XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: jenningsltd@fastmail.fm 
  
 On 14/07/2019 13:49, abelard wrote: 
 > On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 13:11:56 +0100, JNugent  
 > wrote: 
 > 
 >> On 14/07/2019 10:43, abelard wrote: 
 >>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 02:07:49 +0100, JNugent  
 >>> wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>> 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. 
 >>> 
 >>> fine...they are choices 
 >>> 
 >>>>> and even by gangs as in socialist dictatorships 
 >>>> 
 >>>> You're trying to evade the point. 
 >>> 
 >>> content of that remark obscure to me 
 >>> 
 >>> define 'the point' 
 >>> 
 >>>>> 'shoulds' and 'musts' is the language of the sheep pen 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Such words are described in political science as "normative". 
 >>> 
 >>> why not describe them as 'magical' 
 >> 
 >> Because they aren't magical. 
 >> 
 >>>> Try to show that terrorists and other criminals should be free to do as 
 >>>> they like. 
 >>> 
 >>> 'should' is individually attributed...it means 'i want' 
 >> 
 >> I'm fairly confident that I am one of a vast majority in wanting the 
 >> actions of criminal deviants curbed and punished. 
 > 
 > so, you believe that it's a matter of majorities... 
  
 The definition of certain deviant behaviours as crime is not a political 
 matter. Murder, for instance, is charged in the UK as "contrary to 
 common law", because the fact that it is a crime is self-evident and in 
 need of no sanction by a majority. No-one sensible disputes that it is a 
 crime. There has never been a need for Parliament tolegislate against 
 it. Theft is similar, but Parliament has seen fit to characterise and 
 define theft by statute in a number of ways, not all of which might be 
 obvious as a common law offence. 
  
 >>> 'criminal' is individually attributed....it means 'i don't want' 
 >> 
 >> ...or more credibly: "We don't want...". 
 > 
 > democracy/majorities... 
  
 Sometimes. Often not. See the concept of common law. 
  
 It is impossible to think of murder, for instance, as being legal and 
 tolerated in the real world. It's only possible in dystopian movies. 
 Even under the Nazis, their actions in Europe were given a vague and 
 flimsy covering of law. 
  
 > the 'we' in other countries choose otherwise...or are 
 >      forced to do otherwise in dictatorships 
 > 
 > you are trying to claim your preferences are laws of nature 
  
 Some of them are. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)