Instead of protesting outside the embassy, I'm more likely to be found in TK Maxx looking for a luggage set for the chap. I'd even help him pack it if needs be..
Very interesting. I wonder how his members of staff are currently working? If he's prepared to be assisinated and still have a last-strike, it's difficult to see how a lack of Internet access may be disruptive for him. Furthermore, I'd be concerned that without Internet access it was more likely he'd inadvertently launch that last strike.
A potentially related story, at least in that the timing is interesting: Russia Today have had their UK bank accounts frozen by NatWest.
The lower classes hate ranking: 1. Paedos 2. Rapists 3. Foreigners
Ticks a couple of boxes for most on here.
Are you claiming I'm from the lower class for disliking Assange then?
Because I'm fairly certain I can back up my views without resorting to petty comments about class, ta.
I'm not claiming that.
I'm sure you can forgive me for thinking otherwise, when I'd expressed my dislike of the man and you listed 3 traits that he (allegedly) possessss that the "lower classes hate". It just seemed like a bizarre observation to make at that point, albeit with the caveat that there is an element of truth to it.
I would argue that a hatred of paedophiles and rapists extends beyond the lower classes though, and I'd also argue that suggesting that an entire class of people are racist is also quite unfair.
Would now be a good time to ask Boris how he's settling in to his new job?
Yes. But you have to give him time to write two articles arguing opposing views so he can select the one that best serves his personal long term interests.
The lower classes hate ranking: 1. Paedos 2. Rapists 3. Foreigners
Ticks a couple of boxes for most on here.
Are you claiming I'm from the lower class for disliking Assange then?
Because I'm fairly certain I can back up my views without resorting to petty comments about class, ta.
I'm not claiming that.
I'm sure you can forgive me for thinking otherwise, when I'd expressed my dislike of the man and you listed 3 traits that he (allegedly) possessss that the "lower classes hate". It just seemed like a bizarre observation to make at that point, albeit with the caveat that there is an element of truth to it.
I would argue that a hatred of paedophiles and rapists extends beyond the lower classes though, and I'd also argue that suggesting that an entire class of people are racist is also quite unfair.
Did I say an entire class of people?
And just FYI, hating foreigners doesn't necessarily mean you are racist.
The lower classes hate ranking: 1. Paedos 2. Rapists 3. Foreigners
Ticks a couple of boxes for most on here.
Are you claiming I'm from the lower class for disliking Assange then?
Because I'm fairly certain I can back up my views without resorting to petty comments about class, ta.
I'm not claiming that.
I'm sure you can forgive me for thinking otherwise, when I'd expressed my dislike of the man and you listed 3 traits that he (allegedly) possessss that the "lower classes hate". It just seemed like a bizarre observation to make at that point, albeit with the caveat that there is an element of truth to it.
I would argue that a hatred of paedophiles and rapists extends beyond the lower classes though, and I'd also argue that suggesting that an entire class of people are racist is also quite unfair.
Did I say an entire class of people?
And just FYI, hating foreigners doesn't necessarily mean you are racist.
You generalised about an entire class of people, by giving them a "hate ranking". You wouldn't generalise in such a way about a gender, a sexuality ("The gay hate ranking") or an ethnic group ("The black hate ranking..").
I'm not particularly up for practicing the fine art of pedantism via splitting hairs over Xenophobia vs Racism either. If you didn't mean to suggest that the lower class were a foreigner hating people that could easily be whipped up in to a frenzy by tales of rape and child abuse then I apologise, albeit whilst still being quite confused about what your actual intentions were.
That said, when someone makes me begin posting like @Leuth then I'm clearly I'm a grumpy mood to begin with....
The lower classes hate ranking: 1. Paedos 2. Rapists 3. Foreigners
Ticks a couple of boxes for most on here.
Are you claiming I'm from the lower class for disliking Assange then?
Because I'm fairly certain I can back up my views without resorting to petty comments about class, ta.
Ignore, he's got previous on this one when NLA was outraged about a rape case ( I think). He made the same comment about the lower classes being outraged more than others.
Very interesting. I wonder how his members of staff are currently working? If he's prepared to be assisinated and still have a last-strike, it's difficult to see how a lack of Internet access may be disruptive for him. Furthermore, I'd be concerned that without Internet access it was more likely he'd inadvertently launch that last strike.
A potentially related story, at least in that the timing is interesting: Russia Today have had their UK bank accounts frozen by NatWest.
The lower classes hate ranking: 1. Paedos 2. Rapists 3. Foreigners
Ticks a couple of boxes for most on here.
Are you claiming I'm from the lower class for disliking Assange then?
Because I'm fairly certain I can back up my views without resorting to petty comments about class, ta.
Ignore, he's got previous on this one when NLA was outraged about a rape case ( I think). He made the same comment about the lower classes being outraged more than others.
I heard Glenn Greenwald being interviewed the other day and he said that Wikileaks were at odds with him, Snowden, and The Guardian. Wikileaks wanted to just dump the entire document set onto the internet without editing it. The route The Guardian/Greenwald took was to meticulously go through it and edit out/censor any information that might compromise innocent people (intelligent agents, assets, etc.).
