-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Corbyn did win, what's next?
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
Please tell me this it true
Sadly not
http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...h-booing-noises-at-pmqs-were-fake--WJm7AzVT_x
edited to add.....
Quote from the linked article
Last edited:
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,209
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
There was some Dame talking yesterday about this police and GCHQ matter, who was a former head of the Intelligence Committe. She said you have nothing to fear from bulk intervention by GCHQ if you are innocent, and as long as the lawyers are not asleep at the wheel.
The trouble is lawyers have been asleep at the wheel. They were asleep at the wheel in the MacDonald case in America. Many lawyers now no longer deal in crime, or divorce, becuse they want to go where the money is. Few lawyers are now interested in civil liberties, like bugging, or miscarriages of justice.
This Dame also said GCHQ will now have to ask the permission of the prime minister to bug somebody like Jeremy Corbyn, and judges like Lord Hutton in the Iraq war will be asked to rubber stamp any requests from the police, or GCHQ. I know it's beating against the wind, but I find this unsatisfactory.
GCHQ will never be prosecuted for breaking the rules any more than the police are ever prosecuted for breaking the Judge's rules. Edward Snowden has said that he could have bugged Obama at the White House without any problems. I suppose there is some hope in that the CIA has been stopped from their horrible biological and germ warfare experiments on innocent people which they conducted in the 1950's.
Right judgment as to questions of fact is exceedingly difficult.
The trouble is lawyers have been asleep at the wheel. They were asleep at the wheel in the MacDonald case in America. Many lawyers now no longer deal in crime, or divorce, becuse they want to go where the money is. Few lawyers are now interested in civil liberties, like bugging, or miscarriages of justice.
This Dame also said GCHQ will now have to ask the permission of the prime minister to bug somebody like Jeremy Corbyn, and judges like Lord Hutton in the Iraq war will be asked to rubber stamp any requests from the police, or GCHQ. I know it's beating against the wind, but I find this unsatisfactory.
GCHQ will never be prosecuted for breaking the rules any more than the police are ever prosecuted for breaking the Judge's rules. Edward Snowden has said that he could have bugged Obama at the White House without any problems. I suppose there is some hope in that the CIA has been stopped from their horrible biological and germ warfare experiments on innocent people which they conducted in the 1950's.
Right judgment as to questions of fact is exceedingly difficult.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 84,064
Sadly not
http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...h-booing-noises-at-pmqs-were-fake--WJm7AzVT_x
edited to add.....
Quote from the linked article
what a shame.
Except the Wilson Doctrine is still followed, despite rumours, and therefore MPs don't get bugged. So comments like this are just scare-mongering.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,209
So, if MI5 or 6 want to know what's in the emails of UK politicians, they have to get their infomation from the US?
The BBC reports not - they can get it form the UK. Or, at least, they report the finding of the tribunal that the Wilson Doctrine has no legal effect.
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34527242 (sorry, links soon™)
"The IPT couldn't have been clearer about the worthlessness of the Wilson Doctrine had they shoved a copy of Hansard from 17 November 1966 into the courtroom shredder."
edit of course it is more complicated than that
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34527242 (sorry, links soon™)
"The IPT couldn't have been clearer about the worthlessness of the Wilson Doctrine had they shoved a copy of Hansard from 17 November 1966 into the courtroom shredder."
edit of course it is more complicated than that
Actually, it's simpler. The Home Secretary, who is in charge of these things, has said that the Doctrine will still be applied, as I linked to earlier in the discussion.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
I think there is soon going to be an emergency debate in the House of Commons about this Wilson doctrine business. In a way I find it quite amusing.
My own opinion is that politicians and journalists were in the past assured they would not be bugged by GCHQ, and that it was only terrorists involved, in order to keep their mouths shut. They were mistaken. I fully appreciate that the British Secret Service have done some excellent work in the past, but the situation has got out of hand due to a deafening silence from the media, and lack of public criticism from politicians and lawyers. Personally, I believe that Princess Diana was being bugged.
Last edited:
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,911
Perhaps, but are your personal beliefs equivalent to evidence? Who was bugging her anyway - the Queen Mum, or Prince Philip? These are my main suspects whenever Diana conspiracies get an airing.
