I think this is the "Cage" that the government now regards as hostile to
all "our" values. I suppose anyone whom we torture in prison camps is
likely to be rather hostile to our government and our security services.
I think this is the "Cage" that the government now regards as hostile toit's proscribed? Prescribed is almost completely the opposite I believe.
all "our" values. I suppose anyone whom we torture in prison camps is
likely to be rather hostile to our government and our security services.
https://www.cage.ngo/
I know it's considered bad form to correct spelling errors but surely
On 14/03/2024 in message <l5gcduF2iq9U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
I think this is the "Cage" that the government now regards as hostile to >>all "our" values. I suppose anyone whom we torture in prison camps is >>likely to be rather hostile to our government and our security services.
I am somewhat confused about part of Gove's statement:
"Gove replies that he wants to present a "united front against anti-Muslim hatred"."
The double negative is a killer, does he dislike people who hate
anti-Muslims or does he mean Muslim hatred?
On 14/03/2024 13:29, The Todal wrote:
I think this is the "Cage" that the government now regards as hostile toit's proscribed? Prescribed is almost completely the opposite I believe.
all "our" values. I suppose anyone whom we torture in prison camps is
likely to be rather hostile to our government and our security services.
https://www.cage.ngo/
I know it's considered bad form to correct spelling errors but surely
Peter
I think this is the "Cage" that the government now regards as hostile to
all "our" values. I suppose anyone whom we torture in prison camps is
likely to be rather hostile to our government and our security services.
https://www.cage.ngo/
On 14/03/2024 13:29, The Todal wrote:
I think this is the "Cage" that the government now regards as hostileThis definition is not confined to just extremists themselves. It
to all "our" values. I suppose anyone whom we torture in prison camps
is likely to be rather hostile to our government and our security
services.
https://www.cage.ngo/
extends to people who “create a permissive environment” for extremists.
So the definition appears to be aimed at people who support freedom of speech. I'm sure we all know the Voltaire quote: “I disapprove of what
you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
It appears this law is aimed at the Voltaires of the world.
On 14 Mar 2024 at 14:48:05 GMT, "PJK" <PJK321@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 14/03/2024 13:29, The Todal wrote:
I think this is the "Cage" that the government now regards as hostile to >>> all "our" values. I suppose anyone whom we torture in prison camps isit's proscribed? Prescribed is almost completely the opposite I believe.
likely to be rather hostile to our government and our security services. >>>
https://www.cage.ngo/
I know it's considered bad form to correct spelling errors but surely
Peter
But they aren't proscribed organisations. By definition, they are perfectly legal organisations which the government has decided are ungood, and they won't allow them access to ordinary instruments of civil society. They are prescribed on the sense of listed. Bit like Putin has done to Navalny's party.
On 14/03/2024 13:29, The Todal wrote:
I think this is the "Cage" that the government now regards as hostileit's proscribed? Prescribed is almost completely the opposite I believe.
to all "our" values. I suppose anyone whom we torture in prison camps
is likely to be rather hostile to our government and our security
services.
https://www.cage.ngo/
I know it's considered bad form to correct spelling errors but surely
Peter
I've spoken to many people about this, and followed the debates closely,
and haven't found anyone (outside government) that thinks this is a
"Good Idea" (TM).
Yes, I meant proscribed. I realised that soon after I made the post. I thought about spinning it as satire - that the banned organisations
actually do deserve our support - but you'd have seen through that ruse!
Voting Tory has a long tradition in the UK.
I suspect that with this new "guidance" (it's not a real grown up law is
it ?) any attempt to influence people to not vote Tory is considered an attack on British values and will be suitably punished ?
On 14/03/2024 13:29, The Todal wrote:
I think this is the "Cage" that the government now regards as hostile
to all "our" values. I suppose anyone whom we torture in prison camps
is likely to be rather hostile to our government and our security
services.
https://www.cage.ngo/
One of its leaders is Moazzam Begg. Remember him?
