back to article British Minister likens Anonymous to fascists and racists

Hacktivist cabal Anonymous has continued its attack on UK government websites in retaliation to the UK’s treatment of Julian Assange, this time hitting former Wales and Northern Ireland Secretary, Peter Hain. Hain told the BBC he feels Anonymous' actions resemble those he experienced in the “anti-apartheid and anti-fascist …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. nuked
    Facepalm

    Oh come on.

    The grossly ignorant rhetoric from Equador is matched only by the continuously poor reporting of the facts around this entire issue - on both sides I might add.

    1. LarsG
      Meh

      That's rich

      Thats rich comming out of the mouth of Peter Hain the 'former' minister who was always out of his depth in politics. Why on earth do people listen to him or give him the time of day.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: That's rich

        Well at least he has an interesting accent ;)

      2. jaduncan

        Re: That's rich

        Actually the irony is that this could as easily be compared to the civil rights protests of the ANC, given that the protest is perceived by Anonymous to be to protect free speech.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: That's rich

          Protesting in support of free speech by silencing those they disagree with?

          Pull the other one.

        2. Tapeador
          FAIL

          @ jaduncan Re: That's rich

          The protest by Anonymous comparable with the ANC? Tell that to the generations of black South Africans forced to live a third-class life until the lifting of apartheid.

          And "because the protest is perceived by Anonymouse to be to protect free speech"? Well I perceive myself to be Jesus of Nazareth, therefore my writing this is comparable to the issuing of the gospel, or? Or is there something more than partisan, adolescent, fantastical perception required to form a piece of sound reasoning?

      3. ANAON-ERT
        FAIL

        Re: That's rich coming from a nazi

        he dares to call freedon fighters Nazis - the man is a plank - he has no right brain function

    2. Chris Thomas Alpha
      FAIL

      Re: Oh come on.

      ignorant how?

      they didn't extradite pinochet to france, they ARE trying to extradite assange to sweden...

      where is the ignorance?

      1. Naughtyhorse

        Re: Oh come on.

        Well the basic mistake of the assange team here is that they didn't help prop up a massively unpopular UK govt in staging a phoney war in the south Atlantic, nor allow their banking system to be used as a live test bed for the new 'I'm alright Jack, Fuck You' political system that thatch was experimenting with at the time. I mean,. be practical about it, whats the civil rights of a few hundred thousand people when set against... the total deregulation of the finance sector, giving us derivatives and sub-prime mortgages, and insider dealing and all of the other wonderful things that issued forth from the cantankerous xenophobic harridan.

        1. Flatpackhamster

          Re: Oh come on.

          A 'phoney war'? Of all the wars Britain could engage in, one to defend its subjects against an aggressive dictatorship is the least 'phoney' war I can imagine. There was no acquisition of territory, no military build-up beforehand, no and certainly no dodgy dossier. Of course I recognise that for some people their swivel-eyed hatred of Mrs Thatcher blinds them to anything she might have done that was right.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Oh come on. @Flatpackhamster

            >A 'phoney war'? Of all the wars Britain could engage in

            Ah, but would it have engaed in war if an election was not nearing? One fears that had an election not been imminent then Thatcher might have taken a more diplomatic course of action and a bloodless resolution found. As it was she saw that there would be nothing more beneficial for an election campaign than a bit of Argy bashing. And if you think that politicains would not sacrifice the lives of soldiers for their own political end then you are truly deluded.

            1. Naughtyhorse

              Re: Oh come on. @Flatpackhamster

              exactly.

              if it had been AFTER the election (skipping over the fact the tories would probably have come third!) then the argies could have BOUGHT the malvinas for a photo of a five pound note and a million pound donation to tory central office

        2. Bumpy Cat
          WTF?

          Re: Oh come on.

          Some ostensibly left-wing people's hatred of Thatcher leads them to this bizarre position. They support a right-wing military dictatorship which threw opponents out of aircraft, alive - over a democratic state with a welfare system. This suggests to me that their left-wing principles are pretty flexible.

