Bank Account Cheques For Pip Claimants
How it Works5 mins ago
Wiki Leaks
What do people think of these leaks - good or bad?
Is it telling us anything we don't already know? - would intelligence documents from any other country look any different, or be any less contemptuous of other countries leaders etc?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ld-us-canada-11860435
Is it telling us anything we don't already know? - would intelligence documents from any other country look any different, or be any less contemptuous of other countries leaders etc?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ld-us-canada-11860435
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ludwig. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
doesn't do any harm to see the gap between private and public statements, but I expect leaks from any country's intelligence services would show much the same. Perhaps there's something to be said for making security material more secure, though - apparently 3 million Americans were allowed access to these documents, so it's not too surprising that they got leaked.
How does one know these leaks were largely mischief making and pointless gossip, and if some were, who on AB is qualified enough to sort out the chaff from the wheat?
The Wikileaks website, should be closed down, I am sure it is possible in some way.
Also all leaks should have a press veto on them, no good can come from allowing them to be aired.
The Wikileaks website, should be closed down, I am sure it is possible in some way.
Also all leaks should have a press veto on them, no good can come from allowing them to be aired.
Why AOG? I believe those with power should have the brightest light shone on them. It is important.
But yes, that which has been reported has been catty international gossip.
For anyone who is interested, or hasn't perused the wikileaks cablegate site, here is the link: http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/
All the best,
Spare Ed
But yes, that which has been reported has been catty international gossip.
For anyone who is interested, or hasn't perused the wikileaks cablegate site, here is the link: http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/
All the best,
Spare Ed
It does go to show our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a complete failure. Each time the Americans had to take over from us as we handled it badly even though hundreds of our troops have been killed. Punching above your weight should be in the discussion room and not on the battlefield where we were a complete loss.
AB Editor
Who gains if some of these leaks cause diplomatic tensions between various nations?
These could only have serious implications for all of us.
So yes, I stand by my beliefs, that leaking some issues can only cause disruptions, and in no way are any advantage to the 'man in the street', except for something to gossip about.
Who gains if some of these leaks cause diplomatic tensions between various nations?
These could only have serious implications for all of us.
So yes, I stand by my beliefs, that leaking some issues can only cause disruptions, and in no way are any advantage to the 'man in the street', except for something to gossip about.
I never imagined in my wildest dreams ever saying this, but I agree with Anotheoldgit when he writes, "All leaks should have a press veto on them, no good can come from allowing them to be aired."
As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as a LEAKED document anyway, only a STOLEN one. In British politics, it seems to be acceptable that an e-mail between the Home Secretary and Prime Minister - seen by some disaffected minion and handed to the Shadow Home Secretary - should be blazoned around the British press. IS mail-theft acceptable?
On a personal level, if my accountant's secretary mistakenly puts a copy of a letter to another client in my envelope, is it OK for me to parade the financial knowlege this gives me around town to the detriment of the person concerned?
In cases where lives may be potentially put at risk - and I include open evidence to the London bombings inquest in the same category - there can be no justification whatsoever. (Yes, I appreciate that grieving relatives want answers and I have full sympathy for their loss, but their loved ones have already gone. No one else's life should be put at risk just to satisfy their need.)
As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as a LEAKED document anyway, only a STOLEN one. In British politics, it seems to be acceptable that an e-mail between the Home Secretary and Prime Minister - seen by some disaffected minion and handed to the Shadow Home Secretary - should be blazoned around the British press. IS mail-theft acceptable?
On a personal level, if my accountant's secretary mistakenly puts a copy of a letter to another client in my envelope, is it OK for me to parade the financial knowlege this gives me around town to the detriment of the person concerned?
In cases where lives may be potentially put at risk - and I include open evidence to the London bombings inquest in the same category - there can be no justification whatsoever. (Yes, I appreciate that grieving relatives want answers and I have full sympathy for their loss, but their loved ones have already gone. No one else's life should be put at risk just to satisfy their need.)
Trouble QM is you have to ask who authorises the restriction of these documents.
That'd be the people featuring in them.
By your logic we'd never have known about Watergate.
Soldiers perpertrating massacres could simply be brushed under the carpet for "national security".
There has to be a public interest defence
That'd be the people featuring in them.
By your logic we'd never have known about Watergate.
Soldiers perpertrating massacres could simply be brushed under the carpet for "national security".
There has to be a public interest defence
Anyone who has ever worked/served in an organisation bound by top secret legislation will realise how vital it is to preserve security of the country at all costs for many and various reasons, not least of which is the protection of its citizens against hostile nations.
The deliberate leaking of ultra sensitive information pertaining to that country is therefore an abomination and potentially life threatening to many innocent lives of citizens.
"Need to know" is the expression, and that does not apply to the vast majority.
The deliberate leaking of ultra sensitive information pertaining to that country is therefore an abomination and potentially life threatening to many innocent lives of citizens.
"Need to know" is the expression, and that does not apply to the vast majority.
I don't recall, Jake, that anyone's life was specifically put at risk by Watergate and atrocities have ALWAYS happened in warfare. Sometimes they come out one way or another, but I suspect that much more frequently they don't.
Finally, "public interest" is generally defined simply by what the press imagines will sell their papers.
Finally, "public interest" is generally defined simply by what the press imagines will sell their papers.
Latest Posts
Masterchef - The Professionals
Film, Media & TV11 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Motoring13 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles49 mins ago
