of government having too much say on press regulation - it leads to a slippery slope and we end up having another BBC situation on our hands, which is never good.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Indeed. Many leaks of classified information will be, by their very nature, illegally obtained.
Do we really want a situation where a newspaper can be sued by a member of the government for revealing wrongdoing by that person and having to pay that persons court costs, even if the information released by the paper is true?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Indeed. Many leaks of classified information will be, by their very nature, illegally obtained.
Do we really want a situation where a newspaper can be sued by a member of the government for revealing wrongdoing by that person and having to pay that persons court costs, even if the information released by the paper is true?
Exactly! have an exalt.
Sometimes you have to be a criminal in order to expose bigger criminals.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I think the influence of the press is vastly overrated. Newspaper readership has been in decline for years now, more so given the rise of social media.
I don't know about vastly and while it's influence is certainly less than it was certain segments of the press have long been able to have far too much influence on Westminster, or at least on Westminster's denziens. They certainly continue to print all kinds of useless and scurrilous gak..
Print media is on its last legs though, I can't see daily newspapers being a thing in 10-20 years time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/30 16:17:38
I think the influence of the press is vastly overrated. Newspaper readership has been in decline for years now, more so given the rise of social media.
I don't know about vastly and while it's influence is certainly less than it was certain segments of the press have long been able to have far too much influence on Westminster, or at least on Westminster's denziens. They certainly continue to print all kinds of useless and scurrilous gak..
Print media is on its last legs though, I can't see daily newspapers being a thing in 10-20 years time.
MPs have been cut off from people for years now, hence why we have a situation of 70% of MPs being pro-EU but the nation voting to leave. That would have been unthinkable years ago, because MPs would have reflected their constituents.
I'm no Corbyn fan, but i feel that a lot of hostility to him stems from the fact that he believes in something.
Most MPs are Blairites, because Blairism has poisoned this country since the late 1990s, so our MPs all believe in the same consensus, distrust the great unwashed, and find themselves isolated, hence the disproportionate power of the media.
I'm old enough to remember the days of MPs knocking on doors, holding meetings and engaging with people. It's all spin and PR bullgak, though, in this day and age.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Finally, as it appears you have deleted the comment on your field of work...
Yes I did, at first I answered your question, but I am not answerable to you.
Either that or it isn't true! However I'd point out that if you really are employed by the state then yes, yes you are answerable to me, and all of the UK population because you are effectively working for the betterment of all of us all. You should remember that *if* you are swanning around Whitehall.
No I am not answerable to you, and regret answering your question, because you make random assumptions only thinly based on what I have said.
Nevertheless the point remains, I am not answerable to you. I am answerable only for the advice I give to whom it is given.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/30 17:21:17
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
MPs have been cut off from people for years now, hence why we have a situation of 70% of MPs being pro-EU but the nation voting to leave. That would have been unthinkable years ago, because MPs would have reflected their constituents.
I'm no Corbyn fan, but i feel that a lot of hostility to him stems from the fact that he believes in something.
I'm old enough to remember the days of MPs knocking on doors, holding meetings and engaging with people. It's all spin and PR bullgak, though, in this day and age.
I agree with most of your post (RE Corbyn), but I disagree with MPs not reflecting their constituents; at the end of the day these people were elected by their constituents in an election where they had a choice of candidates. I'd hazard a guess that most people voted for the person (and party) that they feel reflects their interests. I'd also guess that in *the good old days* (sorry, I get mildly irritated when that one is trotted out ) MPs were just as prone to spin and PR as their modern counterparts, it's just more obvious due to public engagement with the media.
MPs have been cut off from people for years now, hence why we have a situation of 70% of MPs being pro-EU but the nation voting to leave. That would have been unthinkable years ago, because MPs would have reflected their constituents.
I'm no Corbyn fan, but i feel that a lot of hostility to him stems from the fact that he believes in something.
I'm old enough to remember the days of MPs knocking on doors, holding meetings and engaging with people. It's all spin and PR bullgak, though, in this day and age.