          1. Naughtyhorse

            Re: Oh come on.

            wtf???

            learn to read

            1. Bumpy Cat
              FAIL

              Re: Oh come on.

              @Naughtyhorse: "staging a phoney war in the south Atlantic"

              That's a direct quote from you. In what way was the Falklands war (1) phoney, (2) "staged" by the UK? We were the victims of aggression by a murderous right-wing dictatorship - but somehow because Thatcher was in charge, we were in the wrong.

              1. Naughtyhorse

                Re: Oh come on.

                the falklands was bollocks, could have been sorted diplomatically, but she couldnt resist the pr of waving off out gallant boys... to what exactly? sinking a hospital ship, way outside the theatre, and heading further away. thank god WE were the good guys, and selling our soul to a PROPER evil right wing fuck like pinochet was cheap at half the price.

                Thatcher was in charge, we were in the wrong.

                Thatcher was in charge, she was in the wrong.

                fixed it for you.

                you think 'what about the vegetables' was a joke???

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Oh come on.

                  If the Falklands had been just another old colony that we hadn't got around to freeing and it was the natives that were rebelling, then yes, Thatcher probably would have probably gone the diplomatic route.

                  Since it was actually British sovereign territory, inhabited by nobody but British nationals being invaded by a foreign nation you'd have to be an idiot in the extreme to think there'd be any result other than military intervention, regardless of how close the next election was.

                2. Bumpy Cat
                  WTF?

                  Re: Oh come on.

                  A "hospital ship"?!! The General Belgrano was an armoured battlecruiser, with serious guns. If that ship had got within gun range of the task force, it would have been a massacre. The submarine tailing the Belgrano was about to lose them as they crossed a shallow undersea ridge. It was a completely legitimate sinking, and the fact that the UK paused for thought before sinking it shows a lot more restraint than any other nation.

                  And how could the Falklands have been sorted out diplomatically? What would have persuaded a military dictatorship to leave? Or are you happy to sell out people to right-wing dictatorship if it benefits your political party?

                  Your posts are so light on facts, so twisted against reason, I'm beginning to wonder if you're just a very subtle troll.

        3. paulll

          Re: Oh come on.

          +1 Internet for the most stultifyingly-politically-ill-informed correspondence in the history of news media. Congrats on a truly colossal effort!

    3. Ian Michael Gumby
      Devil

      Re: Oh come on.

      "Meanwhile, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa said that the standoff regarding Assange as an “unfortunate incident over, after a grave diplomatic error by the British in which they said they would enter our embassy.""

      Did you mean rhetoric like this where the Ecuadorian President granted politcal asylum for Assange so he could skip out on his obligations to face rape charges in Sweden?

      Sweden, really? Isn't that the country where they still believe in death by pressing? Only now instead of piling on rocks, they use members of the 'Swedish Topless Bikini Team' to pile on until the poor sod can't breath along with all of the blood flowing away from his head to his other head?

      Ok, so you get the point. Sweden isn't going to torture the sod, nor does he face any other extradition requests so there was no legal foundation for the Ecuadorian 'rescue'.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hang on, which side did he compare it to? ;)

  3. Graham Dawson Silver badge

    The difference between Pinochet and Assange is jurisdiction: Spain had no claim of jurisdiction over Pinochet. The judge in question was acting on an assumed right to try crimes in another country over which he had no legal title. Assange, meanwhile, is accused of committing a crime in Sweden, against a Swedish citizen. We may argue with the legal merit of that crime but Sweden's law stands (even if might be alien to our own sensibilities) and it has that jurisdictional right to lay charges against the man. The Spanish judge demanding Pinochet's extradition had no such right.

    So they are simply not comparable.

    1. jaduncan

      This is incorrect; torture has universal jurisdiction under both the customary international law concept of jus cogens and, specifically, under the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 5(1)(c).

      "1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:

      (c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate."

