Privacy and the State

[Beef Oven]

I've given you a list of members of the elite and one example of the non-elite - it is now for you, if you so wish, to pick holes in it, support it, extend it, whatever.

Wha'ever :winkeye:

Since you kindly privileged me with the option, I have put this in the whatever-box and, I will return to pondering who the ruling elite are and how we can get a grip on what goes on inside their heads, without resorting to prejudice.

I got a little excited back there at the prospect of learning something.

[amateur51]

Since you kindly privileged me with the option, I have put this in the whatever-box and, I will return to pondering who the ruling elite are and how we can get a grip on what goes on inside their heads, without resorting to prejudice.

I got a little excited back there at the prospect of learning something.

I feel I've just been set up to fail by an inadequate student teacher :laugh:

[Mr Pee]

I believe the point is to emphasise that while the ruling class claim they do what they do to protect us, the only people they're actually interested in protecting is themselves.

And while I'm here: do you think that the PRISM programme began immediately after the murder in Woolwich, or that said programme was in place but failed to prevent it?

Well, you think that, but I happen to disagree. I do not share the cynicism of many contributors to this thread. I believe that the Government, the police and the intelligence community do their best to protect the public from terror attacks, and that they have done so very succesfully on many occasions. In the real world, rather that Guardianland, it is a simple fact of life that the "ruling class" - whatever you mean by that- are per se a higher profile target than the average man in the street, and should receive protection that reflects that.

And of course PRISM was in place prior to Lee Rigby's butchering. It therefore clearly failed to prevent it, but that does not make the whole scheme redundant. You might as well say we should scrap MI5 because they failed to prevent 7/7. As the IRA said, a terrorist only needs to be lucky once.

[Beef Oven]

I feel I've just been set up to fail by an inadequate student teacher :laugh:

Conspiracy theory will shed no light on your failure.

[amateur51]

Well, you think that, but I happen to disagree. I do not share the cynicism of many contributors to this thread. I believe that the Government, the police and the intelligence community do their best to protect the public from terror attacks, and that they have done so very succesfully on many occasions. In the real world, rather that Guardianland, it is a simple fact of life that the "ruling class" - whatever you mean by that- are per se a higher profile target than the average man in the street, and should receive protection that reflects that.

And of course PRISM was in place prior to Lee Rigby's butchering. It therefore clearly failed to prevent it, but that does not make the whole scheme redundant. You might as well say we should scrap MI5 because they failed to prevent 7/7. As the IRA said, a terrorist only needs to be lucky once.

I'd prefer to live in Guardianland than "Hello trees, Hello flowers" Fotherington-Thomas La-La Land, Mr Pee :whistle:

[amateur51]

Conspiracy theory will shed no light on your failure.

Re-arrange into a well-known phrase or saying? :erm:

[Beef Oven]

I'd prefer to live in Guardianland than "Hello trees, Hello flowers" Fotherington-Thomas La-La Land, Mr Pee :whistle:

Very honest of you amateur51. I wonder how many others will follow your excellent example and tell us their reasons for preferring to live in Guardianland.

[amateur51]

Very honest of you amateur51. I wonder how many others will follow your excellent example and tell us their reasons for preferring to live in Guardianland.

Sadly you omitted to note the comparative element in your reply.

More convenient for your 'argument' I understand, but not very honest of you :erm:

[Beef Oven]

Re-arrange into a well-known phrase or saying? :erm:

100 lines - conspiracy theory will shed no light on my (your) failure. And no tuck for the rest of the week.

[Beef Oven]

Sadly you omitted to note the comparative element in your reply.

More convenient for your 'argument' I understand, but not very honest of you :erm:

It was not an argument, it was a compliment. And I praise your modesty for not accepting it. I am as honest as the day is long.

[amateur51]

It was not an argument, it was a compliment. And I praise your modesty for not accepting it. I am as honest as the day is long.

:whistle: "... Let's call the whole thing off" :whistle:

[Beef Oven]

:whistle: "... Let's call the whole thing off" :whistle:

Ok, but, for the record, the 'preferring' aspect that I mentioned is the 'comparative' element. I'm going to lie down for a while.

[french frank]

I believe that the Government, the police and the intelligence community do their best to protect the public from terror attacks, and that they have done so very succesfully on many occasions.

That means they do their best to do what it is their duty to do. That doesn't preclude them from doing what it is not their duty to do, and what they should not do, and what it is illegal for them to do..

[scottycelt]

I would not describe Snowdon as a traitor, but I do not believe conviction in a court is a necessary pre-requisite of the mantle.

Certainly in the modern global village the word 'traitor' has a somewhat old-fashioned ring to it. I've never really liked the word. Even that 'devout Catholic', Guy Fawkes, wasn't anything like a 'traitor', in the sense of betraying his country to an enemy, though nowadays he certainly would be recognised as a 'home-grown' religious terrorist. At least in those days such people tended to pick on their religious and political enemies and not massacre third-party innocents like non-aligned atheists (if such a curious breed even dared to exist in those far-off days).

However, in the furore over the 'revelations' themselves, one of the main points about Snowden's behaviour has been largely ignored by the media. That is the subsequent betrayal of his oath of secrecy into which he entered into freely and knowingly.

There is something about such behaviour which many will find distinctly unworthy, whatever our views of secret service practices.

In short, hardly a man to be readily trusted at his word ... ?

[french frank]

However, in the furore over the 'revelations' themselves, one of the main points about Snowden's behaviour has been largely ignored by the media. That is the subsequent betrayal of his oath of secrecy into which he entered into freely and knowingly.

There is something about such behaviour which many will find distinctly unworthy, whatever our views of secret service practices.

In short, hardly a man to be readily trusted at his word ... ?

That is the classic moral dilemma between duty and conscience. Must duty always prevail, in your view? (It wouldn't in mine, I hope.)