I agree with most of your post (RE Corbyn), but I disagree with MPs not reflecting their constituents; at the end of the day these people were elected by their constituents in an election where they had a choice of candidates. I'd hazard a guess that most people voted for the person (and party) that they feel reflects their interests. I'd also guess that in *the good old days* (sorry, I get mildly irritated when that one is trotted out ) MPs were just as prone to spin and PR as their modern counterparts, it's just more obvious due to public engagement with the media.
Bad MPs have always existed in The Commons, no question, but I feel the quality of our MPs has went down hill over the years.
I watched the old EEC debates from the 1970s on Youtube and the difference between them and the 2016 EU referendum debates was like night and day.
The 1970s MPs treated the audience and the watching public with respect. Adults talking to adults. The Remain and Leave sides were both guilty of treating people like idiots in 2016, as though we were children, unable to understand the big issues at stake.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
A Town Called Malus wrote: Indeed. Many leaks of classified information will be, by their very nature, illegally obtained.
Do we really want a situation where a newspaper can be sued by a member of the government for revealing wrongdoing by that person and having to pay that persons court costs, even if the information released by the paper is true?
Exactly! have an exalt.
Sometimes you have to be a criminal in order to expose bigger criminals.
You assume, quite falsely that the beneficiaries are politicians.
Think about it for a minute. Phone hacking, intrusion etc targets celebrities and ordinary people who happen to be in the public eye, who are entitled to a life without press victimisation. Politicians are a different category, for a start if you make illegal investigations into state officials you might find information you are not lawfully entitled to for honest reason, like official secrets. An MP might have official secrets documentation to rummage through in break in, They also have security anyway. Hack an MP' phone and you will likely have state security on your arse.
Most of all the ability to sue a newspaper and get the newspaper to pick up your legal fees does diddly squat to save a politician with his hands in a cookie jar.
Think about it. Assuming you re a politician, an you are caught making illegal money, suing the press for free is no defence for you. You are still fethed.
This law benefits media people like musicians, actors, sports people and TV celebrities who are targeted heavily by the press in underhand manners, and even the richer ones have limited recourse.
The spin that this law will protect dodgy politicians is just spin from the press with a vested interest in keeping the status quo where they can toy with peoples lives for profit. we have yet to have a case of phone hacking targeting a politician successfully, or a case where this form of journalism has uncovered anything of political merit. Journalists use leaks to collar politicians and leaks are not covered in the Act. It is not criminal to use a leaked source, the criminality, if any, is on the head on leak, not the press.
You can bet that even prior to this Act if the press used the techniques they use on celebrities to investigate politicians the state would look at this as espionage, slap a provisionary censorship order on the newspaper concerned and give the editor a serious grilling. The pres know this so they don't even try. If you look at it you will find that illegal press information gathering is indistinguishable from spying, and if you spy on the government, expect to be dealt with severely under legislation long respected and well in place.
Though who are trying to protect the press because politicians. you should think more clearly, you are being taken for a ride by journalists who want to continue to dig up trivial but intrusive gossip by any means necessary of people who cannot effectively fight back and splash it in the papers for quick profit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/30 17:36:46
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
The 1970s MPs treated the audience and the watching public with respect. Adults talking to adults. The Remain and Leave sides were both guilty of treating people like idiots in 2016, as though we were children, unable to understand the big issues at stake.
You're not wrong there.
And yet none of them seem to realize that by *dumbing down* politics it makes it far harder to engage with a public that is more educated than ever before* as they end up not believing a word that is said. Does make you wonder if its almost intentional...
Though who are trying to protect the press because politicians. you should think more clearly, you are being taken for a ride by journalists who want to continue to dig up trivial but intrusive gossip by any means necessary of people who cannot effectively fight back and splash it in the papers for quick profit.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Indeed. Many leaks of classified information will be, by their very nature, illegally obtained.
Do we really want a situation where a newspaper can be sued by a member of the government for revealing wrongdoing by that person and having to pay that persons court costs, even if the information released by the paper is true?
