The 10 best sex scenes
Polly Toynbee’s latest:
Our free and progressive voice matters not just for our own sake, but for the politics and diversity of a society currently dominated by the views of a few media owners with similar views to each other.
The Guardian is always free to hold power to account: to take on politicians, global corporations, the secret security state or great vested interests.
We have dared where many shied away – on Wikileaks, the Snowden revelations or hacking and intrusion by the Murdoch press and others. The Guardian won the Pulitzer prize last year for public service journalism. Journalists who work here are not part of the press pack who must always keep one eye looking over their shoulder at their proprietor’s political whims – on business, on taxation or the European Union.
Public service journalism at its best, eh?
The best sex scene in the Guardian is the mutual circle jerk/reacharound fest which appears below each of that imbecile’s articles.
This would be the paper which rejected the MPs expenses scandal for fear of undermining the Labour government, or which has fearlessly hidden news about Pakistani rape gangs deep within their website?
“We have dared where many shied away – on Wikileaks, the Snowden revelations or hacking and intrusion by the Murdoch press and others. The Guardian won the Pulitzer prize last year for public service journalism.”
Shows how far the Pulitzer has fallen. Most of what Snowden revealed was just normal data collection processes from government, there were no revelations that anything was being done that wasn’t fully compliant with FISA. The only things that Snowden did reveal that was new was things that really shouldn’t have been revealed. And now he’s Putin’s bitch, complaining about the USA’s spying on its citizens from a country that does this with a due process of “Vladimir would like this done”.
@I: is she an imbecile, or a moron, or a cretin? Can we get the technicalities right? (Answer: she’s none of those, just very naughty, amplified by her ignorance and stupidity. She probably smells of elderberries too.)
It’s just rampant narcissism. Proggies see themselves as heroes in a battle against Evil. It doesn’t matter if they are or not, it is the narrative that counts. In many areas that narrative is entirely false, and it takes a decent level of mental illness to maintain it, but they manage it.
“If you read the Guardian–Join the Guardian”
As a journo/columnist? Cos we could all do a better job than most of them. Steve could write comic stuff that would almost make the rag worth buying. Although Ruspuker, Pol and the gang wouldn’t care for his work at all.
It would have been smarter to have condensed the G onto the back page of the Autotrader. Then they would have to keep the nonsense short at least.
What do you do if you wipe your arse with the Guardian?
Either Poll’s piece or the “10 Best Sex Scenes” is pure masturbation; or both.
The Stigler
I’m no defender of Polly or the Guardian, but I must I admit that I found the self censorship by most of the rest of the UK press on Snowden quite nauseous. And yes, sure, mostly we “knew”, but it was the evidence so unambiguously presented that was compelling.
I do accept that those who value the notions of privacy and liberty less highly when it comes to competing priorities may well have less time for what he did.
“And now he’s Putin’s bitch” which of course was 100% down the USA, as it was the US administration that chose to make him stateless precisely at the moment he transited Russia! The obvious irony (or perhaps that was deliberate) being that, if he had got to South America, the CIA could subsequently have picked him up (or knocked him off) at their whim..:)
PF,
I can’t speak for the the press, but this stuff was nothing like as shocking as the Graun pretended it was. It was the normal process of getting a warrant, requesting information and getting it delivered. What did you read into it that was more sinister than that?
I value my privacy plenty, thank you. But I also understand that sometimes the intelligence services need to snoop. What’s your alternative to something like FISA to do that in a way that balances privacy and necessary intelligence?
And the USA didn’t make him stateless. They withdrew his passport. He can walk into a US embassy any time he pleases and fly home.
“This would be the paper which rejected the MPs expenses scandal for fear of undermining the Labour government, or which has fearlessly hidden news about Pakistani rape gangs deep within their website?”
They fearlessly report whatever your betters decide is good for you.
The Stigler
I am reluctant to engage here, because it’s simply not possible to go into detail on a blog, and yet I’m also reluctant simply to let it go! I’ll try to be brief!
“I can’t speak for the press, but this stuff was nothing like as shocking as the Graun pretended it was.”
Well, what I read in the Guardian I also read in other press, such as in Der Spiegel (a similar “primary” source) and elsewhere. I guess then that they must all have been similarly lying?
“It was the normal process of getting a warrant, requesting information and getting it delivered. What did you read into it that was more sinister than that?”
Not possible to elaborate properly (and no time right now anyway), but very basically: the mass hoovering, collection and storing of data, ie the difference between “targeted” surveillance (which we all agree with) and “mass” surveillance, and which increasingly moves towards having databases on populations as a whole, so that should someone become a suspect (of whatever kind) there is already a file of information available; and which Snowden was warning about.
As I am sure you know, Snowden wasn’t simply trying to highlight or expose what was happening at the time, and which was all evolving at a rapid pace – a significant part of his message was warning about where this was very clearly leading. He was interested in encouraging discussion & debate (and the UK press self censored!).
The excuse being prevention of terrorism, but the reality of which has already been illustrated perfectly (in the UK) by the extensive earlier abuses of the RIPA legislation by various other UK agencies and for all sorts of purposes (RIPA was passed as counter terror legislation).
