Britain - The Official Thread

[Liquid]

It would be the hardest task in humanity to pick a person/group that do us all good..

Inb4 Libertarianism.

I noticed this with the Wikileaks case; whether or not a particular act of whistleblowing is in the public interest, theft is theft, regardless of whomever it is stolen from, right?

Tricky balance.

 

[Keef]

It would be the hardest task in humanity to pick a person/group that do us all good..

That's why you don't pick a person or a group. You pick a philosophy, and then everybody works toward their goals based on that. We called it the Constitution.

 

[counter345]

Can you put a copyright on knowledge or information?

 

[Carlos]

Inb4 Libertarianism.

I noticed this with the Wikileaks case; whether or not a particular act of whistleblowing is in the public interest, theft is theft, regardless of whomever it is stolen from, right?

Tricky balance.

In my eyes, if it's for freedom of humanity, other govs have to protect the whistleblower. Only in this case, I doubt they even want to protect the whistleblower since they are all dirty govs, or under control of the US...

That's why you don't pick a person or a group. You pick a philosophy, and then everybody works toward their goals based on that. We called it the Constitution.

Didn't that got raped a long time ago? How can something like that work when the gov is above the law?

 

[Dotini]

Didn't that got raped a long time ago? How can something like that work when the gov is above the law?

That's a good question.

I submit the Constitution has been made obsolete by technology.

 

[Scaff]

Inb4 Libertarianism.

I noticed this with the Wikileaks case; whether or not a particular act of whistleblowing is in the public interest, theft is theft, regardless of whomever it is stolen from, right?

Tricky balance.

Who funds the government?

The tax payer, in which case we are stealing something we paid for in the first place. That's without the issue that done of the material (PRISM) being obtained illegally.

I don't think you can technically steal something you have paid for, or relates to data about you. Any way you cut it the material released to date certainly falls into the area of public interest.

 

[Mark T]

Who funds the government?

The tax payer, in which case we are stealing something we paid for in the first place. That's without the issue that done of the material (PRISM) being obtained illegally.

I don't think you can technically steal something you have paid for, or relates to data about you. Any way you cut it the material released to date certainly falls into the area of public interest.

I agree, there was certain information contained within the leak that the public should know about. However, the way it was leaked, in particular, by going to countries which have no interest in our national security is just unfair on the citizens that could be put in danger.

If we had a real independent body, made up of reputable folk who could take information from whistleblowers and handle it in a professional way, we wouldn't have this "all or nothing" attitude. Think about Bradley Manning, he released huge amounts of information to Wikileaks, much of which is probably completely normal and secure military intelligence. I guess he did so because it was an "all or nothing" attitude, he knew he was going to be prosecuted so he had no reason for damage limitation. That begs the question, how do we setup an organisation which doesn't get bullied by the government?

With PRISM I guess you either believe that the government logged huge amounts of information to control us or they did it to protect us. That seems to be what it boils down to.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base

In response to everything.

Ok, that article was written by Greenwald.

The Independent this morning published an article - which it repeatedly claims comes from "documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden

So, the Independant claims the documents came from the NSA which were obtained by Edward Snowden. They don't claim to have obtained them directly from Edward Snowden. So, maybe The Independent got them from a source that Edward Snowden had leaked them to. People love money and they will generally sell anything to the highest bidder which could have happened in this case.

From the article:

The question is: who provided them this document or the information in it? It clearly did not come from Snowden or any of the journalists with whom he has directly worked. The Independent provided no source information whatsoever for their rather significant disclosure of top secret information. Did they see any such documents, and if so, who, generally, provided it to them?

This is why whistleblowers have to be very careful who they leak to. When humans are entrusted with sensitive information they are likely to be persuaded in to handing it over for the right price. Governments have unlimited budgets, if China, North Korea or any other volatile country in the Middle East wanted to get hold of leaked information I expect they could do it.

Maybe The Independent were fed the information by the government. Maybe somebody will whistleblow on that development if true, let's hope it's not the case.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...sh-authorities-detained-david-miranda/278952/
"The real reason why British authorities detained Miranda"

 

[BobK]

That's why you don't pick a person or a group. You pick a philosophy, and then everybody works toward their goals based on that. We called it the Constitution.

What is this Constitution of which you speak? Do you mean that centuries-old document that used to act as a restraint on government but which is now completely ignored when the government finds its provisions to be inconvenient?

Who funds the government?

The tax payer, in which case we are stealing something we paid for in the first place. That's without the issue that done of the material (PRISM) being obtained illegally.

I don't think you can technically steal something you have paid for, or relates to data about you. Any way you cut it the material released to date certainly falls into the area of public interest.

Excellent point.

 

[Carlos]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...sh-authorities-detained-david-miranda/278952/
"The real reason why British authorities detained Miranda"

What if Greenwald doesn't really have anything, and he releases something as soon as he gets it from Snowden?

 

[Keef]

Didn't that got raped a long time ago? How can something like that work when the gov is above the law?

What is this Constitution of which you speak? Do you mean that centuries-old document that used to act as a restraint on government but which is now completely ignored when the government finds its provisions to be inconvenient?

A congressman with a gun to his head is below everything he needs to worry about.

 

[Scaff]

I agree, there was certain information contained within the leak that the public should know about. However, the way it was leaked, in particular, by going to countries which have no interest in our national security is just unfair on the citizens that could be put in danger.

I would actually say that they manner in which it has been leaked has been controlled and what countries he travelled to is by and large an irrelevance (unless you have something to show that he provided information to those countries in exchange for being able to stay).

