Privacy and the State

[amateur51]

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not in principle against any and all such snooping, whichever country's security services do it; what does bother me is when this kind of activity runs out of control and is not properly scrutinised and when its perpetrators are insufficiently accountable to the governments on whose behalf they undertake it and when little or no attempt is made to justify all such action on the demonstrable grounds of national security and the interests of the citizens of the country doing it and who pay for it through their taxes.

I doubt that the PeeMeister will be able to take in most of this five-line sentence Inspector but there is much within it to disturb him and scotty.

You're saying that you feel that the security services need to be accountable to those who pay for them and that they need to be able to show that their work is effective in terms of national security? Blimey!

The aforementioned two are just happy to wave it all through on trust.

[Mr Pee]

I doubt that the PeeMeister will be able to take in most of this five-line sentence Inspector but there is much within it to disturb him and scotty.

You're right there, for once. As with the majority of Al's posts, I lost the will to live before getting even half way through.

[ahinton]

You're right there, for once. As with the majority of Al's posts, I lost the will to live before getting even half way through.

If only?...

OK, so you believe, do you, that state security services need not be accountable to the states that fund them through their own taxpayers' investments? - and that they do no necessarily have to demonstrate value for the investments of those taxpayers in whose interests they are charged to function and operate? Well, that's your prerogative, of course. What a good thing that it's not everyone's!

[Mr Pee]

OK, so you believe, do you, that state security services need not be accountable to the states that fund them through their own taxpayers' investments? - and that they do no necessarily have to demonstrate value for the investments of those taxpayers in whose interests they are charged to function and operate? Well, that's your prerogative, of course. What a good thing that it's not everyone's!

They have long been accountable, through the various oversight committees, and the Home Secretary. I do not, however, think that they should be held to account by left-wing newspapers and dysfunctional "whistle-blowers"/traitors who have their own agendas to pursue, whether that be chasing falling circulation figures, or egotism.

As for "value for investments", this is a completely nonsensical argument. Are you seriously suggesting that the intelligence services, whose work must by it's nature remain secret- whatever the Guardian thinks- should publish some sort of cost/ results balance sheet for the benefit of the taxpayer?

OK, then, I'll indulge you. One terrorist atrocity prevented is worth every taxpayer's penny. And you can be sure that many HAVE been prevented, through the work of GCHQ, MI5 and MI6. We only hear about the tip of the iceberg.

[Pabmusic]

Yes, that always seemed a most unlikely story, Pab, and, of course, surprise surprise ...

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/salvation-army-gays-put-to-death-interview.shtml

It appears the story originated from an interview with an Australian official in 2012. It was quickly (and rightly) condemned by the leaders of the Salvation Army itself...These splinter groups/mavericks do not represent mainstream Christianity any more than the views of Josef Stalin or Professor Dawkins represent mainstream atheism.

I should have said Australia rather than the US. There's no doubt that the photo is doctored, but the interview was not. It was with Major Andrew Craibe, described as the Salvation Army Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory in Victoria, and was a discussion of a recent call by gay organisations in Australia for a boycott of the SA because of its views on homosexuality. The host, Serena Ryan questioned Craibe about "Salvation Story: Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine", the manual used to train Salvationists. Several chapters refer to the sin of homosexuality, including a section that cites Romans 1:18-32, which includes a admonition that homosexuals “deserved to die”. Craibe's comments were made in response to this. They were:

Ryan: According to the Salvation Army gay parents deserve death. How do you respond to that, as part of your doctrine?

Craibe: Well, that’s a part of our belief system.

Ryan: So they should die.

Craibe: You know, we have an alignment to the Scriptures, but that’s our belief.

Ryan: You’re proposing in your doctrine that because these parents are gay, that they must die.

Craibe: Well, well, because that is part of our Christian doctrine

Ryan: But how is that Christian? Shouldn’t it be about love?

Craibe: Well, the love that we would show is about that: consideration for all human beings to come to know salvation…”

Ryan Or die…

Craibe: Well, yes.