      The Spanish court thus had jurisdiction; the question was more if Pinochet should be protected by the immunity traditionally extended to heads of state.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. jaduncan

          You are incorrect:

          "http://www.apt.ch/tld/Overview.pdf:

          "Passive personality jurisdiction

          Article 5(1)(c) UNCAT covers jurisdiction over acts

          committed against the State party’s nationals

          (passive personality jurisdiction), again wherever

          these acts have allegedly been committed. This

          competence is however optional, meaning the State

          is not compelled by the UNCAT to establish such a

          jurisdiction."

          The victims were Spanish. Spain therefore has jurisdiction if it wishes to assert it, regardless of any other state,

      2. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

        So how come Tony Blair is free to persue a life of crime?

        1. Naughtyhorse

          So how come Tony Blair is free to persue a life of crime?

          cos ite REAL hard to buy a snipers rifle in the UK

          1. Mr_Toad
            Black Helicopters

            Re: So how come Tony Blair is free to persue a life of crime?

            In the last day or so it was announced that Mr Blair will be providing consultancy services to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the state of Sao Paulo, here in Brazil.

            I don't seem to be able to escape from him, no matter how far I travel :)

            http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/noticias/0,,OI6106680-EI306,00-Empresa+de+Tony+Blair+realizara+consultoria+para+o+governo+de+Sao+Paulo.html

    2. Chris 244
      Unhappy

      The difference between Pinochet and Assange is...

      One was supported by the CIA and had thousands of Chilean civilians killed and tens of thousands imprisoned and tortured, the other faces questioning in Sweden over a broken condom or two (and possibly also secretly in the USA for "espionage" aka "embarrassing us on the international stage").

      So yes, the two cases are not really comparable.

      1. Ian Johnston Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: The difference between Pinochet and Assange is...

        So how come Pinochet was let off on laughable not-fit-to-stand-trial grounds, rather than on invalid-extradition-request ones.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The difference between Pinochet and Assange is...

          .. that nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition!

          (that's enough Monty Python, Ed.)

    3. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

      Pity.

      BTW, which branch of the servile service do you work for?

      Not that I am being nosey, it's just that I am interested.

    4. BoldMan

      The difference between Pinochet and Assange is that we made a MISTAKE not extraditing Pinochet and we are trying not to make the same mistake with Assange. Just because a previous government (Tony B Liar) fucked up it once does not set a legal precedent where we have to keep fucking up and not extraditing people when requested by another country.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Graham Dawson

      >The difference between Pinochet and Assange is jurisdiction: Spain had no claim of jurisdiction over Pinochet.

      Some of the victims were Spanish so he had a right to seek extradition.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Anonymous - what a joke

    If the squawking bunch of halfwitted losers I saw being dragged away from outside the embassy by the police last week were representative of anonymous and/or their supporters I don't think the government has much to worry about as their combined IQ was probably less than the largest plods shoe size.

    As for attacking government websites - do these muppets seriously think crashing what are essentially government PR websites is somehow going to bring government to a halt or change policy? If so these kids really need to do some serious growing up.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Anonymous - what a joke

      It's the digital equivalent of scrawling ROMANES EUNT DOMUS...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Pint

        Re: Anonymous - what a joke

        Is that the correct tense*?

        * I may have just screwed up your joke because now I'm not sure if tense was involved...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Anonymous - what a joke

          You shall now imediately go and watch Life of Brian. Drop everything you are doing (unless it might actually kill someone, I guess) and go find a copy forthwith.

      2. Anonymous IV
        Thumb Down

        Re: Anonymous - what a joke

        Shows you just how illiterate the Ancient Britons were.

        Try "Romani domum eant" (subjunctive) or "Romani domum ite" (imperative).

        But you're a couple of millennia too late!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Anonymous - what a joke

          "Shows you just how illiterate the Ancient Britons were.

          Try "Romani domum eant" (subjunctive) or "Romani domum ite" (imperative)."