Exactly! have an exalt.
Sometimes you have to be a criminal in order to expose bigger criminals.
You assume, quite falsely that the beneficiaries are politicians.
Think about it for a minute. Phone hacking, intrusion etc targets celebrities and ordinary people who happen to be in the public eye, who are entitled to a life without press victimisation. Politicians are a different category, for a start if you make illegal investigations into state officials you might find information you are not lawfully entitled to for honest reason, like official secrets. An MP might have official secrets documentation to rummage through in break in, They also have security anyway. Hack an MP' phone and you will likely have state security on your arse.
Most of all the ability to sue a newspaper and get the newspaper to pick up your legal fees does diddly squat to save a politician with his hands in a cookie jar.
Think about it. Assuming you re a politician, an you are caught making illegal money, suing the press for free is no defence for you. You are still fethed.
This law benefits media people like musicians, actors, sports people and TV celebrities who are targeted heavily by the press in underhand manners, and even the richer ones have limited recourse.
The spin that this law will protect dodgy politicians is just spin from the press with a vested interest in keeping the status quo where they can toy with peoples lives for profit. we have yet to have a case of phone hacking targeting a politician successfully, or a case where this form of journalism has uncovered anything of political merit. Journalists use leaks to collar politicians and leaks are not covered in the Act. It is not criminal to use a leaked source, the criminality, if any, is on the head on leak, not the press.
You can bet that even prior to this Act if the press used the techniques they use on celebrities to investigate politicians the state would look at this as espionage, slap a provisionary censorship order on the newspaper concerned and give the editor a serious grilling. The pres know this so they don't even try. If you look at it you will find that illegal press information gathering is indistinguishable from spying, and if you spy on the government, expect to be dealt with severely under legislation long respected and well in place.
Though who are trying to protect the press because politicians. you should think more clearly, you are being taken for a ride by journalists who want to continue to dig up trivial but intrusive gossip by any means necessary of people who cannot effectively fight back and splash it in the papers for quick profit.
Pop stars and football players can't have it both ways. They can't use the media for free advertising, benefiting financially from doing so, and then complain if they get photographed falling out off a nightclub at 3am with somebody who is not their wife or husband.
Phone hacking is already a crime. If they enforced it better, we wouldn't have half these problems.
And stealing official documents to expose a greater crime is justified in my book.
As an example, if drinking water was being poisoned by lead or something, and a stolen document proved that the government knew about it and tried to hide their culpability, that act of stealing the document is justified in my book.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Pop stars and football players can't have it both ways. They can't use the media for free advertising, benefiting financially from doing so, and then complain if they get photographed falling out off a nightclub at 3am with somebody who is not their wife or husband.
You are false flagging this. If paparazzi sit outside nightclubs legally and photograph celebrities leaving that is just another hazard. The Courts nad Crime Act 2013 doesnt effect that in any way.
Phone hacking is already a crime. If they enforced it better, we wouldn't have half these problems.
It is being enforced, hence shutting down a newspaper and putting several journalists behind bars.
But that offers no personal recourse for the victim. Free lawsuts offer redress.
As an example, if drinking water was being poisoned by lead or something, and a stolen document proved that the government knew about it and tried to hide their culpability, that act of stealing the document is justified in my book.
Take a look at the Act, or my explanation of it and come back where you see this being effected here. It isn't there, you are being herded and panicked.
You have been hoodwinked by dishnest jornalists into thinking a bit of legislation effective against hack journalism intruding on private lives is actually about investigativ journalism uncovering corruption.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
MPs have been cut off from people for years now, hence why we have a situation of 70% of MPs being pro-EU but the nation voting to leave. That would have been unthinkable years ago, because MPs would have reflected their constituents.
That probably shouldn't come as a surprise. Most MPs have a decent education and all surveys indicate that those people that have had a better education are more in favour of staying in the EU. It's not that wide of a gap anyway 50% (give or take) of the populace still want to remain in the EU so it's only about 20% difference. The issue is how you can possibly reconcile this. We want better educated people as MPs (though it would be nice not to have so many that think school yard bickering is how we should run things); given this it is inevitable that you will have more pro-EUMPs than the general populace.
