Friday, November 28, 2008

A what if....

Slightly adapted from a point made on Labour home
"Prime Minister John Major denied all knowledge of last night's police operation in which Robin Cook, Shadow Foreign Secretary, was arrested under a 300 year old law for receiving confidential Government documents.

The documents which were leaked to the press showed the Conservative Government knew that Coventry based Matrix Churchill were supplying arms to Iraq in contravention of UN arms embargoes."
Wrong if it had happened then, and wrong if - as reported - it has happened now.

22 comments:

Lord Snooty said...

And your point is?

Any self-respecting leftie will condemn what's happened to Green and would condemn your hypothetical Major-Cook scenario. A cursory read of left-leaning blogs this morning confirms that.

The truth is though that many (but not all, I concede) rightists would not have been outraged by your Major-Cook 'what if'. So all this hand-wringing about Green just seems like so much bullshit and hypocrisy. Since when have mainstream rightists been bothered about heavy-handed and politically-motivated use of the police by the government (miners' strike ring any bells?)? Or does it just depend on what government it is?

Tony Kennick said...

reproted spell checker suggests:
reported

dizzy said...

"Any self-respecting leftie will condemn what's happened to Green and would condemn your hypothetical Major-Cook scenario. A cursory read of left-leaning blogs this morning confirms that."

Not "my" hypotehtical but one from Labour Home which is err... a left-leaning blog which I gave a "cursory read" too and thought made a valid point.

"The truth is though that many (but not all, I concede) rightists would not have been outraged by your Major-Cook 'what if'. So all this hand-wringing about Green just seems like so much bullshit and hypocrisy."

One minute you "concede" not "all" then you say "all the". Contradicting yourself no?

"Since when have mainstream rightists been bothered about heavy-handed and politically-motivated use of the police by the government (miners' strike ring any bells?)? Or does it just depend on what government it is?"

I'd say it probably depends on the actions of the Police in relation to the assailant/offender that they act again. So, in the context of some of the rather over-the-top reaction in the 80s in many case it was in response to a riot as oppose to a raid in sleepy Kent. No?

Lord Snooty said...

Let's take these in turn.

1. I am simply reiterating and agreeing with the point you make that left-leaning blogs are condemning this as well as right-wing ones. Not sure what the disagreement is here.

2. Fairly feeble attempt at textual analysis here, Dizzy. The first 'not all' refers to the overall population of rightists. The second 'all' refers to the entirety of the hand-wringing by those who have chosen to indulge in it. Where's the contradiction?

3. Well, yes, of course it depends on what the police do and its proportionality. My point is just that many of the right tend usually not to give a stuff about this type of thing.

dizzy said...

If you agree with the point why did you say "And your point is?" ?

Lord Snooty said...

Because you weren't saying anything that wasn't already obvious and evident from 'cursory readings' of a few blogs! Nor did your post appear to go in any particular direction or amount to very much. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had just asked 'so what?'.

lazy sod said...

I've just woken up. Who the f*ck is Damien Green?

dimwit said...

I thought Robin Cook was dead

nostalgia ain't what it used to be said...

"Prime Minister John Major"

How the hell did that happen? I still can't work it out after all this time.

Anonymous said...

I think politicians should be above the law. Do you, Dizzy?

dizzy said...

Yet another straw man suggesting that any defence or crticism of what has happened is saying that politicians shoudl e above the law.

Here's another question, what law stops a politician talking about a document not covered by the Official Secrets Act? Second, why has Gordon brown not been arrested for all the leaks he handled?

Anonymous said...

Just cos Snooty wiped the floor with you, Dizzy, there's no need to be so short with my anonymous friend. Don't you think your resort to the 'straw man' defence is wearing a little thin?

dizzy said...

Err wiped the floor with me? He came along suggesting, as has been the case in the other thread, that any criticism or comment on this story is somehow hypocritical, bullshit, false outage etc. Then he made genarlities and conjectures about "all" people who blog from the right.

As for the straw men point, well that is what the Anon did. It was the deliberate conflation of the proposition "should politicvians be above the law" and this incident withthe implication that if, like me, you do not think that politicians are above the law then it incompatible with saying "you know what, publicising some leaked documents on immigration is hardly a crime" which it isn't.

Anonymous said...

What rubbish! Unlike some of the commenters on the other thread, I think you'll find that Snooty was actually pretty scrupulous in making it clear that he wasn't generalising about 'all' bloggers on the right. His points about hypocrisy are good ones in my humble opinion.

Incidentally, I think you are confusing 'is' with 'ought'. If publicising these documents isn't a crime, then Green shouldn't have been arrested and certainly won't be convicted of anything. Do you mean that you don't think it should be a crime? That's a different point.

dizzy said...

"The second 'all' refers to the entirety of the hand-wringing by those who have chosen to indulge in it." - He was pretty cleat. All bloggers from the Right that have written about this are hand-wringing [insert other perjoratuive here]

"Incidentally, I think you are confusing 'is' with 'ought'. If publicising these documents isn't a crime, then Green shouldn't have been arrested and certainly won't be convicted of anything. Do you mean that you don't think it should be a crime? That's a different point."

I didn't say it was or it wasn't. I was making the point that asking "do you think politicians are above the law?" is an attempt to conflate that question with the issue of leaks and their legal standing. To my knowledge, withthe acceptions of things under the OSA, there is no crime of "leaking", hence Greenw as not arrested on suspcison of leaking.

Lord Snooty said...

Anonymous's second point about is and ought is nonsense (or else, I don't understand it).

On the first though, you are completely wrong, Dizzy. As I attempted to make clear, but obviously didn't, I did not say that all bloggers from the right who have commented on this subject were indulging in hand-wringing. The phrase 'all this hand-wringing' refers as I said to the "entirety of the hand-wringing by those who have chosen to indulge in it" - that is, it allows the possibility that not all bloggers did indulge in it, so the unwarranted generalization you claim to see is not really there.

But this is getting tiresome, so I will sign off here.

dizzy said...

Are/were you accusing me of hand wringing?

Lord Snooty said...

No. As my first comment makes clear, the 'hand wringing' accusation applies to those on the right who would not have been outraged by the Major-Cook imaginary scenario. You expressly place yourself outside that group.

dizzy said...

OK, but I am whinging.

Lord Snooty said...

Fair enough!

Thortung said...

Jackboots and Gorgon have stated that they "had no prior knowledge" of the arrest. Typical Nulab no-denial denial. Taken literally, no-one can have "prior knowledge" of an actual event unless thay can travel through time.

This statement is factually correct even if they knew damned well that this was going to happen.

Anonymous said...

The only 'leak' involving Robin Cook was his extra-marital affair.