Major Bruce Harmer, the Army’s Communications and Public Relations Secretary recently issued the following statement;

The Salvation Army encompasses a diverse community with a wide range of opinions on human sexuality and other subjects. The senior leadership of The Salvation Army continues to reflect on Christian and Biblical tradition, and especially on the themes of justice and mercy, to further deepen the understandings of our own members and build a more healthy relationship with the LGBTQ community. We pledge to continue to offer services to all and to treat each person with dignity, respect and non-discrimination.

This has a pretty full report: https://ww.johnmbecker.com/2012/06/2...on-army-major/

Now, the point isn't that the Salvation Army has this as a policy (it says it doesn't, and I'm prepared to believe them). It's that a senior media relations officer in the SA believes it does. I doubt that the views Craibe expressed go very far beyond the official view. In fact the SA's apology suggests that the sticking point is the reference to gays deserving death. Yet Craibe was surely right in drawing attention to what the bible actually says. So the SA and Craibe are probably not very far apart. Gays do indeed deserve death ("For the Bible tells me so") but we live in a democratic country where we recognise that death is not an option.

As for your last sentence. Stalin may have been an atheist, but Hitler was a Catholic in good standing at least as late as 1943. But what does either matter? Neither is a positive example of atheism or Catholicism.

As for Richard Dawkins, you appear to link his name with Stalin, which is at least an unfortunate juxtaposition. I can't believe it was intended.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I doubt that the PeeMeister will be able to take in most of this five-line sentence Inspector but there is much within it to disturb him and scotty.

Three lines actually, but as soon as I see a hinton like that I just pass on to the next post.

[scottycelt]

I should have said Australia rather than the US. There's no doubt that the photo is doctored, but the interview was not. It was with Major Andrew Craibe, described as the Salvation Army Media Relations Director for Australia and was a discussion of a recent call by gay organisations in Australia for a boycott of the SA because of its views on homosexuality. The host, Serena Ryan questioned Craibe about "Salvation Story: Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine", the manual used to train Salvationists. Several chapters refer to the sin of homosexuality, including a section that cites Romans 1:18-32, which includes a admonition that homosexuals “deserved to die”. Craibe's comments were made in response to this. They were:

Ryan: According to the Salvation Army gay parents deserve death. How do you respond to that, as part of your doctrine?

Craibe: Well, that’s a part of our belief system.

Ryan: So they should die.



Craibe: You know, we have an alignment to the Scriptures, but that’s our belief.

Ryan: You’re proposing in your doctrine that because these parents are gay, that they must die.

Craibe: Well, well, because that is part of our Christian doctrine

Ryan: But how is that Christian? Shouldn’t it be about love?

Craibe: Well, the love that we would show is about that: consideration for all human beings to come to know salvation…”

Ryan Or die…

Craibe: Well, yes.

Major Bruce Harmer, the Army’s Communications and Public Relations Secretary recently issued the following statement;

The Salvation Army encompasses a diverse community with a wide range of opinions on human sexuality and other subjects. The senior leadership of The Salvation Army continues to reflect on Christian and Biblical tradition, and especially on the themes of justice and mercy, to further deepen the understandings of our own members and build a more healthy relationship with the LGBTQ community. We pledge to continue to offer services to all and to treat each person with dignity, respect and non-discrimination.

As for your last sentence. Stalin may have been an atheist, but Hitler was a Catholic in good standing at least as late as 1943. But what does either matter? Neither is a positive example of atheism or Catholicism.

As for Richard Dawkins, I wonder if your mentioning him was an attempt to link his name with Stalin.

I'm surprised at you, Pab!

I'd have thought you at least would have acknowledged that your 'facts' in this case were simply wrong. An official of the Salvation Army in Australia made these extreme comments, which were then embellished by yourself to be the 'Head of the Salvation Army in the USA'. You appeared to use this to infer that this was somehow typical of people with religious views, immediately and predictably followed-up by an inevitable supporting contribution from amateur51!

