#1
Tubthumper (Scott) wrote:
I understand the wiretapping issue and I think in some cases that I’d be ok with it. However, I still think searches should be preceeded with a warrant.
Posted on Thu, 14 September 2006 at 18:12
#2
deadsetgav wrote:
It fucking stinks and they better not try pulling that kind of shit over here.
Posted on Thu, 14 September 2006 at 19:52
#3
Tubthumper (Scott) wrote:
Gav…how do you know that they already don’t?
Because they probably do.
Posted on Thu, 14 September 2006 at 20:00
#4
deadsetgav wrote:
You can listen to conversations in this country but you certainly need a warrent to do so - and you certainly cannot submit it as evidence without one.
If Blair even suggests it, I’ll cut off his ears and shove them up his arse.
Posted on Thu, 14 September 2006 at 20:12
#5
deadsetgav wrote:
Monitor that you jug eared cunt
Posted on Thu, 14 September 2006 at 20:13
#6
Tubthumper (Scott) wrote:
deadsetgav wrote:
You can listen to conversations in this country but you certainly need a warrent to do so - and you certainly cannot submit it as evidence without one.
If Blair even suggests it, I’ll cut off his ears and shove them up his arse.
The Secret Services don’t really use phone taps as evidence though, do they? They just use them in the hope to gain better evidence.
Posted on Thu, 14 September 2006 at 20:20
#7
Mekhet wrote:
Tubthumper wrote:
Gav…how do you know that they already don’t?
Because they probably do.
And the problem is, you’d never be informed of it, as the British goverment can censor the press.
Posted on Fri, 15 September 2006 at 12:19
#8
mr self destruct wrote:
No surprise…the US is mental.
Posted on Fri, 15 September 2006 at 12:29
#9
Tubthumper (Scott) wrote:
Mekhet wrote:
And the problem is, you’d never be informed of it, as the British goverment can censor the press.
Since when?
The press, unlinke television in the UK are allowed to present some form of political bias. So I think you’re pretty far off the mark there.
Posted on Fri, 15 September 2006 at 15:11
#10
Mekhet wrote:
“Since when?
The press, unlinke television in the UK are allowed to present some form of political bias. So I think you’re pretty far off the mark there.”
Since the 60’s. The SIS can D section (is the term) any press realse (media in any form, T.V., radio, newspapers), for reasons of national security. The U.S. actually has more freedom in that way the U.K. (Okay, the S.I.S doesn’t exactly form part of the goverment…but it does work directly for them).
It has nothing to do with polical bias.
Posted on Sat, 16 September 2006 at 16:32
#11
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
Where are you getting your information from? I’d have thought that, if it were true, it would have been MI5 to have that power. Aside from which, it’s debatable whether knowing that we can be tapped without warrant is a threat to national security. And, if it’s a matter of law, then it’s a matter of knowing the law. I’m not saying I’d look it up, but it’s implausible to suggest that every solicitor that read the relevant legal documentation would have to be ‘silenced’?
Posted on Sat, 16 September 2006 at 18:22
#12
mrs h wrote:
Mekhet wrote:
Since the 60’s. The SIS can D section (is the term) any press realse (media in any form, T.V., radio, newspapers), for reasons of national security.
But isn’t that just common sense? If MI6 know that some information is about to be released to the world at large which could seriously jeopardise national security then I’m sure most people would rather wait for the information - (which would most likely be sensationalist pap anyway! ;)) or even not have access to it?
I can’t see how, when they are ultimately answerable to the government and the government is ultimately answerable to the general public it would be in anyone’s interests to use the power of press censorship unless it really was necessary?
As I understand it, the ‘powers that be’ have to jump through hoops and apply to regular courts to get a press release stopped, and even then there’s a time limit…
If MI6 were being told by the government to stop press releases in order to cover up their own misconduct or something then obviously that would be wrong, but it would leak sooner or later and the government would be stuffed. I can’t see how it would be worth their while?
Posted on Sat, 16 September 2006 at 19:13
#13
Mekhet wrote:
Misanthropologist wrote:
Where are you getting your information from? I’d have thought that, if it were true, it would have been MI5 to have that power.
