PDA

View Full Version : New law for leakers?



Mailman
30th January 2006, 11:35
See in the papers on the weekend some of the tabloids have received a leak copy of the menenzes shooting.

It absolutely amazes me that there is a culture of leaking all over the place in this country, and not just in the p1ssaphones!

Perhaps a new law needs to be made to punish those that would look to subvert the natural course of justice through leaking sensitive documents! :D

Chances of this actually happening? Well if it aint being pushed by the tabloids then it aint gonna happen.

Mailman

PerlOfWisdom
30th January 2006, 11:37
What this country needs is new laws - lots of them for anything anyone can think of.

Lucifer Box
30th January 2006, 11:53
Whistleblowers need to be encouraged, not threatened with jail. Everything is in place already to penalise malicious leaking. If it is a state secret you could very well go to jail, if a commercial one you will likely lose your job and livelihood.

One thing we do not need is more feckin laws.

Rebecca Loos
30th January 2006, 11:59
Mailman is Blair's PA and I claim my £5!!

Why do you want to discourage leaking? This is the best way we have of finding out what really goes on in the "corridors of power". Without leaks, what would we know of that shooting? It would have been nicely covered up by that great politi....errr I meant policeman Sir Ian Blair. But thanks to the leaks, we know a bit more of the internal functionings of the Met Police "force" and how they attempt to cover up such a massive c0ck-up

Mailman
30th January 2006, 12:11
Whistleblowers need to be encouraged, not threatened with jail.

Whistle blowers are completely different from leakers. Leakers do so because of an underlying agenda whereas whistleblowers do it because they have uncovered something that needs to be sorted out (which has so far not been sorted).

The people who leaked the report to the media arent whistleblowers, they are operating under their own agenda to subvert the course of justice. Actually, they probably only released the report because they dont like this government.

Actually...there should be an open inquiery in to the menenzes shooting. But that inquery should be around how the IPCC seems to have more leaks that a boat in the royal navy!

Mailman

Lucifer Box
30th January 2006, 12:13
Iagree with what you say, Becs, with one exception. Surely you meant 'the internal functionings of the Met Police "farce"'?

;)

Lucifer Box
30th January 2006, 12:15
Whistle blowers are completely different from leakers. Leakers do so because of an underlying agenda whereas whistleblowers do it because they have uncovered something that needs to be sorted out (which has so far not been sorted).

The people who leaked the report to the media arent whistleblowers, they are operating under their own agenda to subvert the course of justice. Actually, they probably only released the report because they dont like this government.

Actually...there should be an open inquiery in to the menenzes shooting. But that inquery should be around how the IPCC seems to have more leaks that a boat in the royal navy!

Mailman
So who should decide who is a "whistleblower" and who is a "leaker"? The police? The government? The tabloids? Mailman, you are living in AtW's fairy world this morning.

All the mechanisms are already in place to prosecute malicious leakers. Nothing should be changed lest it discourage whistleblowers.

AlfredJPruffock
30th January 2006, 12:30
Whistleblowers need to be encouraged, not threatened with jail. Everything is in place already to penalise malicious leaking. If it is a state secret you could very well go to jail, if a commercial one you will likely lose your job and livelihood.

One thing we do not need is more feckin laws.

Well said LB.

Whistleblowers must have protection to provide the checks and balances to counter the abuse of power.

Lucifer Box
30th January 2006, 12:49
Whistleblowers must have protection to provide the checks and balances to counter the abuse of power.
Aye, Alf. It is a dangerous government that legislates in matters of conscience.

ratewhore
30th January 2006, 12:54
Of course, the leaked report could in itself be a load of bolloxx...

Who do you trust to tell the truth, the govt? the media?

Me, I don't trust any of them so take everything I read in the papers, or see on the news with a pinch of salt. Even the posts on this board...

:cool2:

AlfredJPruffock
30th January 2006, 12:55
Aye, Alf. It is a dangerous government that legislates in matters of conscience.

Aye LB

On second thoughts LN, perhaps we ought to just turn ourselves in ?

All of us.

Mailman
30th January 2006, 13:36
All the mechanisms are already in place to prosecute malicious leakers. Nothing should be changed lest it discourage whistleblowers.