          Whoosh!

          That was the sound of the satire of the other Anonymous post whizzing over your head, along with the implicit reference to Life of Brian.

          Anonymous splitters!

          1. Sir Runcible Spoon

            Re: Anonymous - what a joke

            "Anonymous splitters!"

            Are you the Julian people's front?

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

            2. Sir Runcible Spoon

              Re: Anonymous - what a joke

              Julian - pronounced 'Ju-lee-an' in this context of course to rhyme with Judean.

              Don't have a go at me for pointing it out, some people really don't get it! Go figure.

  5. This post has been deleted by its author

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Wrong Simile

    I've always likened them more to terrorists. Not because what they do is on the same kind of moral scale but because they're angry criminals trying to paint themselves as some kind of heroes representing the populous at large and because they attempt to inflict as much collateral damage as possible since they don't have the capability to attack their targets directly.

    Considering that Hain opposed Assange's extradition on top of the whole Virgin Media/Pirate Bay fiasco they don't really seem to care too much who they attack, as long as they get the headlines.

    1. Chris Thomas Alpha
      FAIL

      Re: Wrong Simile

      a little self centered perhaps ?

      have you considered that they might be thinking they are heroes of the minority, which should have the same level or more protection than the majority, but do not.

      (more protection because the majority would naturally skew in the opposite direction, therefore need greater protection because of the lack of support they would normally enjoy).

      pinochet is actually a war criminal, charged with murdering many many people, UK didn't exactly attempt to bust him did they? assange is accused of bad sexual etiquette and borderline asshole nature, hardly comparable, yet the UK are acting like there is a mass murdering child raping psychopath in the building, armed police? infra-red + heat sensors....

      are they serious??

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @AC 22:07GMT - Re: Wrong Simile

          Yeah, sure! Like UK was so eager to extradite Pinochet but, Gosh! they had no power to do so. Of course they didn't be cause US told them not to do it, it is as simple as that. Now it's US telling them to do it so of course they have the power to do it. Anyone sees something wrong in this picture ?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Wrong Simile

        While I have some sympathy with George Galloway over whether the word "rape" is getting over-used, I think his comments go too far the other way in this case. But whether the particular case would get anywhere in court, none of us can know. As for the people who are pushing the lack of consent line, I have a feeling they're over-focused on the text of the statute. The problem we have is that if Assange doesn't end up in court now, a lot of exploitative sexual chancers are going to carry on as they are.

        There's a term which gets thrown around at times like this as a counter to the idea that Assange didn't do anything serious--"rape culture", they say, labelling the counter-claim that these sexual abuses, and so many others, are really OK. Maybe we should call what Assange is accused of doing sexual abuse. Let the courts decide if it was rape, not the newspapers.

        We men can admit to making mistakes. Apply the "rape" label, and would anyone want to admit anything?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Wrong Simile

          Why don't they Swedes hold a trial inside of the Swedish embassy in Equador and if found guilty, he could be put under house arrest for a year, which is likely to be more that the punishment for the crime and he's already done that so job done.

          1. Furbian
            Go

            Re: Wrong Simile

            .. and it's not as absurd as it sounds. the Lockerbie accused were tried in the Netherlands (Camp Zeist), by a Scottish court, and the media made a great deal about how that part of the country had become British, sorry Scottish (in case a referendum goes the SNP's way), soil for the duration of the trial.

      3. JDX Gold badge

        Re: Wrong Simile

        >>have you considered that they might be thinking they are heroes of the minority,

        That still sounds like something you could say of terrorists.

        I dislike Anon but regardless of that I think the only long term legacy they might leave is INCREASED security and DECREASED privacy, because they perfectly embody what everyone is worried about in an ungoverned internet.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Wrong Simile

      Now first of all, to be completely fair, it is really hard to speak about a group such as Anonymous without painting with too broad of a brush since literally anyone could do just about anything under the "Anonymous" banner. That makes it extremely difficult to characterize a group such as this, because it is really many groups (and probably even some lone wolves to boot) that have differing agendas and are trying to achieve different things through different methods. So I am sure that what I am about to write below won't apply to every single person that is part of Anonymous or every single action that has ever been done in Anonymous's name.