As for Hitler's religious beliefs (or more correctly the lack of them) you again to appear to be dealing in fiction rather than fact. Wiki gives an account of his upbringing and his very early rejection of his mother's Catholicism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

As for mentioning Dawkins alongside Stalin this was to merely to illustrate that atheists have widely differing views just like 'religionists'. Dawkins may be a tiresome anti-religious bigot but he's no mass-murderer!

Getting back to the atheist Stalin he was much more of a 'religionist' than Hitler ever was as he once studied in a seminary to prepare for the Russian Orthodox priesthood. Shame on him!

[Pabmusic]

I'm surprised at you, Pab! ...

Please don't be. I'm human, even if I don't always appear to be.

I'd have thought you at least would have acknowledged that your 'facts' in this case were simply wrong. An official of the Salvation Army in Australia made these extreme comments, which were then embellished by yourself to be the 'Head of the Salvation Army in the USA'. You appeared to use this to infer that this was somehow typical of people with religious views, immediately and predictably followed-up by an inevitable supporting contribution from amateur51!...

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I fully acknowledge that I misunderstood the continent and the spokesperson's position in my original post quite a while ago. However, I don't think it makes very much difference, for the reasons I said in the last post. This is not a world in which to make such a mistake vitiates the substantive point, which is the danger inherent in according great authority to holy books. Or at least I like to think so.

As for Hitler's religious beliefs (or more correctly the lack of them) you again to appear to be dealing in fiction rather than fact. Wiki gives an account of his upbringing and his very early rejection of his mother's Catholicism.

You could write a book about whether Hitler was religious or not. He was, according to Goebbels (so you can trust it!) a Catholic in good standing in 1943. He evoked God many times in speeches, although he sometimes railed against religion. He had quite a close relationship with Pius XII (whereas Pius XI seems to have deeply distrusted him). I think that Hitler was an arch-opportunist, who used religion when he thought it was useful. I've said before that Nazi and Communist regimes were 'religious' in the sense of adopting the trappings of religion and requiring unquestioning acceptance of dogma.

As far as Stalin is concerned, I did know that he attended an Orthodox seminary, but I think he should have been more ashamed for how he behaved later in life.

Dawkins may be a tiresome anti-religious bigot but he's no mass-murderer!

Well that's nice to know, then! No doubt he'll rest easier now!

[ahinton]

Three lines actually, but as soon as I see a hinton like that I just pass on to the next post.

It's two on my screen; the number of lines that appear is clearly determined by the reader's screen size. If you do as you say, why do you ever respond to any of them and how do you do so without first reading them?

[ahinton]

They have long been accountable, through the various oversight committees, and the Home Secretary. I do not, however, think that they should be held to account by left-wing newspapers and dysfunctional "whistle-blowers"/traitors who have their own agendas to pursue, whether that be chasing falling circulation figures, or egotism.

I do accept - and indeed should perhaps have added - that the mere existence of accountability in itself is insufficient and that, like the conduct of justice, that of accountability must not only be done but be seen to be done; in other words, there's little point in such organisations being accountable for their actions if those to whom they are directl accountable - for example those oversight committees and the Home Secretary, as you mention - are willing, or even determined, to turn a blind eye to them if, as and when they might so choose.

What I am taking about, however, is accountability to their paymasters, i.e. the taxpayer - and not only because the taxpayer pays for them but also because they are charged to serve those taxpayers and their best interests. This means that they should effectively have to be accountable to every citizen of Britain, including those who run and write for "left-wing neswpapers", "whistle-blowers" and the like, à propos which it would clearly be unnecessary - or at least far less necessary - for such newspapers or individuals to blow whistles if tht accountability were to function properly in practice.

It is clear that there is now concern in US as to whether NSA has at any time exceeded its brief. Only time will tell the outcome of any official investigations into that and we will have to wait until they are complete.

As for "value for investments", this is a completely nonsensical argument. Are you seriously suggesting that the intelligence services, whose work must by it's nature remain secret- whatever the Guardian thinks- should publish some sort of cost/ results balance sheet for the benefit of the taxpayer?