“But I also understand that sometimes the intelligence services need to snoop.”
But no one seriously questions that, it’s their job. I hope they do snoop (we’re really stuffed if they don’t!), and they don’t even need tips as to what the particular haystack they might be listening to looks like either!? Sorry, but that’s a straw man?
“And the USA didn’t make him stateless. They withdrew his passport.”
Pendantry!
“He can walk into a US embassy any time he pleases and fly home.”
“Ha ha”..:)
PF,
“Well, what I read in the Guardian I also read in other press, such as in Der Spiegel (a similar “primary” source) and elsewhere. I guess then that they must all have been similarly lying?”
And what, you think Der Spiegel had a secondary source and wasn’t just reprinting what Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden were telling them?
“Not possible to elaborate properly (and no time right now anyway), but very basically: the mass hoovering, collection and storing of data, ie the difference between “targeted” surveillance (which we all agree with) and “mass” surveillance, and which increasingly moves towards having databases on populations as a whole, so that should someone become a suspect (of whatever kind) there is already a file of information available; and which Snowden was warning about.”
Point me at the evidence of that. Not Greenwald’s words, not Snowdon’s words, but copies of evidence that this was happening, with reference to how the FBI or CIA did so without a court order.
“As I am sure you know, Snowden wasn’t simply trying to highlight or expose what was happening at the time, and which was all evolving at a rapid pace – a significant part of his message was warning about where this was very clearly leading. He was interested in encouraging discussion & debate (and the UK press self censored!).”
OK, let’s do a debate on this. What’s your alternative to the current system of controls on court orders for intelligence snooping in the United States?
“Pendantry!”
Withdrawing someone’s passport doesn’t make them stateless. Withdrawing their citizenship does and this hasn’t happened with Snowden. The reason for withdrawing a passport is to prevent them from travelling. This “stateless” tag is just emotional button-pushing bollocks from Snowden.
“We have dared where many shied away –” except when cartoons that offend moslems are concerned, of course. Then they’re shit scared. Violence works.
“The Guardian’s life has always been precarious because we don’t have an owner or a corporation propping us up.”
Total bullshit.
TThe Grauniad has been financed by its tax-avoiding owner the Scott Trust when it hasn’t been subsidiseds by the Labour Party’s decision to fund its sycophant by advertising public sector jobs in The Guardian.
Public service journalism at its best, eh?
They mean journalism that serves the public service.
“And what, you think Der Spiegel had a secondary source and wasn’t just reprinting what Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden were telling them?”
No – it was a response to your comment re the Guardian pretending & exaggerating. If they were, then on receiving the same information, Der Spiegel was also doing all the same “pretending & exaggerating”. Sorry, I should have been clearer.
“prevent them from travelling” – yep, that’s “why” he is in Russia.
Re the rest, another time (I haven’t anything like the time to get into a debate on this today, even one “narrowed” to the detail of court orders, rather than focusing on the bigger picture). My apologies, perhaps I should have just ignored the original.
PF & Stigler,
Great to see people have a good in-depth ruck, and no name calling either.
But you’re wasting an opportunity to mock Saint Toynbee.
The Stigler
OK, back in the saddle just briefly before tomorrow’s next set of distractions.
And having mulled on what you said earlier – yes, actually you are absolutely right!
In that I have gone back and looked at your original comment, and which of course was focused mainly on FISA court orders (rather than some of the wider issues I then subsequently raised).
And which if I think about it – yes, of course, on court orders, the FISA court did indeed approve these.
But perhaps let’s be clear here: the FISC were in fact approving mass surveillance (and not just targeted surveillance), evidenced by the very first of these disclosures provided by Snowden: Verizon being forced to hand over ALL of their meta data (millions of records) on an ongoing basis for various consecutive 3 months blocks, etc.
The debate you mentioned – well, if you take as read the notion of court orders to enable mass surveillance, then, again, I can’t argue with any of that.
If discussing the effectiveness of their methods, I guess that one could argue that FISA should not have been approving mass surveillance, or that in practice too much went through “on the nod” (#), and without any effective independent oversight process, and those and others may be reasonable discussions?
[ # Having just re-googled, I understand that, over a period of more than 30 years, the FISC may have rejected no more than just 11 applications from over 30,000 (one “theory” being that the ink had dried on the rubber stamp!).. ]
And, in fact, for more substantial open debate has taken place in the US since these disclosures as we know.
But, re any wider debate, and quite separately from the FISA points you were correctly making above – and pursuing my separate “straw man” – no I cannot accept that mass surveillance of the populace is the right balance between security and liberty / privacy, but that is clearly nothing more than a very personal opinion and which as I say is completely outside the discussion point you raised above, and perhaps for another day.
And which in any case is also completely outside of the scope of this thread which as Jack cheerfully reminded us is supposed to be about the delightful Polly..:)
Jack – you quite right! Every now and again of course the temptation is to “splash the petrol”, and in which context I can be as guilty as the next person! Thank you for the reminder!