I didn't know this, and it made me think far, far, far worse of WikiLeaks. It's a good illustration of the difference between journalism and whatever WikiLeaks/Assange is.
1. Russia Today - surprise surprise - overplayed the news about NatWest "freezing [their] accounts". In fact they posted what really happened on their article, below their excitable headline.
2. Ecuador is responsible for cutting Julian's access to the Internet, his contingency plan to the Internet being cut was to behave like a teenager who has had the wifi turned on: and he issued a massive "fuck youuuu tantrum" against the people currently providing him shelter and safety, by overtly threatening them with releasing a few gigabytes of confidential data. Stay classy, Julian!
2 (b). There's rumours that part of Ecuador's asylum deal may have had covenants regarding his actions whilst at the embassy, specifically curtailing his ability to influence political proceedings in other nations directly: i.e do not go interfering with elections. This is most likely some paranoid social media dribbling though, and there's been no credible sources. (I'm not even sure if you could legally attach such a condition to asylum?)
3. There are still a lot of Trump supporters who are pretty damn stupid. It's gone from Pamela Anderson poisoning a vegan lunch, to the UN controlling the US's Internet connectivity which somehow has effected the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Seriously America, sort your education system out or something..
I heard Glenn Greenwald being interviewed the other day and he said that Wikileaks were at odds with him, Snowden, and The Guardian. Wikileaks wanted to just dump the entire document set onto the internet without editing it. The route The Guardian/Greenwald took was to meticulously go through it and edit out/censor any information that might compromise innocent people (intelligent agents, assets, etc.).
I didn't know this, and it made me think far, far, far worse of WikiLeaks. It's a good illustration of the difference between journalism and whatever WikiLeaks/Assange is.
That sounds like an interesting interview, I've often wondered whether The Guardian have any regrets over their initial involvement with JA/WL. His actions are completely at odds with even his own proclaimed beliefs, let alone The Guardian's.
I'm not quite sure what "makes Governments transparent" about having 400gb of confidential data that you're using as your own personal safety net and cloak of immunity. Of course that 400gb is only the share of his safety net which pertains to John Kerry, the U.K. FCO and Ecuador, I'd love to know what else he's got for his own security - I'd hazard a guess that the 400gb is only a very small share. I'm not entirely sure how a man who proclaims to be on a mission to make governments transparent, and to ensure the truth is known, can defend hoarding such a vast amount for his own gains.
You touch on another important issue, whilst people claim that Assange personally ensures the integrity of the data - he certainly doesn't conduct anything akin to a risk assessment. He spent weeks hyping up a leak during the Turkish Coup, and ultimately it was of nothing other than spam emails and the private emails of innocent citizens asking for assistance. One major claim that has arisen out of that particular leak was that it had placed a number of civilian correspondents under vast risk.
I never liked, nor appreciated to be honest, Edward Snowden. However I've recently began to respect him a great deal, and I've even enjoyed his commentary on a few current affairs issues. I've always been perplexed by his Russian asylum but lack of direct involvement in Russian PR, especially when contrasted with JA/WL.
To use your contrast between Wikileaks and Journalism, I'd definitely look up the processes employed by the team behind the Panama Papers leak. Those guys were incredible, did a huge amount of due diligence, were all team players despite their competitive backgrounds, and were ultimately the antithesis of what Assange is. Wikileaks represents a very anarchistic and immature form of "journalism" to be honest, one where ethical obligations are non-existent and consequences are given as much thought as "how much press coverage and disruption is this going to cause?".
I certainly feel for you in America though, the amount of hypocrisy within the campaigning, and the sheer amount of data being injected in to the debate from external parties is very concerning.
really like and agree your last post (glad you have recovered from yesterday's Tourettes attack :-))
I think the Guardian has more or less admitted it regrets its initial co-operation with Wikileaks. I have exactly the same feelings as you re Snowdon; jury is still out, I feel, because of where he chose to take refuge. And it's my privilege to know the local journalist who is part of the Panama Papers team. I got the impression that they are increasingly embarassed by Assange and seek to quietly distance themselves from him in the public mind; their difficulty is that it's always possible that Wikileaks can release something which helps their investigations. "America" frustrates me too, but I guess we have to try and tell ourselves that just because we share a language it doesn't mean we share a cultural outlook. Personally I think we have far more in common with Germany but that's thread creep. It's difficult to reconcile that an intelligent, reasonable and moderate bloke like @SDAddick could end up being represented in the world by Donald Trump.
Perplexing world, but it's Putin's tactic to persuade people that it is more perplexing than it really is. We should resist that tactic.
We do live in the Political social media world of smoke and mirrors, Where just as you think you have seen the truth it disappears into the ether and the only reflection is of a Misty abstract bubble of contorted contradictions. (My coffee was too strong this morning !)
Comments
Helmet.
1. Paedos
2. Rapists
3. Foreigners
Ticks a couple of boxes for most on here.