I see nothing wrong with that, not least because activities that they're charged to carry out and which they can justify having carried out solely and specifically in the interests of Britain's citizens would not have to be published in such a balance sheet. Balance sheets are principally for the purpose of clarifying inflows and outflows of money.

We already know, for example, that Britain's armed services have wasted vast amounts of taxpayers' money in procurement failures and other administrative gaffes and, since those services are likewise charged with duties towards British citizens, it was only right that their gross inefficiencies be revealed (and I don't recall that anyone even had to "whistle-blow" in order for that to happen).

As I have said before, I am by no means against all of the security services' actions in all circumstances; my only concern is when any such actions are carried out for questionable reasons and where the benefit to citizens is accordingly questionable.

OK, then, I'll indulge you. One terrorist atrocity prevented is worth every taxpayer's penny. And you can be sure that many HAVE been prevented, through the work of GCHQ, MI5 and MI6. We only hear about the tip of the iceberg.

I'll ignore your first sentence. With your second, of course I fully agree. With your third, I cannot comment, as at least some of the work of those organisations is, as you say, secret and therefore details of it are unknown to me (and also to you, I presume, unless you're tapping into them de temps en temps). To your fourth I can comment only that the true "tip of the iceberg" is in what's to be revealed of any of these organisations' activities that may have exceeded their brief.

Leaving aside your inappropriate use of the term "traitor" in a context in which no one has yet been charged, tried and convicted as one, it is unclear to me why you appear to claim that those whom you term 'dysfunctional "whistle-blowers"/traitors' "have their own agendas to pursue" yet the security services are always 100% above that kind of thing, except that only the latterare charged under contract with legal authority to carry out their work and you seem to accept that those in authority must always be right and those that are not are often wrong; this is why your stance comes across as complacent and passive.

Why do you believe (assuming that you do - and please correct me if I'm wrong and I will try to accept your correction in good faith) that "whistle-blowers" are in the wrong in every case by the very reason of what they do? Do you believe that no "whistle-blowing" should ever occur under any circumstances?

[amateur51]

I should have said Australia rather than the US. There's no doubt that the photo is doctored, but the interview was not. It was with Major Andrew Craibe, described as the Salvation Army Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory in Victoria, and was a discussion of a recent call by gay organisations in Australia for a boycott of the SA because of its views on homosexuality. The host, Serena Ryan questioned Craibe about "Salvation Story: Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine", the manual used to train Salvationists. Several chapters refer to the sin of homosexuality, including a section that cites Romans 1:18-32, which includes a admonition that homosexuals “deserved to die”. Craibe's comments were made in response to this. They were:

Ryan: According to the Salvation Army gay parents deserve death. How do you respond to that, as part of your doctrine?

Craibe: Well, that’s a part of our belief system.

Ryan: So they should die.

Craibe: You know, we have an alignment to the Scriptures, but that’s our belief.

Ryan: You’re proposing in your doctrine that because these parents are gay, that they must die.

Craibe: Well, well, because that is part of our Christian doctrine

Ryan: But how is that Christian? Shouldn’t it be about love?

Craibe: Well, the love that we would show is about that: consideration for all human beings to come to know salvation…”

Ryan Or die…

Craibe: Well, yes.

Major Bruce Harmer, the Army’s Communications and Public Relations Secretary recently issued the following statement;

The Salvation Army encompasses a diverse community with a wide range of opinions on human sexuality and other subjects. The senior leadership of The Salvation Army continues to reflect on Christian and Biblical tradition, and especially on the themes of justice and mercy, to further deepen the understandings of our own members and build a more healthy relationship with the LGBTQ community. We pledge to continue to offer services to all and to treat each person with dignity, respect and non-discrimination.

