There's a pre-echo in here! <biggrinemoticon>
-
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT] -
Murder is murder ... manslaughter is manslaughter. One implies intent to kill, the other does not.
Also, it could be argued that just about every murder is the result of a dysfunctional individual acting in a moment of madness.
It is for the judge to exercise any appropriate leniency due to the circumstances in each case not the police or prosecuting officials.Comment
-
Mr Pee appears to have retired from this discussion, if only momentarily (and perhaps also conveniently)...Comment
-
In general, these points are true enough. The caveats are (according to our own law as it is at present - both Scottish and English/Welsh):Originally posted by scottycelt View Post
[A] You commit murder as well if you mean no more than to seriously injure, but the victim dies.
[B] I'd guess that this is true enough for most killings, but not for all of them. Occasionally murders are planned very thoroughly. Then again, some are committed by psychopaths, who are not generally regarded as being 'mad'. The situation is confused for us today, because since 1957 we've had the concept of diminished responsibility, which if accepted reduces murder to manslaughter - it thus covers many of the 'heat of the moment' murders.
[C] Talking only of murder, this is true. The judge has to give life imprisonment but nowadays is supposed to indicate a minimum length of time the person must be imprisoned before he or she can be considered for release on licence. But it's not always true otherwise, where the police and CPS have already decided to charge manslaughter rather than murder.Comment
-
Remember, if you've done nothing wrong ...
US and UK intelligence have reportedly cracked the encryption codes protecting the emails, banking and medical records of hundreds of millions of people. Disclosures by leaker Edward Snowden allege the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK's GCHQ successfully decoded key online security protocols.
They suggest some internet companies provided the agencies backdoor access to their security systems.
The NSA is said to spend $250m (£160m) a year on the top-secret operation.
Comment
-
Which, because the security agencies leak like sieves worldwide, makes our de-encrypted information (bank account details etc) more likely than ever to get into the hands of criminal hackers, of course.Originally posted by amateur51 View PostComment
-
Day by day it becomes more difficult to discern the hacker from the criminal, indeed vice versa.Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
But if you haven't done anything wrong ...Comment
-
-
You have nothing to lose but your bank balance, as in...Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostComment
-
NSA employee spied on nine women without detection, internal file shows
Twelve cases of unauthorised surveillance documented in letter from NSA's inspector general to senator Chuck Grassley
I wonder how many similar cases of unauthorised spying were detected and punished?Comment
-
Against the arguments various about the extent to which the public can or does trust agencies such as NSA and GCHQ to represent its best interests on the one hand and suspects them of unwarranted intrusions into corporate and personal privacy on the other, it is clear that at least some of those defending such agencies's policies and actions are seeking to hide behind the notion that a need to maintain secrecy is vital to the preservation of national security. Given that such a notion is as government sponsored as are those agencies themselves - and given how important a part in retaining such "security" is the security of banks and financial institutions - what price the widespread coverage of Operation Waking Shark 2 as publicised in many sources including http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-security.html, http://www.itproportal.com/2013/10/0...aking-shark-2/ and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10..._stress_test/? Aren't all these public announcements on this orthcoming operation tantamount to advertising an open day for financial criminals, terrorists and the like to pop along and see for themslves how such institutions do and don't work so that they'll be better equipped to do their work in future?
Hypocrisy or what?Comment
-
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.
Mark Twain.Comment
-
Good to see the new man at the top making sure everyone knows he needs a budget increase.Originally posted by Mr Pee View PostComment
-
So, as a result of Snowden's revelations, all those "Islamic terrorists" have suddenly realised that GCHQ is attempting to monitor their every communication. Don't you think they might previously have had a vague suspicion that this might be the case?
Something that strangely doesn't get a mention in Parker's fundraising pitch, I mean dire warning, is WHY these people might want to attack the British people "at will". Once more I'm reminded of Prof Chomsky's suggestion that the best way Western governments can stop terrorism is to stop doing it.
And... let me get this right: we're supposed to trust the word of the head of an organisation whose life-blood is secrecy, covert operations and spreading misinformation?Comment
-
I heard him being interviewed on this morning's Today programme (did you?). Merely complaining that he and his like "cannot work without tools", however, carries with it no guarantee of an ability to work with tools - but that's not the point, really. Whilst the Snowdens, Mannings et al of this world might just place aspects of certain nations' security at risk by their actions, those actions also point up many vital issues besides the one of national secutiry that's always complacently and noisily trotted out in any condemnation of them and, in any case, cybercrime of many so many kinds being the global growth industry that it is, it would be absurd to assume that all possible compromises to state security arise solely from the activities of such people when in reality the bulk of it is far more likely to stem from hacking of systems by experts.Originally posted by Mr Pee View Post
You ignore my comparison with the banking and financial institution security issues to which I draw attention above, yet no one seems seriously to be suggesting that any, let alone all, of the countless breaches of such security are down to whistleblowers.
Since you also make no reference to the security systems of governments of countries such as Iran, Somalia, DR Congo, N Korea et al in a comparative context of the extent and nature of their rights to state secrecy and legitimate protection against whistleblowers and hackers, your stance would seem to be rather one-sided.
What is your view of the Chomsky quote about terrorism prevention that Richard Barrett has provided here?Comment
Comment