POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...

[seremtan]

no one was actually claiming that it did

seems that pesky distinction between 'to explain' and 'to justify' still isn't clear after all these years

[Plan B]

the Guardian was one of the cheerleaders of last year's Leveson Inquiry, which saw a number of tabloid journalists arrested in dawn raids over accusations that they'd acquired their stories via illegal means. apparently it didn't occur to them if you hand over the power to decide what's in the public interest to law enforcement, you could end on the receiving end of law enforcement yourself

Certainly a double standard, or at least a naive and selfserving expectation of what law enforcement deems "legal" and "illegal".

[losCHUNK]

You just know they detained him without reason and got lucky.

NOTW were pro actively hacking or supporting the use of hacking to gain information to publish and the Guardian reported on this, I think the Guardians issue was more with the technique used to get the information. Now they are handling copies of information made available by someone who hasn't been found guilty of any crime or even committed a crime in the UK, currently sat in asylum being supported by amnesty international and various other countries and it's the same thing ?

I get that if you go down to brass tacks it's handling stolen information but an objective journo shouldn't throw an opinion at your face.

[seremtan]

how does "the technique used to get the information" make a difference? the distinction the Guardian has made has nothing to do with legality (since hacking phones, smuggling info out in a Lady Gaga jewel case, or flying to Hong Kong with a laptop full of NSA secrets are all equally illegal); the distinction they - and others - have made is that splashing Steve Coogan's marital infidelities across the front page of a tabloid isn't in the public interest, while doing the same with the Manning/Snowden revelations *is*

the question at issue here isn't "is it legal or illegal?", or "is it in the public interest?"; the question is "who gets to decide what is or isn't in the public interest?". the Guardian has made it pretty clear they think that whoever gets to decide, it shouldn't be the actual public themselves - that it should be judges, or independent watchdogs made of people who think they know 'what's best for people'

that's just bullshit. let people decide what's in their interest to read about. not because of some misty-eyed sentimentality about 'the collective wisdom of the common man blah blah blah' but because all the alternatives to letting them decide are worse. it's kind of like with democracy: you let the people decide who should be in government, because letting anyone else decide will just turn out worse

[seremtan]

also, 35 years

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/a ... s-sentence

[losCHUNK]

how does "the technique used to get the information" make a difference? the distinction the Guardian has made has nothing to do with legality (since hacking phones, smuggling info out in a Lady Gaga jewel case, or flying to Hong Kong with a laptop full of NSA secrets are all equally illegal); the distinction they - and others - have made is that splashing Steve Coogan's marital infidelities across the front page of a tabloid isn't in the public interest, while doing the same with the Manning/Snowden revelations *is*

the question at issue here isn't "is it legal or illegal?", or "is it in the public interest?"; the question is "who gets to decide what is or isn't in the public interest?". the Guardian has made it pretty clear they think that whoever gets to decide, it shouldn't be the actual public themselves - that it should be judges, or independent watchdogs made of people who think they know 'what's best for people'

that's just bullshit. let people decide what's in their interest to read about. not because of some misty-eyed sentimentality about 'the collective wisdom of the common man blah blah blah' but because all the alternatives to letting them decide are worse. it's kind of like with democracy: you let the people decide who should be in government, because letting anyone else decide will just turn out worse

I think there is a distinction in pro actively gaining information through illegal means and receiving information that;s contentious, which is partly the nature of a journo. If it is illegal handling this information then it should essentially be illegal to arrest anyone at the Guardian and their readers for reporting, handling and distributing illegal material. I remember the Guardian website had slideshows given to them by Snowden on their website. The stuff Snowden has handed over is automatically in the public domain.

I'm on the fence about the freedom of tabloid press n all, the public to some extent need protection from them. The best way or doing this, I have no clue, I just know I don't want the government or some lapdog like the IPCC doing it but it's not like they can get any more bias.

[losCHUNK]

also, 35 years

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/a ... s-sentence

Fark, poor crazy bastard

There's some light

He has to serve a minimum of a third of his sentence, meaning he will be eligible for parole in just over eight years, and, at the very earliest, could be released under parole soon as 2021. He can earn 120 days per year off his sentence for good behaviour and job performance.

I'm not sure if that includes time already spent, I think the article mentions something like 1300 days.

edit: double fuck !

If the prosecution had ended the trial in February, when Manning pleaded guilty to some of the counts against him, his maximum jail term would have been 20 years.

It seems the defence wanted around 25 years anyway, so not proper fucked, just fucked.