PF – “But perhaps let’s be clear here: the FISC were in fact approving mass surveillance (and not just targeted surveillance), evidenced by the very first of these disclosures provided by Snowden: Verizon being forced to hand over ALL of their meta data (millions of records) on an ongoing basis for various consecutive 3 months blocks, etc.”
The problem is not meta-data though. Does anyone mind that much? The State has always been able to read the address on anyone’s letters. They have not been so readily able to read what is inside. Does it matter if they know to whom we have been e-mailing? The phone companies have to provide the numbers of who we have been calling on bills. That is actually a good thing.
I don’t much like the modern state but the idea that they are collecting the names of those people who regularly visit Jihadi websites does not bother me much.
“And which in any case is also completely outside of the scope of this thread which as Jack cheerfully reminded us is supposed to be about the delightful Polly..:)”
AND the ten best sex scenes. I would like to forget that but the juxtaposition of the two has scarred me for life now I have had some very unfortunate images leap to mind.
SMFS
“The problem is not meta-data though.”
Meta-data is in fact incredibly valuable in understanding associations, interests and lots more.
” Does anyone mind that much?”
That’s part of the problem, and especially when large parts of our own MSM deliberately resist covering the issue – wrt Snowden, I don’t know, perhaps believing it was somehow serving our interest!
“The State has always been able to read the address on anyone’s letters. They have not been so readily able to read what is inside.”
They have not been able to easily “mass collect” such information (as opposed to target specific people). But that has changed (electronically) and continues to change (with both meta-data and content), hence the concern with regard to the liberty vs security balance in terms of the broad direction this continues to take.
Quick aside, but suppose technology historically had allowed every letter to be steamed open, content copied and placed on your file, letter resealed and forwarded. Do you think we would have casually accepted that in the past? My fear is that the population is becoming slowly conditioned (boiled frogs) towards the “do we really mind” approach when it comes to all electronic communications – the initial excuse (targeted at the masses) always being “saving you from being blown up” & “the children” but which in reality is just a very slippery slope?
“but the idea that they are collecting the names of those people who regularly visit Jihadi websites does not bother me much”
That’s “targeted” – and I’m with you 100%. And one of those “haystacks” (the smaller the better of course if you really are genuinely looking for needles), might comprise, amongst others at the current time, and I quote some wag on here a while back, “those with unkempt beards, wearing pyjamas out in the street, and who are not bona fide entertainers”…
It’s for another day, but ultimately any debate is about what kind of country / world we want to live in.
You’ve probably seen this before; it made me (half) smile! Remove the comic intent and one doesn’t need a particularly active imagination to join a few dots.
(it’s just a couple a minutes):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY
“AND the ten best sex scenes”
in all the excitement, that somehow passed me by!
“juxtaposition” … “unfortunate images”
That is not a good start to the week!
PF – “Meta-data is in fact incredibly valuable in understanding associations, interests and lots more.”
So it is. Associations, interests and lots more are not illegal though. Where is the harm?
“They have not been able to easily “mass collect” such information (as opposed to target specific people). But that has changed (electronically) and continues to change”
Sure, addresses are read electronically now. So they can and perhaps they do collect them. How does that harm anyone?
“Quick aside, but suppose technology historically had allowed every letter to be steamed open, content copied and placed on your file, letter resealed and forwarded. Do you think we would have casually accepted that in the past?”
I agree we would not have. In the past even things that were freely broadcast were not acceptable for collection. Looking at people’s houses with IR for instance. Telephone calls. But the meta-data is not the content of the letters, it is the address of the sender and recipient. Why shouldn’t the government look at those if they like?
“My fear is that the population is becoming slowly conditioned (boiled frogs) towards the “do we really mind” approach when it comes to all electronic communications”
We have been going there for a long time, but this is not where the problem is. Centralising medical data in a big central data base is much worse.
“That’s “targeted” – and I’m with you 100%.”
But it is not. It is getting a large file of all the websites you and everyone else has visited, and trawling through them to see who has been visiting extremist sites. Not targeted at all. Just Big Data. They can’t see who has been visiting which sites unless they collect everyone’s meta-data.
“It’s for another day, but ultimately any debate is about what kind of country / world we want to live in.”
It is about coping with the failure of immigration policy. If we had an entirely British population we would not need to be doing this. But we don’t. We have so many Vibrants from the hills of Peshawar who hate us.
“That is not a good start to the week!”
I can see Polly as a stern Headmistress. Maybe that is too much information about me. Good thing you can’t see my meta-data.
“Centralising medical data in a big central data base is much worse.”
As bad, certainly, it’s all part of the same thing.
“It is getting a large file of all the websites you and everyone else has visited”
No, and this is very simplistic from an IT perspective, but just watch the access to specific websites (at one end) and particular people (at the other end) that you are most interested in.
“failure of immigration policy etc”
I’m not going to disagree, but with regard to threats we’ve been here before (albeit differently) with the IRA?
“Where is the harm?” … “How does that harm anyone?”
With regard to the balance of “security” versus “privacy and liberty”, happy simply to agree that we are probably on opposite sides of the spectrum on that one.