From Wikipedia
He is a British Pakistani who was held in extrajudicial detention by
the US government in the Bagram Theater Internment Facility and the
Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, in Cuba, for nearly three years.
Seized by Pakistani intelligence at his home in Pakistan in February
2002, he was transferred to the custody of US Army officers, who held
him in the detention centre at Bagram, Afghanistan, before
transferring him to Guantanamo Bay, where he was held until January 2005.
The US authorities held Begg as an enemy combatant, claiming Begg was
an al-Qaeda member, who recruited for, and provided money for,
al-Qaeda training camps, and himself trained there to fight US or
allied troops.
Begg says that he was abused by guards at Bagram, and saw two
detainees beaten to death. Military coroners ruled that the two deaths
were homicides, but US military spokesmen denied Begg's story at the
time. Later, a 2005 military investigation into reports of abuse at
Bagram concluded that both deaths were caused by abuse by American
guards.
Following a "long public outcry" in the UK over the detention of
British nationals,in 2004, the UK government intervened on behalf of
British citizens who were being detained at Guantanamo Bay. President
George W. Bush had Begg released without charge on 25 January 2005,
despite Pentagon, CIA, and FBI objections. Begg and other British
citizens who had been detained at Guantanamo later sued the British
government for complicity in their alleged abuse and torture while in
US custody. In November 2010, the British Government announced an
out-of-court financial settlement with 16 detainees, including Begg.
(unquote)
The main problem I see with this is what I will label "The Norman Phenomenon".
Organisations that aren't on the list can claim that the UK Government approves of what they're doing and saying, otherwise they'd have put
them on the list.
Whilst organisations on the list can use their inclusion on the list to demonstrate their credentials as an extreme organisation. "Are you disenfranchised? Sick of the status quo? Come join us! We're so
radical that the UK Government have labelled us 'extremist'".
I've spoken to many people about this, and followed the debates closely,
and haven't found anyone (outside government) that thinks this is a
"Good Idea" (TM).
On 15/03/2024 11:09, The Todal wrote:
Yes, I meant proscribed. I realised that soon after I made the post. I
thought about spinning it as satire - that the banned organisations
actually do deserve our support - but you'd have seen through that ruse!
What I want to know is why I only spot other people's typos, and not my own?
On 15/03/2024 10:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
Remind me again why I should respect the law ? Because the law itself
isn't a compelling argument.
You don't get to choose what laws you obey. It's a fundamental
principle of the rule of law which the vast majority of us endorse.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:56:06 +0000, Simon Parker wrote:
I've spoken to many people about this, and followed the debates closely,
and haven't found anyone (outside government) that thinks this is a
"Good Idea" (TM).
The potential for mischief means we will end up with even more "guidance" that is harder to challenge (assuming it's made public).
I am reminded of the 2016 Psychoactive substances act which makes incense illegal. So the CPS had to make a policy decision to exempt it (alcohol
and tobacco of course exempt by statute).
So despite the clear will of parliament - the law is not being enforced.
Remind me again why I should respect the law ? Because the law itself
isn't a compelling argument.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:24:39 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 15/03/2024 11:09, The Todal wrote:
Yes, I meant proscribed. I realised that soon after I made the post. I
thought about spinning it as satire - that the banned organisations
actually do deserve our support - but you'd have seen through that ruse! >>
What I want to know is why I only spot other people's typos, and not my own?
Because when you read what you wrote, your brain actually reads what you intended to write.
Mark
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:16:43 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote...
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:24:39 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 15/03/2024 11:09, The Todal wrote:
Yes, I meant proscribed. I realised that soon after I made the post. I >>>> thought about spinning it as satire - that the banned organisations
actually do deserve our support - but you'd have seen through that ruse! >>>>
What I want to know is why I only spot other people's typos, and not my own?
Because when you read what you wrote, your brain actually reads what you
intended to write.