[seremtan]

I'm on the fence about the freedom of tabloid press n all, the public to some extent need protection from them. The best way or doing this, I have no clue, I just know I don't want the government or some lapdog like the IPCC doing it but it's not like they can get any more bias.

it's interesting how we need to be "protected" at all costs against tabloid hacks and Google tracking cookies, but not against the state-employed people who suck up everything we do online (including this post FUCK YOU GCHQ). there must be retired Stasi agents sitting in their shitty tower block apartments in eastern Germany right now, flicking through the newspaper and thinking "fucking hell, and they called *us* evil..."

one of the things that depressed me about the whole Leveson debacle was how few people realised that freedom of the press and freedom of speech are indivisible - one and the same thing - and there's no substantial difference between the broadsheets exercising that freedom and the tabloids doing the same. freedom of speech stands or falls as a whole, whether it's revelations about expenses, the surveillance state, or the location of Steve Coogan's penis (or, for that matter, the pointless blathering of people who tweet)

[losCHUNK]

I'm on the fence about the freedom of tabloid press n all, the public to some extent need protection from them. The best way or doing this, I have no clue, I just know I don't want the government or some lapdog like the IPCC doing it but it's not like they can get any more bias.

it's interesting how we need to be "protected" at all costs against tabloid hacks and Google tracking cookies, but not against the state-employed people who suck up everything we do online (including this post FUCK YOU GCHQ). there must be retired Stasi agents sitting in their shitty tower block apartments in eastern Germany right now, flicking through the newspaper and thinking "fucking hell, and they called *us* evil..."

one of the things that depressed me about the whole Leveson debacle was how few people realised that freedom of the press and freedom of speech are indivisible - one and the same thing - and there's no substantial difference between the broadsheets exercising that freedom and the tabloids doing the same. freedom of speech stands or falls as a whole, whether it's revelations about expenses, the surveillance state, or the location of Steve Coogan's penis (or, for that matter, the pointless blathering of people who tweet)

I know the 1st part wasn't directed at me

And you're right, I find it more depressing that people weren't even willing to question GCHQ about our freedoms. I know I'm walking on ground where I'm likely to contradict myself n all but because of a variety of personnel reasons I will never condone the actions of the tabloid press because it's not only criminal or damaging to the individuals or the country but it's just fucking atrocious that organisations can act in this way, peddling opinionated bullshit as fact through false reporting and plucked quotations from 'inside sources' / 'Studies suggest' / 'Statistics show' / 'The vocal majority', and that's on a good day.

Infact the most despressing thing is, talking from my high horse, that people feel the need to funnel money into these rags and still call scousers murderers because of some bullshit reporting in the 90s and helping the police cover up their dirty little secrets for 20+ years, or breaking into movie stars houses to take pictures because they can't get a decent shot through the window, coercing information from the family and friends of victims wether there's a police enquiry or not, naming people that have yet to be charged or found guilty of anything etc

[lvlshot]http://thecuriousastronomer.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/91ce109848ed4772a753cdee_the-sun-the-truth.jpg[/lvlshot]

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... l-security

In a critical 63-page report that will be issued Tuesday, the ACLU says the powers of the FBI have expanded too dramatically over the past 12 years, transforming the Bureau into a “secret domestic intelligence agency.”

“The excessive secrecy with which it cloaks these domestic intelligence gathering operations has crippled constitutional oversight mechanisms,” the report says. “Courts have been reticent to challenge government secrecy demands and, despite years of debate in Congress . . . it took unauthorized leaks by a whistleblower to finally reveal the government’s secret interpretation of these laws and the Orwellian scope of its domestic surveillance programs.”

[seremtan]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ights-role

Tony Blair's multimillion-pound deal to advise Kazakhstan's leadership on good governance has produced no change for the better or advance of democratic rights in the authoritarian nation... activists said the country had actually experienced heavy reversals in civil liberties and freedom of the press during the time the former prime minister was advising the Kazakh president, Nursultan Nazarbayev.

you literally couldn't make this shit up

[losCHUNK]

Before Blair got involved

uring his visit in July, Cameron raised human rights with Nazarbayev, the 73-year-old Leader of the Nation – his official title, a symbol of a thriving personality cult – who has ruled with an iron fist for more than two decades and last won re-election in 2011 with 95.5% of the vote.

Worse ? or scapegoat ?

hmmmm. So a 'western ally' seeks advice on growing their economy and Tony Blair gets in the shit cos he hasn't raised concerns over human rights ?.