Meanwhile Osborne's fall from grace approaches terminal velocity:
"George Osborne has suffered a political setback over his plans to cut working tax credits when a Conservative-controlled select committee condemned his proposed reforms and urged him to consider a pause to undertake a fundamental rethink of his priorities in reforming the welfare state." link
And Cameron embarrasses himself in an exchange with Oxfordshire county council:
"Cameron complains that he is “disappointed” by the council’s proposals “to make significant cuts to frontline services – from elderly day centres, to libraries, to museums. This is in addition to the unwelcome and counter-productive proposals to close children’s centres across the county.” Why, he asks, has Oxfordshire not focused instead on “making back-office savings”? Why hasn’t it sold off its surplus property? "
But the (Tory) leader of the council replies:
"Explaining the issue gently, as if to a slow learner, the council leader, Ian Hudspeth, points out that the council has already culled its back-office functions, slashing 40% of its most senior staff and 2,800 jobs in total, with the result that it now spends less on these roles than most other counties. He explains that he has already flogged all the property he can lay hands on ..." And much more.
You might not like George Monbiot; if so just pick out the facts from his article.
This government is an utter shambles.
"George Osborne has suffered a political setback over his plans to cut working tax credits when a Conservative-controlled select committee condemned his proposed reforms and urged him to consider a pause to undertake a fundamental rethink of his priorities in reforming the welfare state." link
And Cameron embarrasses himself in an exchange with Oxfordshire county council:
"Cameron complains that he is “disappointed” by the council’s proposals “to make significant cuts to frontline services – from elderly day centres, to libraries, to museums. This is in addition to the unwelcome and counter-productive proposals to close children’s centres across the county.” Why, he asks, has Oxfordshire not focused instead on “making back-office savings”? Why hasn’t it sold off its surplus property? "
But the (Tory) leader of the council replies:
"Explaining the issue gently, as if to a slow learner, the council leader, Ian Hudspeth, points out that the council has already culled its back-office functions, slashing 40% of its most senior staff and 2,800 jobs in total, with the result that it now spends less on these roles than most other counties. He explains that he has already flogged all the property he can lay hands on ..." And much more.
You might not like George Monbiot; if so just pick out the facts from his article.
This government is an utter shambles.
IMO both of these things show that the primary motivation for austerity, and the way in which it has been implemented has less to do with balancing the books than it does with political dogma.
The Conservative party has determined that the state has become too large. Their base won't let them make cuts to pensions (indeed the "triple lock" is exacerbating the problem) or to the NHS (although they're trying as hard as possible to allow their chums to make a quick buck off the NHS) so they turn their attention to the parts of the budget where opposition is less unanimous.
After all Major Bufton-Tufton with his generous military, occupational and state pensions isn't in the same boat financially as the underemployed family or single parent and so doesn't care about frontline council services (but woe-betide the council that goes to twice monthly bin collections - nevermind the government that made the cuts that necessitated it).
Personally I don't believe that the Conservatives want to create a servile underclass happy to take whatever work on whatever poor contractual terms in order to try and make ends meet (however it may seem that they are) but I do think that policy makers and politicians are like me, comfortably middle-aged and middle-class (in my case with memories of childhood relative poverty well behind) and simply have no idea how hard it is for the great unwashed to make ends meet - and how they're pulling the rug out from under them (and the ladder up after themselves if that's not too mixed a metaphor).
Or maybe it is just doing things that you don't like.
It's doing things that it doesn't even realise its own supporters dislike. The Select Committee and the Tory council mentioned above being just two glaring examples that illustrate the isolation and ignorance of senior government members. In other news they're also alienating chunks of the medical profession, the police, teachers and the military, to name but a few.
See The Don's post above for a thoughtful look into the dogma that drives all this.
The examples Glenn gave are examples of Conservatives disagreeing in very clear and direct ways with their government's policies.
He's consistent (with his views on the 'tragedy' of Bin Laden's killing):
" Mr Corbyn said it appeared Londoner Mohammed Emwazi had been “held to account” for his crimes but it would have been “far better” if he had been arrested and charged.
But one of Mr Corbyn’s own shadow ministers described the comments as “naive” and said it was “not like arresting someone down a local shop”. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-have-been-captured-and-brought-to-trial.html
" Mr Corbyn said it appeared Londoner Mohammed Emwazi had been “held to account” for his crimes but it would have been “far better” if he had been arrested and charged.
But one of Mr Corbyn’s own shadow ministers described the comments as “naive” and said it was “not like arresting someone down a local shop”. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-have-been-captured-and-brought-to-trial.html
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
The BBC have just shown an interview with a friend of Alan Henning, an aid worker beheaded by JJ, who echoed the same sentiments, glad he's dead but it a pity he couldn't have been captured and put on trial rather than making him a martyr to his followers.