Because I'm fairly certain I can back up my views without resorting to petty comments about class, ta.
A potentially related story, at least in that the timing is interesting: Russia Today have had their UK bank accounts frozen by NatWest.
I would argue that a hatred of paedophiles and rapists extends beyond the lower classes though, and I'd also argue that suggesting that an entire class of people are racist is also quite unfair.
And just FYI, hating foreigners doesn't necessarily mean you are racist.
I'm not particularly up for practicing the fine art of pedantism via splitting hairs over Xenophobia vs Racism either. If you didn't mean to suggest that the lower class were a foreigner hating people that could easily be whipped up in to a frenzy by tales of rape and child abuse then I apologise, albeit whilst still being quite confused about what your actual intentions were.
That said, when someone makes me begin posting like @Leuth then I'm clearly I'm a grumpy mood to begin with....
Not Assange, just wish i had a massive helm...
I didn't know this, and it made me think far, far, far worse of WikiLeaks. It's a good illustration of the difference between journalism and whatever WikiLeaks/Assange is.
1. Russia Today - surprise surprise - overplayed the news about NatWest "freezing [their] accounts". In fact they posted what really happened on their article, below their excitable headline.
2. Ecuador is responsible for cutting Julian's access to the Internet, his contingency plan to the Internet being cut was to behave like a teenager who has had the wifi turned on: and he issued a massive "fuck youuuu tantrum" against the people currently providing him shelter and safety, by overtly threatening them with releasing a few gigabytes of confidential data. Stay classy, Julian!
2 (b). There's rumours that part of Ecuador's asylum deal may have had covenants regarding his actions whilst at the embassy, specifically curtailing his ability to influence political proceedings in other nations directly: i.e do not go interfering with elections. This is most likely some paranoid social media dribbling though, and there's been no credible sources. (I'm not even sure if you could legally attach such a condition to asylum?)
3. There are still a lot of Trump supporters who are pretty damn stupid. It's gone from Pamela Anderson poisoning a vegan lunch, to the UN controlling the US's Internet connectivity which somehow has effected the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Seriously America, sort your education system out or something..
I'm not quite sure what "makes Governments transparent" about having 400gb of confidential data that you're using as your own personal safety net and cloak of immunity. Of course that 400gb is only the share of his safety net which pertains to John Kerry, the U.K. FCO and Ecuador, I'd love to know what else he's got for his own security - I'd hazard a guess that the 400gb is only a very small share. I'm not entirely sure how a man who proclaims to be on a mission to make governments transparent, and to ensure the truth is known, can defend hoarding such a vast amount for his own gains.
You touch on another important issue, whilst people claim that Assange personally ensures the integrity of the data - he certainly doesn't conduct anything akin to a risk assessment. He spent weeks hyping up a leak during the Turkish Coup, and ultimately it was of nothing other than spam emails and the private emails of innocent citizens asking for assistance. One major claim that has arisen out of that particular leak was that it had placed a number of civilian correspondents under vast risk.
I never liked, nor appreciated to be honest, Edward Snowden. However I've recently began to respect him a great deal, and I've even enjoyed his commentary on a few current affairs issues. I've always been perplexed by his Russian asylum but lack of direct involvement in Russian PR, especially when contrasted with JA/WL.
To use your contrast between Wikileaks and Journalism, I'd definitely look up the processes employed by the team behind the Panama Papers leak. Those guys were incredible, did a huge amount of due diligence, were all team players despite their competitive backgrounds, and were ultimately the antithesis of what Assange is. Wikileaks represents a very anarchistic and immature form of "journalism" to be honest, one where ethical obligations are non-existent and consequences are given as much thought as "how much press coverage and disruption is this going to cause?".
I certainly feel for you in America though, the amount of hypocrisy within the campaigning, and the sheer amount of data being injected in to the debate from external parties is very concerning.
In the process of uncovering the "truth" he has put people's lives at risk.
really like and agree your last post (glad you have recovered from yesterday's Tourettes attack :-))
I think the Guardian has more or less admitted it regrets its initial co-operation with Wikileaks. I have exactly the same feelings as you re Snowdon; jury is still out, I feel, because of where he chose to take refuge. And it's my privilege to know the local journalist who is part of the Panama Papers team. I got the impression that they are increasingly embarassed by Assange and seek to quietly distance themselves from him in the public mind; their difficulty is that it's always possible that Wikileaks can release something which helps their investigations.
"America" frustrates me too, but I guess we have to try and tell ourselves that just because we share a language it doesn't mean we share a cultural outlook. Personally I think we have far more in common with Germany but that's thread creep. It's difficult to reconcile that an intelligent, reasonable and moderate bloke like @SDAddick could end up being represented in the world by Donald Trump.
Perplexing world, but it's Putin's tactic to persuade people that it is more perplexing than it really is. We should resist that tactic.
We do live in the Political social media world of smoke and mirrors,
Where just as you think you have seen the truth it disappears into the ether
and the only reflection is of a Misty abstract bubble of contorted contradictions. (My coffee was too strong this morning !)