      With that disclaimer stated, I have always viewed online groups that go after others (such as Anonymous often does) as largely being more like an online version of mob justice, only instead of using torches and pitchforks to attack the target of their ire they use distributed denial of service attacks to shut websites down and hacking attacks to expose damaging personal information to the media. Just like with any other large angry mob trying to achieve "justice," it is often easy to overlook or even feel yourself silently approving what they are doing because the people and organizations that they target are often extremely unpopular. Who wouldn't want to see someone cause grief for the large fat cat banks and credit card companies out there, or hack child porn websites to expose the personal information of alleged pedophiles to the authorities? It is *extremely* hard to ever defend those kinds of lowlife scum of society, so it is super easy to look the other way when Anonymous or some other group launches a vigilante campaign against them. But even so, what mobs such as Anonymous are doing is still wrong, because they are bypassing their target's right to due process in a court of law.

      One of the things that defines the modern societies that many of us enjoy today is that the accused have a right to their day in court. In British Law-influenced legal systems at least we have been given that right since the days of Clause 29 of the Magna Carta. Due process is necessary because circumstantial evidence can often be mis-leading, and innocent people can often look as guilty as sin because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or have interests or associates that happen to look very damning when placed under scrutiny. In a trial there is at least some hope that the truth will come to light and the innocent will go free, but in mob justice the accused's fate is already pre-determined, and they're going to be burned at the stake whether they actually happen to be guilty or not. The members that make up the goon squads of Anonymous and other online groups are human just like anyone else, and as a result they are just as capable of getting caught up in the emotion of the moment and making mistakes just like everyone else. I am sure that there have been people who have had their reputations and/or businesses seriously harmed or damaged needlessly by online vigilante groups when they were targeted erroneously. Just look at this most recent article-- people working under the banner of Anonymous targeted Peter Hain, who had been a supporter of Assange and other causes that are generally considered to be in-line with the Anonymous cause. If that doesn't help drive home my point that these online vigilantes aren't always as discriminating as they should be when choosing their online targets than I don't know what does!

      The fact that this kind of online mob justice seems to be becoming a larger and more prominent trend every week is frankly very troubling, and online mobs are springing up to target just about anything that happens to be considered the online target du jour. It's like trolls flaming others with differing opinions isn't enough for some people anymore-- now I am seeing more and more instances where the trolls are actively trying to wreck the real-lives of the people that they don't get along with too. For example, I found an online goon squad that was actively researching the organizers of a local event, and making anything damaging that they could find (such as past criminal records, embarrassing online accounts, etc.) available to the local media as part of an organized smear campaign that they felt obliged to undertake. In other words, this online group decided that their dislike of the presence of an event that they didn't have to attend nor pay any attention to was worth trying to publicly humiliate other people for! For crying out loud-- you no longer need a government "Stasi" trying to turn neighbor against neighbor-- it seems that as soon as you sit certain people down behind a computer screen they lose all sense of civility, empathy, and the "Golden Rule", and instead feel that they have suddenly been granted the divine right to ruin others who don't subscribe to their own sensibilities. There is nothing wrong with people disliking something and voicing their opinions against it, but this trend of groups destroying or interfering with other's online assets, services, and/or personal lives is crossing a line, and the Internet as a whole is not better for it.

      "Anonymous Coward" for obvious reasons!

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Mr_Toad
        Thumb Up

        Re: Wrong Simile

        The comment that began "Now first of all, to be completely fair, it is really hard to speak about a group such as Anonymous without ..." (Posted Monday 27th August 2012 05:07 GMT) ...

