The Guardian gets it's knickers in a twist again

[Guest]

nnnnn

[amateur51]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oc...-spies-justice

Wonderfully emotive language....."spies". The Guardian is so full of hypocritical BS. I really cannot see why they are getting so exercised over this...or the lawyers for that matter. He was an undercover policeman, for goodness sake. What's he going to do...give his real name and therefore blow his (and other's) cover? Or would the Guardian prefer that we don't carry out any undercover operations at all?

BTS'll be lobbying for the Stasi next

[teamsaint]

so if you were convicted on the basis of evidence from somebody who hadn't even supplied a truthful name, you would be ok with that ?

[Mr Pee]

The Guardian is so full of hypocritical BS.

http://www.shotdeadinthehead.com/product_view.aspx?pid=1573

[amateur51]

Let's get to it - in what way 'hypocritical', BTS & Mr Pee?

[Mahlerei]

Am51

Wouldn't like Mr Pee spraying over my cornflakes

[amateur51]

To answer that depends on whether or not you have a hidden agenda behind your question. Your phrase "hadn't even" could be taken to imply that everything else that the person said is false. And at the end of the day, how do we know whether anyone in a court of law is telling the truth.

No, you're missing the point. I guess that it depends on what value you place on fighting crime. It seems to me that you want both to have your cake and eat it. I am assuming that you are against crime. Are you in favour of undercover operations? If the answer is "no, as it is against the criminals human rights, unfair tactics, not playing cricket, whatever" then let us agree to differ and we'll go our separate ways, as it were.

But if you are in favour of undercover operations then surely you can see that in some circumstances the undercover officer (please, Guardian, they are not 'spies'...what pathetic twaddle) might get arrested alongside the other suspects and appear in court. So what you seem to be suggesting is that the undercover officer, Joe Bloggs, appears in court and must state my "real name is Joe Smith". His/her cover is now blown. Possibly putting at risk other undercover officers. Undermining possibly years of police work. Infiltrating a terrorist cell...all that undercover intelligence blown..and for what?

All I am asking for is some sort of explanation behind your view that the officer should give their real name in this circumstance as what you seem to be saying is that you put much higher importance on them giving their real name than trying to fight crime and even in the case of a terrorist cell, maybe preventing loss of innocent lives downline. I just can't square with that sort of view.

One word: balderdash!

[Simon]

If you read some of teamsaint's other posts - and are aware of his previous screen-names - you won't waste your time, BTS.

What mind there remains was hijacked by facile leftist dogma a long time ago and is agin all authority and all western traditional values.

[amateur51]

If you read some of teamsaint's other posts - and are aware of his previous screen-names - you won't waste your time, BTS.

What mind there remains was hijacked by facile leftist dogma a long time ago and is agin all authority and all western traditional values.

Priceless

[BetweenTheStaves]

Thanks, Simon, for the clarification. It's a great shame that they are unable to enter into any form of sensible discussion. Humdrum51 can only manage single word replies. Apparently he has not yet mastered the art of forming full and coherent sentences.

A great shame that they are so reluctant to explain where they are coming from.

[greenilex]

Mud-slinging aside,I'd have thought it incumbent upon any half-way efficient police force to ensure that its stooges,grasses, spies etc. did not appear in a court of law.... but once there, they have the same duty to tell the truth while on oath as any other person.

[amateur51]

Mud-slinging aside,I'd have thought it incumbent upon any half-way efficient police force to ensure that its stooges,grasses, spies etc. did not appear in a court of law.... but once there, they have the same duty to tell the truth while on oath as any other person.

I agree, greenilex. Otherwise the rule of law is corrupted and we're living in a police state

[amateur51]

Apparently he has not yet mastered the art of forming full and coherent sentences.

Shame about the errant apostrophe in The Guardian gets it's knickers in a twist again,

[teamsaint]

If you read some of teamsaint's other posts - and are aware of his previous screen-names - you won't waste your time, BTS.

What mind there remains was hijacked by facile leftist dogma a long time ago and is agin all authority and all western traditional values.

Simon (if that is your real name), i have never posted on this or any other board as anything other than teamsaint. So, apology required, since you made that up.

Secondly, if you took time to actually read my other posts, since you seem to pay some attention to them, you might quickly figure out that if I ever had left leaning politics, I discarded them a long time ago.

i am not against authority......i am against abuse of power and position , which happens all too often.

As for Western traditional values............hmmmm... we need a discussion on this, but if you care to outline what these might be, i will happily swap posts.

There are quite a lot of what might be considered" traditional western values" that i might be opposed to. feudalism. Hierarchical privilege. Imperialism. those sorts of things.
But I am open minded, I change my mind when well persuaded, and the things In do believe in revolve round improving life for all of us. (not especially me, I have been lucky enough in my life compared to most).

[teamsaint]

To answer that depends on whether or not you have a hidden agenda behind your question. Your phrase "hadn't even" could be taken to imply that everything else that the person said is false. And at the end of the day, how do we know whether anyone in a court of law is telling the truth.

No, you're missing the point. I guess that it depends on what value you place on fighting crime. It seems to me that you want both to have your cake and eat it. I am assuming that you are against crime. Are you in favour of undercover operations? If the answer is "no, as it is against the criminals human rights, unfair tactics, not playing cricket, whatever" then let us agree to differ and we'll go our separate ways, as it were.

But if you are in favour of undercover operations then surely you can see that in some circumstances the undercover officer (please, Guardian, they are not 'spies'...what pathetic twaddle) might get arrested alongside the other suspects and appear in court. So what you seem to be suggesting is that the undercover officer, Joe Bloggs, appears in court and must state my "real name is Joe Smith". His/her cover is now blown. Possibly putting at risk other undercover officers. Undermining possibly years of police work. Infiltrating a terrorist cell...all that undercover intelligence blown..and for what?

All I am asking for is some sort of explanation behind your view that the officer should give their real name in this circumstance as what you seem to be saying is that you put much higher importance on them giving their real name than trying to fight crime and even in the case of a terrorist cell, maybe preventing loss of innocent lives downline. I just can't square with that sort of view.

I think we should start at a place where we (and our governments and their agencies) deal in truth.

I believe in fighting crime, whether the crime is inside or outside government, inside or outside the city, inside our outside sink estates.