This is the real cancel culture

[SirGalahad]

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-06-15-priti-patels-new-threat-to-british-journalists/

Leakers and journalists could be charged with disclosing information that was merely “capable” of being damaging. They could be sent to jail on a hypothesis.

This makes it clear the government wants to claim a journalist responsible for an “onward disclosure” — a publication in a newspaper or website, for example — would be as liable and on a par in criminal law with a primary source, such as a whistleblower in a government agency.

The government is determined to make it easier to prosecute whistleblowers and make it harder to mount a defence for disclosing information the government claims is damaging to national security.

Journalists and others publishing information the government claims damages national security face the prospect of 14 years in jail rather than the current maximum of two years.

Yet the Free Speech Brigade are awfully quiet when the Government is planning to make it harder for whistleblowers and Journalists to inform you of the truth.

But hey, someone took down a portrait of the Queen.

 

[Mottie]

Should you be disclosing that?

 

[SirGalahad]

Should you be disclosing that?

Simple are you for or against whistleblowers be they in public or private?

 

[Mottie]

For. As long as it is true, in the public interest and not malicious.

 

[Hairymelon]

There is a chap called Steve Laws who reports and films the migrants coming in to the south coast, the authorities are trying to get an injunction to stop him. he’s not breaking the law , the migrants are

 

[transam]

Government of what ever party cannot work with out confidentiality

you cannot have these constant leaks

private conversations leaked
Private conversations taped
Private cabinet and government dept meetings leaked

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

There is a chap called Steve Laws who reports and films the migrants coming in to the south coast, the authorities are trying to get an injunction to stop him. he’s not breaking the law , the migrants are

Wrong! There is no law against crossing the channel in a dingy to seek asylum. It's the only way to seek asylum in UK.
The chap called Steve Laws is filming people going about their perfectly lawful business. It might be disliked by him, and many others, it might be unwanted by him and many others, but it's perfectly lawful to seek asylum in UK by arriving on UK soil, by any means possible and surrendering to border guards.

 

[Hairymelon]

So why seek an injunction to stop him ?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Government of what ever party cannot work with out confidentiality

you cannot have these constant leaks

private conversations leaked
Private conversations taped
Private cabinet and government dept meetings leaked

I thought you were a fan of leaks.

 

[transam]

There is a chap called Steve Laws who reports and films the migrants coming in to the south coast, the authorities are trying to get an injunction to stop him. he’s not breaking the law , the migrants are

Fact is these migrants are being aided / assisted by the french

to cross the channel

 

[Hairymelon]

Asylum seekers have to prove persecution in their own country and must not have passed through a “safe third country “ which they have. So it’s illegal. France is not war torn.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

So why seek an injunction to stop him ?

I suggest you ask the authorities who are trying to stop him.
Could it be that the refugees are escaping persecution so they don't want people taking their mugshots and plastering it all over the media? Do you think?

 

[Hairymelon]

I suggest you ask the authorities who are trying to stop him.
Could it be that the refugees are escaping persecution so they don't want people taking their mugshots and plastering it all over the media? Do you think?

Striking the nail squarely on the thumb as usual

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Asylum seekers have to prove persecution in their own country and must not have passed through a “safe third country “ which they have. So it’s illegal. France is not war torn.

Nonsense. you're making that up, or have read it somewhere on some anti-migrant web site.
Refugees claim asylum and their application is assessed, by the authorities, until their application is rejected, they're perfectly legally entitled to stay in UK.

There is no such requirement for refugees to seek asylum in any particular country, they are free to choose which country they prefer, and they can pass through as many countries as they wish to arrive at their country of choice.
You're spreading incorrect, anti-migrant nonsense. One can only assume the reason, is that you're trying to stir up anti-foreigner hatred.
I guess you know what that makes you.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Fact is these migrants are being aided / assisted by the french

to cross the channel

Transam has a distorted view of everything, and is blatantly anti-French, so his comments can not be trusted, one iota.
I hate to think what his trade customers think of him if this is how he behaves in normal life.