        ... is the type of perceptive and well written comment that keeps me coming back to El Reg. Thank you. Somewhat ironic that you wrote a piece like this and then posted it ANONYMOUSLY :)

  7. Chad H.
    Megaphone

    No....

    Anonymous are just the latest incarnation of an old phenomenon... Adolescents feeling estranged from and frustrated with the system, trying to make themselves heard by any means necessary.

    And this is where that minister should be looking at himself and asking what has he done to engage those who might be swayed into anonymous's path.

    1. vagabondo
      Thumb Down

      Re: No....

      > minister

      Peter Hain is NOT in government. He is a Labour shadow minister, i.e. a member of the opposition.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No....

        Kind of in the same way that I'm a Shadow Galactical Emperor ;)

      2. Chad H.

        Re: No....

        he is still at the top of politics, so my point still stands.

        1. Chronos

          Re: No....

          That's like saying the turd that's floating is superior to the ones that sank. As with politics, the only difference is gas.

          1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge
            Coffee/keyboard

            Re: No....

            That's like saying the turd that's floating is superior to the ones that sank. As with politics, the only difference is gas.

            That, my dear Sir, is the most epic and to-the-point comment I have seen so far. My compliment, I gladly go and clean my keyboard now :)

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: No....

          "Wannabee" Minister then? ;)

  8. Is it me?

    Hang on

    Hang on a minute

    Did Natalie Apostolou actually read the resolution, apparently not, so for those of you who would actually like to know what the OAs said it was this:

    http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-67

    And just in case you wondered what the FO said, it was this.

    ‘‘You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. — the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act — which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the embassy.’’

    Not much of a threat, but a dumb thing to say to a South American country, where they just love making them selves look good by standing up to the imperialistic europeans. Something that hasn't been true for the last 40 years, but helps the public image back home, no matter what the truth.

    Any one who really thinks the UK would actually raid an Embassy for an alleged common criminal, is just as stupid as the FO wonk who thought a reminder of UK law was a good idea.

    FAQ | House Rules

    1. jaduncan

      Re: Hang on

      William Hague allegedly set that in motion, arguing against wincing Sir Humphrey mandarins repeatedly stating it wasn't a very good idea.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This Anonymous, are we really supposed to assume that it is an organised group of people hacking computers, or is it a complete set-up, which, once it is made to become unpopular in the press, will be used to justify further laws being passed by governments worldwide, to limit freedom in ways we will only discover too late? It seems far too farcical to be real.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Sorry. Just needed to edit your post

      Anonymous - farcical.

  10. Mr_Toad
    FAIL

    Attention seeking headlines?

    Hain told the BBC he feels Anonymous' actions resemble those he experienced in the “anti-apartheid and anti-fascist struggles."

    The above statement is not at all the same as saying that the "British Minister likens Anonymous to fascists and racists". Are they being called fascists and racists OR is the Minister merely pointing out that similar actions were taken against him by ANTI-fascist groups? It smacks of careless reporting to me.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Attention seeking headlines?

      Careless by him and the reporters. I think he was just reminding the rest of us about his anti-xxx struggles, and has ended up apparently calling Anonymous fascists. I doubt that that was what he intended.

  11. Ossi

    Oh dear...

    The headlines calls Peter Hain a minister - he is not.

    The headline says that Peter Hain likened Anonymous to fascists and racists. He did not. He merely said that he's suffered attacks from those people in the past in the same way that he's suffering attacks from Anonymous now.

    The story says that the OAS condemned British 'threats'. It did not. It actually issued a rather bland statement about the inviolabiltiy of diplomatic premises and urged the UK and Ecuador to come to some agreement.

    Are you proud of your journalism, Natalie?

    As for Pinochet, there are some facts that seem to be forgotten here. The first is that he was arrested in the first place. This was unprecedented. The second was that he fought a 16-month legal battle against extradition. Who do you think he was fighting? Have a good think about those two facts. He was finally released on medical grounds. Admittedly that was a bit convenient, but it was done by a party and a minister that are not in power now, and was fully compliant with the law.