Mark
Veering vaguely back on-topic, when I started employment in a legal firm
in pre-wordprocessor days, there was much copy typing. An initial rough draft would be dictated, typed out, amended by hand (often
significantly), then retyped.
The firm's practice was that the retyped document had to be proof read against the amended draft, by two people calling it out orally, one to
the other. The strict rule was that the person who had retyped it never
held the retyped version. As Mark says, your brain sees what you
intended, not what was actually typed.
On 15/03/2024 11:09, The Todal wrote:
Yes, I meant proscribed. I realised that soon after I made the post. I
thought about spinning it as satire - that the banned organisations
actually do deserve our support - but you'd have seen through that ruse!
What I want to know is why I only spot other people's typos, and not my
own?
On 15/03/2024 14:29, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:16:43 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote...
Because when you read what you wrote, your brain actually reads what you >>> intended to write.
Veering vaguely back on-topic, when I started employment in a legal firm
in pre-wordprocessor days, there was much copy typing. An initial rough
draft would be dictated, typed out, amended by hand (often
significantly), then retyped.
The firm's practice was that the retyped document had to be proof read
against the amended draft, by two people calling it out orally, one to
the other. The strict rule was that the person who had retyped it never
held the retyped version. As Mark says, your brain sees what you
intended, not what was actually typed.
I remember those days and those methods of checking documents. When
copying a lease or mortgage or other such document it was not
permissible to correct any existing errors in the original even if they
were plain to see.
On 15/03/2024 11:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/03/2024 09:56, Simon Parker wrote:
On 14/03/2024 13:29, The Todal wrote:
I think this is the "Cage" that the government now regards as
hostile to all "our" values. I suppose anyone whom we torture in
prison camps is likely to be rather hostile to our government and
our security services.
https://www.cage.ngo/
One of its leaders is Moazzam Begg. Remember him?
From Wikipedia
He is a British Pakistani who was held in extrajudicial detention by
the US government in the Bagram Theater Internment Facility and the
Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, in Cuba, for nearly three years.
Seized by Pakistani intelligence at his home in Pakistan in February
2002, he was transferred to the custody of US Army officers, who
held him in the detention centre at Bagram, Afghanistan, before
transferring him to Guantanamo Bay, where he was held until January
2005.
The US authorities held Begg as an enemy combatant, claiming Begg
was an al-Qaeda member, who recruited for, and provided money for,
al-Qaeda training camps, and himself trained there to fight US or
allied troops.
Begg says that he was abused by guards at Bagram, and saw two
detainees beaten to death. Military coroners ruled that the two
deaths were homicides, but US military spokesmen denied Begg's story
at the time. Later, a 2005 military investigation into reports of
abuse at Bagram concluded that both deaths were caused by abuse by
American guards.
Following a "long public outcry" in the UK over the detention of
British nationals,in 2004, the UK government intervened on behalf of
British citizens who were being detained at Guantanamo Bay.
President George W. Bush had Begg released without charge on 25
January 2005, despite Pentagon, CIA, and FBI objections. Begg and
other British citizens who had been detained at Guantanamo later
sued the British government for complicity in their alleged abuse
and torture while in US custody. In November 2010, the British
Government announced an out-of-court financial settlement with 16
detainees, including Begg.
(unquote)
The main problem I see with this is what I will label "The Norman
Phenomenon".
Organisations that aren't on the list can claim that the UK
Government approves of what they're doing and saying, otherwise
they'd have put them on the list.
Whilst organisations on the list can use their inclusion on the list
to demonstrate their credentials as an extreme organisation. "Are
you disenfranchised? Sick of the status quo? Come join us! We're
so radical that the UK Government have labelled us 'extremist'".
I've spoken to many people about this, and followed the debates
closely, and haven't found anyone (outside government) that thinks
this is a "Good Idea" (TM).
Can you please clarify why you have pejoratively labelled it as you have?
(1) I do not consider the label pejorative. It is just a label.
(2) I consider the reason for using this label axiomatic.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 53:08:27 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,264 |