This has a pretty full report: https://ww.johnmbecker.com/2012/06/2...on-army-major/

Now, the point isn't that the Salvation Army has this as a policy (it says it doesn't, and I'm prepared to believe them). It's that a senior media relations officer in the SA believes it does. I doubt that the views Craibe expressed go very far beyond the official view. In fact the SA's apology suggests that the sticking point is the reference to gays deserving death. Yet Craibe was surely right in drawing attention to what the bible actually says. So the SA and Craibe are probably not very far apart. Gays do indeed deserve death ("For the Bible tells me so") but we live in a democratic country where we recognise that death is not an option.

As for your last sentence. Stalin may have been an atheist, but Hitler was a Catholic in good standing at least as late as 1943. But what does either matter? Neither is a positive example of atheism or Catholicism.

As for Richard Dawkins, you appear to link his name with Stalin, which is at least an unfortunate juxtaposition. I can't believe it was intended.

Many thanks for all the hard work that must have gone into this balanced and informative post, Pabs.

I am unable to offer you a celebratory pint here on the Dark Side but one awaits you.

[Pabmusic]

Many thanks for all the hard work that must have gone into this balanced and informative post, Pabs.

I am unable to offer you a celebratory pint here on the Dark Side but one awaits you.

Bit stuffy down here isn't it, Ams? Reminds me of Shelob's lair in The Lord of the Rings.

[scottycelt]

Many thanks for all the hard work that must have gone into this balanced and informative post, Pabs.

I am unable to offer you a celebratory pint here on the Dark Side but one awaits you.

Pabs, to his credit, now admits his post concerning the SA was at least part fiction and a glance at some facts on Wiki would indicate his comments about Hitler's 'religious beliefs' almost wholly so, his only admitted source of info being one, Herr Josef Goebells!

Pab's post may well been 'balanced and informative' fitting conveniently into your own fictional world, but I'm sure that Pabs might forgive me for again pointing out that, for the most part, his post has been revealed as a thorough load of tosh!

I suppose we must all have been guilty of typing tosh on this forum from time to time , and I am wholly and utterly confident that you will have been no exception, amsey!

[amateur51]

Pabs, to his credit, now admits his post concerning the SA was at least part fiction and a glance at some facts on Wiki would indicate his comments about Hitler's 'religious beliefs' almost wholly so, his only admitted source of info being one, Herr Josef Goebells!

Pab's post may well been 'balanced and informative' fitting conveniently into your own fictional world, but I'm sure that Pabs might forgive me for again pointing out that, for the most part, his post has been revealed as a thorough load of tosh!

I suppose we must all have been guilty of typing tosh on this forum from time to time , and I am wholly and utterly confident that you will have been no exception, amsey!

Pabs has very decently conceded the points that you've made several times now scotty but calling it tosh is nonsense. Hitler was raised as a Catholic and, as we know from your example, shaking off this indoctrination can prove mighty difficult, however much you'd wish that not to be true, no? Of course, that's why the denizens of all churches, mosques, temples, synagogues etc like to catch people when they're very young, I suppose.

Perhaps this experience will give you pause the next time you choose to poke fun at the idea of atheists, but I very much doubt it.

[Pabmusic]

Pabs, to his credit, now admits his post concerning the SA was at least part fiction and a glance at some facts on Wiki would indicate his comments about Hitler's 'religious beliefs' almost wholly so, his only admitted source of info being one, Herr Josef Goebells!

Pab's post may well been 'balanced and informative' fitting conveniently into your own fictional world, but I'm sure that Pabs might forgive me for again pointing out that, for the most part, his post has been revealed as a thorough load of tosh!

I suppose we must all have been guilty of typing tosh on this forum from time to time , and I am wholly and utterly confident that you will have been no exception, amsey!

I wish I could be as selective as you seem to be, Scotty. An example - nothing I said was seriously altered by your revelations that the person who made the objectionable comments was Australian rather than American, nor that he was not the head of the SA in the US. He was in fact a senior official of the SA in Australia being interviewed in his official capacity.

As for Hitler, we've spoken of him a couple of times and this really will not be resolved by resort to Wikipedia.