    1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

      I get the impression that...

      It appears some people who shall not be named, have mistaken the word Hain for the word Haig.

      Perhaps the OP should have been something to that effect. (Less sensationalist, though. But ex- Murdoch employees have to go somewhere, do they?)

      1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

        I get the impression they make it up as they go along, ........

        ..... then rope in/hope media spin their sad and sorry tales to try and breathe life into the rotten corpse of a story.*

        "It appears some people who shall not be named, have mistaken the word Hain for the word Haig." .... I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects Posted Monday 27th August 2012 02:59 GMT

        As two minnows/pilot phishes all at sea in the shark pool, I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects, only doing and saying what they have been briefed to say.

        Does anyone else realise that politicians and wannabe statesmen have lost all relevance and credibility in this fabulous fab and fabless age of instant transparent intelligence sharing which so easily poses them questions which they would either choose not to answer, with a deft and apt deflection into their posing of another carefully craftily worded question with a kinder answer, or answer wrongly and badly, either because they do not know of a smart answer or that which they know in a presently correct answer will not server them well in the future, for it is one which would not be at all as being suitable for everyone and may even be specifically designed to ensure the dominant predominance of a corrupt and perverse few?

        Or do you think/not think that times have changed with these new virtual intelligence spaces which discuss such matters for all to comment on and be edutained quite surreally and sublimely.

        George Orwell would have loved IT and can you imagine what he would have done with IT?

        Dear Mr Cameron and Team UKGBNI,

        Please can we all have some inspired universal novel leadership for a pleasant and radical change which is absolutely necessary and tediously long overdue?

        Failing that, please get off the pot whilst the choice is still yours to make not in disgrace.

        DEFT and APT are so much more than just deft and apt ...... and the worlds that you live in are more simply complex and inextricably entangled than you have ever before been able to imagine and realise and virtualise, with any order of those three skills in combination able to deliver all orders of those three arts in a unity of purpose with the singularity of achievement ......and future product placements for continual current replacement of present events which are relegated to historical memory and past record for dumb archives ....... and you can be sure that that is just the start of the picture and only the beginning of what is store for the future?

        And posed as a question so that you can wallow in the sweet sticky discomfort of nagging ignorant and arrogant doubt.

        * And they are all both utterly practically and virtually useless at it, without IT Command and Control, as is clearly evidenced with the persistent chaos in markets collapsed and trying to survive with mountains of debts to sell to no one.

  12. Arclight

    Get out of jail card

    So in the eyes of Anonmous and other 'freedom of speech fighters' the best way for me to avoid being held responsible of serious crimes such as rape is to post politically sensitive material on the internet? The assumption being made is that the rape claims have been made up so the USA can punish him. This is based on what? Knowledge of the full details of the charges or internet celebrity status? At what point would does everyone think the seriousness of the crime out wieghs Assanges 'freedom fighter' status? Do the laws of the land no longer apply to him? Lets face it, provided he's not captured on film, he can pretty much do what the hell he likes, any charge made against him would dismissed as an attack against freedom of speech.

    Conspiracy theories don't bother me, if you want to spend your life coming up with fanciful reasons as to why we didn't go to moon, or how little grey men did crash at Roswell, great, go for it you aren't harming anyone. However, if your potential protecting a rapist thats a different thing altogether. He's a swedish citizen, formally charged with rape in Sweden. He should be extradited and face the charges.

    And am I the only one thats concerned that the Ecudorian president belives that rape isn't an offence worthy of being a crime?

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: Get out of jail card

      "if you want to spend your life coming up with fanciful reasons as to why we didn't go to moon, or how little grey men did crash at Roswell,"

      1. Massive conspiracy involving huge numbers of people, decoy rockets and the ability to fake radio transmissions from numerous points around the Earth.

      2. Cover up of crashed alien spaceship in America and recovery of little bipedal alien pilots.

      3. US government willing to set up someone who has massively embarrassed them.

      One of these is not like the others.