I could tell you where i get iy from, but I’d have to kill you after… xD. (just had to say that, cliched I know…).
The unit I was in in the army had some links to security units. That and a couple of people in the diplomatic service. It’s definately MI6, though I don’t know if MI5 also have the power. I’d assume so though. (But I’m just a paranoid bastard.)
mrs h wrote:
But isn’t that just common sense? If MI6 know that some information is about to be released to the world at large which could seriously jeopardise national security then I’m sure most people would rather wait for the information - (which would most likely be sensationalist pap anyway! ) or even not have access to it?
In my opinion no. It’s not common sense. The reverse should be true. The goverment shouldn’t be allowed to slap censorship on anything. I can’t really see how if a jorno can find out something why the “security” hasn’t already been breached (and for example: then you get the undercover agents out. In the case of operatives in cover).
mrs h wrote:
As I understand it, the ‘powers that be’ have to jump through hoops and apply to regular courts to get a press release stopped, and even then there’s a time limit…
Theres more than one way to close down a report. That’s one way you can go about it without slaping a d section on it. D sections don’t need to go through regular courts.
Posted on Sat, 16 September 2006 at 21:56
#14
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
*mutters* Lousy stinking ‘No Quotes’ policy *glares at Special Agent Lobster*
EDIT: OK, that’s better. Now then.
Mekhet wrote:
I could tell you where i get iy from, but I’d have to kill you after… xD. (just had to say that, cliched I know…).
Just don’t expect me to pretend to be amused. *sniggers*
Quote (author unknown):
The unit I was in in the army had some links to security units. That and a couple of people in the diplomatic service.
Fair enough, I suppose. You don’t have anything that I can see for myself, though? :(
Quote (author unknown):
It’s definately MI6, though I don’t know if MI5 also have the power. I’d assume so though. (But I’m just a paranoid bastard.)
THEY know that. ;)
Quote (author unknown):
In my opinion no. It’s not common sense. The reverse should be true. The goverment shouldn’t be allowed to slap censorship on anything. I can’t really see how if a jorno can find out something why the “security” hasn’t already been breached (and for example: then you get the undercover agents out. In the case of operatives in cover).
Depends what’s been discovered. If it’s just that the government/defence are being a bit crap, then perhaps that should be shown, but there are some things that shouldn’t be made public, at least not at the time. The work at Bletchley park during the war would have been severely compromised if a journalist found out about it and thought the public should know.
Quote (author unknown):
Theres more than one way to close down a report. That’s one way you can go about it without slaping a d section on it. D sections don’t need to go through regular courts.
Can’t really comment, since you haven’t been able to supply any evidence. ;)
Posted on Sat, 16 September 2006 at 22:11
#15
Mekhet wrote:
Can’t really give anymore evidence that what I have been told… and I can’t quote any exact cases as um…they’ve been D section. Really a self defiting argunment…Oh well xD
Posted on Sat, 16 September 2006 at 22:30
#16
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
I thought it might be something like that. ;)
Posted on Sat, 16 September 2006 at 23:21
#17
mrs h wrote:
Mekhet wrote:
In my opinion no. It’s not common sense. The reverse should be true. The goverment shouldn’t be allowed to slap censorship on anything. I can’t really see how if a jorno can find out something why the “security” hasn’t already been breached (and for example: then you get the undercover agents out. In the case of operatives in cover).
It’s not that I don’t agree in principle with what you’re saying, but I think D and I are just in agreement that sometimes it makes sense to keep stuff quiet at the time.
You could “get the undercover agents out” to use your example, but what if those same undercover agents were just on the verge of getting the information needed to prevent some awful thing from happening? You can keep the few that know quiet, but if it hit the headlines and everyone knew then the agents might be safe, but the information would be lost …
I don’t want you to think I’m not passionately in favour of civil liberties - I really am. There’s times when stuff should be reported and isn’t, and that’s easily as bad as the other way round :)
Posted on Sun, 17 September 2006 at 17:47
#18
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
Yes, Smum and I are in agreement. It must be a red letter day. Oh, wait it’s my brother’s 21st birthday today, that must be it. ;)
Posted on Sun, 17 September 2006 at 22:08