I think the influence of the press is vastly overrated. Newspaper readership has been in decline for years now, more so given the rise of social media.
I don't know about vastly and while it's influence is certainly less than it was certain segments of the press have long been able to have far too much influence on Westminster, or at least on Westminster's denziens. They certainly continue to print all kinds of useless and scurrilous gak..
Print media is on its last legs though, I can't see daily newspapers being a thing in 10-20 years time.
I think we are being too narrow minded when we think of the press though. It's not just paper based media we should be considering, but TV (just look at Murdoch's empire), social media and so on. If anything the Trump campaign showed just how influential social media can be and how quickly even media can rapidly disseminate social media false information (even if unwittingly) in an effort to get that first story out and not checking the actual facts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: You are false flagging this. If paparazzi sit outside nightclubs legally and photograph celebrities leaving that is just another hazard. The Courts nad Crime Act 2013 doesnt effect that in any way.
Take a look at the Act, or my explanation of it and come back where you see this being effected here. It isn't there, you are being herded and panicked.
You have been hoodwinked by dishnest jornalists into thinking a bit of legislation effective against hack journalism intruding on private lives is actually about investigativ journalism uncovering corruption.
No one is being herded and panicked, there's just a rational debate on the issues at hand. It is what the legislation allows to happen rather than any particular element in the legislation specifically that is of concern.
You have a proposed body that will be approved by the incumbent government that will then decide what is an isn't acceptable for reporting purposes. It is therefore not independent; if it becomes controlled by a media empire owner (or heavily influenced by or for) then you run the risk that:-
(a) It is given to a company/person etc who is favourable to the incumbent government
(b) That could lead to the government providing first 'dibs' on stories for their empire in exchange for backroom agreements on what the media can do
(c) That leads to better investigative journalism being stymied because of fear of just the costs of litigation.
For example with new rules on stalking coming into place, it could easily be argued that the paparazzi taking pictures of celebrities at 3am could fall under this category (especially if they are following them around) and any media that wants to be 'in the club' has to agree to only taking photos at official shoots and so on and those taken by someone following a 'star' around is not acceptable. Not that I really care who stars are currently enjoying the pleasure of.
However more importantly the body could start applying rules like "Sources must be named in articles". That would quickly shut down leaks (unless they were WikiLeaks hacked and released to the general public) as the person leaking the story will very quickly find themselves outside of the loop (as happened with Deloittes). Those that don't agree then run the risk of being sued and having to pay costs (even if they are proved to be not liable in any way and the source was correct) which potentially shuts down a lot of the independence of the press. This prevents potential future stories such as what exactly did Empress May promise Nissan to keep them in Sunderland; what were the discussions she had with R. Murdoch after a couple of weeks of being PM and did the issue of Murdochs buyout of Sky feature in these talks? We are never likely to find such things out without having an unconstrained press.
It's not an issue about what the legislation does, it's about the implications of having a government approved body approve what can and can't be done, which is outside of any legal jurisdiction to protect media from being sued. It's a dangerous path and leads to media like that in Russia where they comply or rapidly find themselves closed down (although in case from being sued rather than more aggressive tendencies, however the effect is the same.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/31 11:43:35
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
The problem with our MPs these days though is that it's all centre ground, Blairism consensus, and has been for the last 20 years. There is no ideological differences anymore.
In the 1970s, when Labour were a socialist party, there were deep divisions, with Tony Benn leading the anti-EEC faction, because they believed free movement harmed working people and IMO Benn was spot on.
The Tories being proper Tories, and not the rabble we have today, supported free market principals.
Such divisions would be unthinkable today because all the parties cling to the centre ground.
Look at another important area - military interventions i.e Syria.
Again, all the parties are broadly in favour of attacking Assad, most supported invading Iraq and most cheered on Cameron's disastrous Libya debacle.
years ago, Labour would have been leading the anti-war platform, instead, these damn Blairites are all gung ho and embrace military intervention.
