XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: jenningsltd@fastmail.fm 
  
 On 13/07/2019 19:41, abelard wrote: 
 > On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 16:58:25 +0100, JNugent  
 > wrote: 
 > 
 >> On 13/07/2019 13:05, abelard wrote: 
 >>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:53:42 +0100, JNugent  
 >>> wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>> On 13/07/2019 12:50, abelard wrote: 
 >>>>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:35:52 +0100, JNugent  
 >>>>> wrote: 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>>> On 13/07/2019 12:19, abelard wrote: 
 >>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:13:52 +0100, JNugent  
 >>>>>>> wrote: 
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>> On 13/07/2019 10:42, Ian Jackson wrote: 
 >>>>>>>>> In message , The Todal 
 >>>>>>>>>  writes 
 >>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>>> Tim Shipman, political editor of the Sunday Times, criticised the 
 >>>>>>>>>> €€€sinister, absurd, anti-democratic statement this evening 
 threatening 
 >>>>>>>>>> journalists with arrest for printing government leaks€€€, and 
 asked 
 the 
 >>>>>>>>>> Met on Twitter: €€€Do you have any comprehension of a free 
 society? 
 This 
 >>>>>>>>>> isn€€€t Russia.€€€ Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP, told the 
 remarks 
 >>>>>>>>>> suggested a €€€slippery slope to a police state€€€. 
 >>>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>> OMG! How naive can all these people be? €€€Do you have any 
 comprehension 
 >>>>>>>>> of a free society?" The OSA is there for a purpose, and without it 
 it's 
 >>>>>>>>> likely that we wouldn't have a "free society". 
 >>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>> +1. 
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> can you make a much more full argument for your proposition... 
 >>>>>>>         pretty please! 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> The Official Secrets Act is a part - an important part - of the 
 >>>>>> provisions for ensuring the security of this country. In any state, 
 not 
 >>>>>> just the United Kingdom, an inability to keep secrets secret means 
 that 
 >>>>>> the military and other defences of a state cannot be properly planned, 
 >>>>>> mustered, maintained or deployed. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> thank you... 
 >>>>> that's plausible and sufficiently convincing 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> you can however argue similarly for the protection 
 >>>>>        of a dictatorship 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> how can you distinguish? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> It applies to every form of government. There is no need to make the 
 >>>> distinction. Dicatorships are just as much under a duty to protect their 
 >>>> citizens from harm by criminals, foreign governments or an invading 
 force. 
 >>> 
 >>> but such regimes have regularly and often done grave harm 
 >>>        to their citizens 
 >> 
 >> So have democracies. 
 >> 
 >> But does that mean that ordinary criminals in states you call 
 >> "dictatorships" must be free to commit their knaveries? Or that invading 
 >> armies must not be effectively opposed? Or that terrorists must be left 
 >> untrammelled by the security and intelligence services? 
 > 
 > all choices to be made by individuals 
  
 Hardly. 
  
 The choice is a prime example of those to be made by elected (or 
 dictatorial) governments. 
  
 > and even by gangs as in socialist dictatorships 
  
 You're trying to evade the point. 
  
 > 'shoulds' and 'musts' is the language of the sheep pen 
  
 Such words are described in political science as "normative". 
  
 Try to show that terrorists and other criminals should be free to do as 
 they like. 
  
 Here's the space for that: 
  
 ................................................................ 
 ............................ 
 ................................................................ 
 ............................ 
 ................................................................ 
 ............................ 
 ................................................................ 
 ............................ 
 ................................................................ 
 ............................ 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)