Actually this is probably the best description of the people who have been leaking the IPCC's progress on their investigation since it started...malicious leakers!

Mind you when you think about it I dont blame these people as they are nothing more than the stooges for the tabloids. I wonder if the government passed a law that forced tabloids NOT to pay for stories how quickly these leaks would dry up? :D

Mailman

sasguru
30th January 2006, 14:16
Mailman,

Are you thick or what? What's the difference between a "leaker" and a "whistleblower"? Just depends on which side of the fence you are. From the general public's point of view there's no difference. The more the merrier - then we can see what happens ...

Lucifer's posts sum it up well.

John Galt
30th January 2006, 15:31
Actually this is probably the best description of the people who have been leaking the IPCC's progress on their investigation since it started...malicious leakers!

Mind you when you think about it I dont blame these people as they are nothing more than the stooges for the tabloids. I wonder if the government passed a law that forced tabloids NOT to pay for stories how quickly these leaks would dry up? :D

Mailman

Why just not go the whole hog Mailman and quash the freedom of the press entirely, then freedom of speech and eventually freedom of thought - good plan...............you plonker!

Mailman
31st January 2006, 10:12
Why just not go the whole hog Mailman and quash the freedom of the press entirely, then freedom of speech and eventually freedom of thought - good plan...............you plonker!

Crickey, you might be on to something here! :D

England would most certainly benefit from some kind of media watch dog...then we couldnt get contrived stories such as Sven being set up in Dubai.

Mailman

Mailman
31st January 2006, 10:13
Mailman,

Are you thick or what? What's the difference between a "leaker" and a "whistleblower"? Just depends on which side of the fence you are. From the general public's point of view there's no difference. The more the merrier - then we can see what happens ...

Lucifer's posts sum it up well.

I think the thick one here is you if you cannot tell the difference between a whistle blower (someone who squeals on the poor running of a hospital) and a leaker (someone who deliberately leaks a document/report in an effort to derail any justice process that is still churning over).

I dont blame if you if you cant tell the difference because you have grown up in the English system that encourages you not to think for yourself :D

Mailman

Lucifer Box
31st January 2006, 10:26
Get a grip, Mailman, you are talking utter bollox. So who decides who's a "whistleblower" and who's a "leaker"?

threaded
31st January 2006, 10:44
Well I guess they could submit whatever document they want to leak/blow to a review commitee, and then the commitee can, after due deliberation, decide.

This would of course be a totally impartial commitee made up of loyal party members selected for their adherance to the party line.

Mailman
31st January 2006, 10:55
Get a grip, Mailman, you are talking utter bollox. So who decides who's a "whistleblower" and who's a "leaker"?

Well you tell me why you think the goons who have been deliberately underminging the investigation in to the brazilians shootings are whistle blowers and not malicious leakers?

Mailman

Rebecca Loos
31st January 2006, 11:07
Well you tell me why you think the goons who have been deliberately underminging the investigation in to the brazilians shootings are whistle blowers and not malicious leakers?


underminging..... quality!!!

also, what are they undermining, if not a cover-up? These "leakers" have been highlighting an attempt to cover-up the misfunctioning, if they are undermining anything, it is the cover-up, not the investigation (rest assured there would not be any investigation if the Met thought that they could cover their tracks with no one being the wiser)

Mailman, you are blinded by your attachment to Blair's (both Blair actually) policy in Iraq and subsequent support for GWB's war on terror. I happen to kind of agree with the war in Iraq and all that but as an excuse to shoot innocent people and trying to pretend it's "just one of these things"? No chance! Remember, next time, it might be you

Lucifer Box
31st January 2006, 11:53
Well you tell me why you think the goons who have been deliberately underminging the investigation in to the brazilians shootings are whistle blowers and not malicious leakers?

Mailman
Come on, Mailman, get with the programme. Just a cursory glance at the thread will tell you that I did not say that, so putting words into others' mouths isn't the way to go.

The whole point is that it doesn't matter whether they are "leakers" or "whistleblowers" as that is a subjective point of view. You cannot legislate against "leakers" without legislating against "whistleblowers" as well and most freedom loving citizens would rather have a few leakers as the acceptable cost of encouraging whistleblowers. There is plenty of legislation already in place to prosecute a malicious leaker and no new laws or approaches are needed.