Cameron was never a Tory, never in a million years. He could easily have fitted in as Blair's successor as leader of New Labour. Easily.
So again, I say, the distance between what MPs think and what the man on the street thinks are miles apart.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Orlanth.
Britain is about to return to a place where it hasn't been for nearly 400 years: the press having to get approval from a Royal Charter.
Given that's it's 2016 and not 1616, that's a backwards step in my book, that Max Mosely has got his mitts in this tells me all I need to know, and it ain't good.
It's the start of a very slippery slope. Sign up for government approval, or be forced to pay all legal costs in a libel trial, even if you win...
And if like Private Eye you refuse to toe the line, well, it's open season for those with money to batter you into submission with a glut of libel trials...
And regulations, like all regulations in law, can change,can evolve and go places you don't want to go...
Look at the slow erosion of civil liberties in the UK. With each passing year, the government passes laws which give them more and more powers to spy and monitor us, getting so bad that even local councils are using these powers to check up on people's wheelie bins
That is the reality of power, of government, of bureaucracy, and has been since the dawn of civilization...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 12:35:19
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 16:35:27
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Cameron was never a Tory, never in a million years. He could easily have fitted in as Blair's successor as leader of New Labour. Easily.
2005 "I am the heir to Blair."
Remarks to newspaper executives (3 October 2005), as quoted in "Horror as Cameron brandishes the B-word" by Andrew Pierce, in The Times (5 October 2005), page 9.
It's the start of a very slippery slope. Sign up for government approval, or be forced to pay all legal costs in a libel trial, even if you win...
OMG how awful. Start a panic!! Take to the streets!!! Defend the paparazzi press profits!!!!
Hold on a second, were this true you would be right to stand up, but....please READ THE LAW you are getting worried about. Take a good long look at the wording. you will find this is not the case.
Sorry but you are being misled by the press for reason of selfish agenda.
And regulations, like all regulations in law, can change,can evolve and go places you don't want to go...
Yes they can, and I do agree that is ever a risk. However you have to look at cases where this is happening, and this isn't one of them.
However there have been many seminal laws in the last ten to fifteen years far more scary than the worst case scenario you are hypothesising (incorrectly) about the Courts and Crime Act 2013.
Did you even notice them?
Look at the slow erosion of civil liberties in the UK. With each passing year, the government passes laws which give them more and more powers to spy and monitor us, getting so bad that even local councils are using these powers to check up on people's wheelie bins
That is the reality of power, of government, of bureaucracy, and has been since the dawn of civilization...
I respect you opinion far more than some others on this topic. Your concerns are rational and you are very right to stay aware. However on this occasion you have been triggered by self interested journalism which wants to protect the status quo of abusive intrusive gossip mongering press. This is the biggest issue for the press, far more than the surveillance laws, yet it isnt an issue or even a risk as the legislation RAW stands. Please pick a better, more honest and smarter cause:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/31 13:27:51
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
To me it seems reasonably clear, the career path of MPs is overwhelmingly via university.
We have a hoard of career politicians, or those with a professional background, very few have been manual workers or held apprenticeships.
The working class are poorly represented because despite the best efforts of everybody involved in the education sector, university education is still dominated by the middle class.
Traditional entry points for the working class in the past were via union membership. That was the core of the Labour support, and why they don't fit the ideology of their own party, or could ever hope to represent the working class anymore.
This is unlikely to change without members of the working class motivating themselves, and their supporters, and running for election.
Obviously some do, but a brief search reveals that they are a minority.
If labour want to be representative of the working class they need to stop trawling the student union bars for plastic socialists, and actually get involved in their constituencies and encouraging people from workforces to get into politics. They could nail the lid of UKIPs coffin shut in short order and actually start to represent the people.
I also strongly dispute the idea that Cameron is anything other than a true blue Tory. Just because New Labour were effectively red tories, doesn't mean that he was a socialist!
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
