Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Might not a genuinely centrist politician want to try and placate more extreme supporters and keep them on-side if they thought they were in danger of defecting?
Yes, but then they'd be having these conversations with ordinary people in the street, not with members of the group who are more likely to be extremists.
-
Actually I/S I don't really think it is particularly nice to secretly record people.
I don't either. But at the same time, I also recognise the democratic value in keeping politicians on their toes and making sure they know we are watching them. And if it leads to them saying in private what they say in public, then so much the better.
-
I thought open politics was universally supported here.
The only people who don't like it are politicians and wannabe aristocrats.
-
Argh. I've been locked again by Blogger.
-
If you really think (not to put too fine a point on it) spying on people either encourages candour or "enhances the democratic process", I'd like you to have a think about the company you're keeping. Seriously.
Absolutely it does - it encourages MPs to be straight with the public rather than trying to bullshit us. Just like leaked documents help keep governments honest.
That doesn't change the fact that it might have been illegal (depending on who was doing the taping), but the fact that English and Smith's comments have come to light has definitely revealed something about their atitude to the electorate (sorry, the "punters") and their honesty.
-
Where else do people look? Or have you all given up on the teev?
BitTorrent kindof makes it redundant, except for the six o'clock news.
-
Matthew: they could start with one degree (suspects' contacts) and make a second request to pursue others that seem worthwhile.
What, do actual police work? Their job, in other words?
You're asking a bit much there. They have protestors and dope-smokers (quick, break out the helicopter!) to arrest.
-
Well, that's probably true, but the next time this happens it might not be high-minded anarchists who get your name and address. And of course, if they share a cell or someone stands over them, they might end up parting with those docs anyway... the point is, that's a red herring. The police asked for a lot, and they got it, and then they had to share it. It's sheer chance whether or not the end-recipients are going to be good citizens when entrusted with the results of a police fishing trip.
Which suggests that rather than trying to restrict what evidence the police can pass on - and compromising people's chance of a fair trial by doing so - we should be discouraging the police from embarking on such wide-ranging fishing trips in the first place.
-
Meanwhile, the Listener has locked off Brian Easton's column this week - about the only reason I bother visiting their website. Sigh...
-
They have everywhere, but it's like an article of faith on the centre-right that they will fix things in indefinable ways.
Primarily through depositing great wodges of cash in the pockets of their rich mates. That's what this is really about: redistributing the wealth of society upwards. Again.