How about, why is this freedom hating back water ditch a western ally ?. Fuck the Guardian, always telling you what to think.

David Cameron comes out smelling of roses n all cos our 'ally' is progressing with the help of him (and not Blair), despite the point of the article saying shits gone backwards.

[Plan B]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/08/tony-blair-kazakhstan-human-rights-role

Tony Blair's multimillion-pound deal to advise Kazakhstan's leadership on good governance has produced no change for the better or advance of democratic rights in the authoritarian nation... activists said the country had actually experienced heavy reversals in civil liberties and freedom of the press during the time the former prime minister was advising the Kazakh president, Nursultan Nazarbayev.

you literally couldn't make this shit up

Well played, Tony.
Zero competence, zero track record, zero accountability, yet receiving multi zero paychecks from dubious parties
Asking Blair for advice, lol.

Not really POLICE STATE THREAD material though, imo.
Kazakhstan's gonna Kazakhstan. Pretty much everything they do is an affront to human rights.

[Plan B]

More to the point:

Piggy gets compensation for being traumatized after being a dick:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/o ... mpensation

[losCHUNK]

Well played, Tony.
Zero competence, zero track record, zero accountability, yet receiving multi zero paychecks from dubious parties
Asking Blair for advice, lol.

Not really POLICE STATE THREAD material though, imo.
Kazakhstan's gonna Kazakhstan. Pretty much everything they do is an affront to human rights.

Their economy is growing fast as mentioned in that article, great success for our western ally me thinks

[Plan B]

Bless you, for thinking there's still some form of alliance.

[losCHUNK]

Well I didn't know til the Guardian told me what to think, thank fuck

They also have troops (they have troops !?) stationed in Afghanistan, so I'm inclined to believe that this American led coalition is a military alliance formed with Kazakhstan. Alliance, or ally, allies etc. So thinking there is atleast some form of alliance has grounds in fact even with a bullshit article.

Don't think I'm defending him btw, I'm just pointing out the bullshit bias. The day this happened my head exploded

[lvlshot]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01679/blair_1679384c.jpg[/lvlshot]

[seremtan]

Not really POLICE STATE THREAD material though, imo.
Kazakhstan's gonna Kazakhstan. Pretty much everything they do is an affront to human rights.

piece about a police state in a police state thread not really police state thread material

k

[losCHUNK]

And this

[lvlshot]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/6 ... _queen.jpg[/lvlshot]

This is what we do to people that get away with murder. He still an MP for Ireland ?

For those of you that don't know, the Queens fuck buddy in the background had a brother whos family was blown up by the dudes hand she was shaking.

That's Ireland n all, land of the leprechauns, lucky charms, funniest guys in europe til you contradict a belief and have a stick of TNT shuved up your arse.

Here's the Guardians take too

Peace, as Yeats wrote, comes dropping slow. It will be slower still in coming if newspapers and their commentators reject the reality of a peace process by continuing to look backwards rather than forwards.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greens ... ness-queen

How about peace would be a peaceful process if arseholes like that cunt never decided to target innocent civilians with high explosives for their political campaign.

[seremtan]

yes, let's continue to judge our official enemies by the kind of stringent moral standards we wouldn't dream of applying to ourselves, in order to promote peace and more importantly sell newspapers

[losCHUNK]

Why the fuck not when you can condone blowing up a street of people, or destroying an airliner full of passengers in the name of peace

[lvlshot]http://www.newsletter.co.uk/webimage/1.4027548.1341566592!image/2116744792.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/2116744792.jpg[/lvlshot]

[seremtan]

why is it that whenever someone suggests we should apply the same moral standards to ourselves as to our enemies, so many people automatically assume that that means we shouldn't judge them?

the same, motherfucker, the same

[Plan B]

Not really POLICE STATE THREAD material though, imo.
Kazakhstan's gonna Kazakhstan. Pretty much everything they do is an affront to human rights.

piece about a police state in a police state thread not really police state thread material

k

Yeah sorry, you're right.

[losCHUNK]

why is it that whenever someone suggests we should apply the same moral standards to ourselves as to our enemies, so many people automatically assume that that means we shouldn't judge them?

the same, motherfucker, the same

You talking bout the Guardian ?, I think getting Martin McGuinness banged up for life is in the mind of a lot of people due to being subjected by the same moral values we apply to ourselves. But NVM says the Guardian, offering a balanced view, because it's the peace process.

[seremtan]

christ are you one of these people who think only the newspapers whose content you disagree with are biased? i wasn't even talking about the Grauniad

ffuuu-