If we had a real independent body, made up of reputable folk who could take information from whistleblowers and handle it in a professional way, we wouldn't have this "all or nothing" attitude. Think about Bradley Manning, he released huge amounts of information to Wikileaks, much of which is probably completely normal and secure military intelligence. I guess he did so because it was an "all or nothing" attitude, he knew he was going to be prosecuted so he had no reason for damage limitation. That begs the question, how do we setup an organisation which doesn't get bullied by the government?

Personally I think Wikileaks has on the whole done a pretty good job of ensuring the information it leaks is controlled and in the public interest.

With PRISM I guess you either believe that the government logged huge amounts of information to control us or they did it to protect us. That seems to be what it boils down to.

Why they did it and what the end goal was is utterly irrelevant. The issue is that they did it in the first place and its not legal.

If I were to hack into your email and bug your phone just in case you did something illegal and I was caught I would almost certainly be heading to jail. Without reasonable cause (and a court order) a government has no more right to do this that I have.

As for security! "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.".

 

[arora]

Good ol Ben 👍

But there in lies the problem, liberty seekers are in the minority and when the population no longer wishes to take any responsibilities for themselves we loose any chance at security anyway. So yeah, he was spot on.

 

[ExigeEvan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-23970047

I think it's fair to say that 50% of those involved were innocent of fault, and the other 50% were not driving to the conditions. I'd hate to try and get insurance in that post code!

I'd be interested to hear if there are any specific environmental affects on a bridge in that location, but still sounds like a poor group of drivers all in one area. Luckily no one, not even a motorcyclist, was killed.

 

[Famine]

I'd hate to try and get insurance in that post code!

It's bad enough already.

First, it's Sheppey. The denizens all have webbed brains. Secondly, there's three prisons on Sheppey. Third, and least sane of all, there's a significant submarine explosion just waiting to happen near Sheppey in the shape of the SS Richard Montgomery and 1,500 tons of TNT...

I'd be interested to hear if there are any specific environmental affects on a bridge in that location

Yeah, it's Elmley Marsh. Warm marshes in autumn months and wet air = fog. Lots of it.

but still sounds like a poor group of drivers all in one area.

See "webbed brains".

 

[Youngun]

Damn thats bad. Tbf ive crashed in thick fog with all lights on, the turn just came out of nowhere and i went up and over. Webbed brains sums this up though, once one crashes, they all get on the band wagon and carry on.

 

[Liquid]

Uh, so this thread is a hive of activity.

What do we all think about the Daily Mail and the Miliband situation?

 

[DK]

Have they claimed he causes cancer, immigration, teen pregnancy and falling house prices yet?

 

[Famine]

What do we all think about the Daily Mail...

Hate-filled pathetic scumrag.

Have they claimed he causes cancer, immigration, teen pregnancy and falling house prices yet?

If the Daily Mail published that teenagers having sex was the leading cause of teenage pregnancy, they'd still be wrong.

 

[BobK]

If the Daily Mail published that teenagers having sex was the leading cause of teenage pregnancy, they'd still be wrong.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Famine]

Any fact printed in the Mail automatically becomes incorrect by virtue of it being printed in the Mail.

If they published the entirety of Wikipedia in one edition, we'd have to rethink our entire universe.

 

[Hun200kmh]

 

[axletramp]

Look out Famine, they're onto you!

 

[Liquid]

The Daily Fail is absolutely, unequivocally, unquestionably and with absolute certainty one of the worst publications to have ever been printed.

As for this Miliband situation? It does seem incredibly manipulative of them, as is to be expected. Funny to see the responses about how the Mail formerly endorsed Mosley's Fascists.

 

[DK]

You're not going to expect consistency from a rag that rages about secondary students learning about homosexuality being natural, but will then salivate over celebrities' children.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Uh, so this thread is a hive of activity.

What do we all think about the Daily Mail and the Miliband situation?

It's a typical Daily Mail twist on a typical piece of political slandering.

If Ed Milliband says his father is an influence, then there's interest in what his father's beliefs were.

What the Daily Mail did though, is what the Daily Mail does. Stick a ridiculous headline on it and blow everything out of proportion.

In other news...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...r-GP-surgeries-to-open-seven-days-a-week.html

David Cameron will announce proposals at the Tory conference tomorrow aimed at addressing complaints that limited GP opening hours make it hard for working people to get an appointment.
“Millions of people find it hard to get an appointment to see their GP at a time that fits in with their work and family life,” he said.
The changes will be trialled at a handful of surgeries next year.
NHS hospitals are struggling to cope with a rising number of admissions to accident and emergency departments and ministers say many people decide to go to hospital because they cannot see a GP easily.
The Department of Health will now set aside £50 million for GP surgeries who want to apply for money to fund longer hours and new consultation methods.

GPs aren't short of money. GPs do enjoy the fact they work 9-5 Mon-Fri, it is in fact why many join that line of medicine*. GPs are never, ever going to be convinced to work shift patterns as part of their normal work.

What world do people live in if they expect GPs to jump on this? The reason we have a lack of Consultants in A+E is because by the time you become a consultant you've probably got a family, and shift work does not go well with family life. The reason you're more likely to die in hospital on the weekend is because people, especially Doctors don't want to work on weekends.

/Rant


*I have several friends who are near the end of medical school and they've all said GP work is great for family life.

 

[Touring Mars]

This clip from Newsnight is already 'going viral' to use the parlance of our times... but it should...

 

[axletramp]

Fantastic stuff. 👍

 

[dhandeh]

Can't really argue with that!

 

[DK]

I wonder what everyone's making of Osborne's proposed "work for welfare" idea?

Personally, I think it's a bad idea. Given the minimum wage is £6.31/hr, and the dole is ~£67/wk, making the unemployed work for any more than 10 hours per week is under the minimum wage.