      I'm not saying he is or isn't innocent of the charges in Sweden, but lets avoid classing the idea that the US government might lie with Space aliens and mocked up moon landings. If you really think they are the same, then I have some very sad things to tell you about US history.

    2. Annihilator Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Get out of jail card

      "And am I the only one thats concerned that the Ecudorian president belives that rape isn't an offence worthy of being a crime?"

      No, but sadly very few people are surprised.

  13. DrXym Silver badge

    If you have to liken them to anything

    Liken them to a loose collection of social misfits and dropouts hiding behind a thin wall of anonymity to commit acts of vandalism. Since that's what they are.

    1. Crisp

      Re: If you have to liken them to anything

      Are you talking about the UK Government?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If you have to liken them to anything

        Are you talking about the UK Government?

        Not mutually exclusive..

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    My 2 Pence...

    "... I have always viewed online groups that go after others (such as Anonymous often does) as largely being more like an online version of mob justice, only instead of using torches and pitchforks to attack the target of their ire they use distributed denial of service attacks..." -- Agreed. Anonymous always seem to remind me of that bunch of Sun/DailyFail readers who, in the height of the paedophile frenzy that was whipped up by the media all those years ago, subsequently went on to vent their fury at their local paediatrician. Just as misguided, but more tech-savvy. However...

    "...what mobs such as Anonymous are doing is still wrong, because they are bypassing their target's right to due process in a court of law." -- I think most of the targets in question are those who probably have enough clout in society to influence, or even avoid, the legal process. Underhanded techniques are probably the only way one can do battle with the likes of UK Govt. Inc.

    "Are they being called fascists and racists OR is the Minister merely pointing out that similar actions were taken against him by ANTI-fascist groups? It smacks of careless reporting to me." -- Unfortunately, this is the current trend of 'sensationalism' in modern journalism. Even the Beeb do it. Sad.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Australia, Sweden, and the UK states are behaving dishonourably to Julian Assange and Ecuador

    The Australia state is an utterly shameful US lacky for not backing their own countryman when the US state blatantly wants to harm him, and there is ample evidence it will!

    The Swedish state frivolously want deportation without charges for dubious accusations and won't even consider interviewing Julian at the Ecuador embassy, even after a well known offer; this is suspicious.

    The UK, this area of land I am of, should stop lacky-dasically going down the same road to Fascism that the US is charging down, and should have refused deportation for these flimsy reasons, when there is the very real danger that the US will get Julian from Sweden and do terrible things to him. The UK state rep.(s) who sent that letter to the Ecuador embassy should be demoted or sacked and the UK state back down; otherwise a precedent will be set which UK people in foreign lands will suffer for.

    The rule of law is breaking down in the UK and US, due to broken civil representation trying to and even passing Evil law, this is why rebels and Anarchists, like Anonymous and WikiLeaks are necessary even with some 'mob' (but no physical harm) mistakes e.g. the outrageous crimes committed by the state, MPs and effectively unpunished financial organisation gangsterism, make what this man is accused of look utterly trivial in comparison.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Could I suggest..

      .. you lay off the double espressos for a while?

      utterly shameful

      lacky

      blatantly

      ample evidence (not in this post, nor in the real world)

      frivolously

      dubious accusations

      suspicious.

      lacky-dasically

      Fascism (wow, we're approaching Godwin's law here)

      flimsy reasons

      very real danger

      terrible things

      Evil law

      unpunished financial organisation gangsterism

      utterly trivial

      My compliments - a post entirely without substance, facts or even logic. You're complaining about the breakdown of law, and then promote anarchy as a solution. Maybe you should lie down for a bit.

  16. Annihilator Silver badge
    WTF?

    "Correa told the UK’s Sunday Times that the sex crime allegations made against Assange would not be deemed a crime in Latin America. "The crimes that Assange is accused of, they would not be crimes in 90 to 95 per cent of the planet," he said."

    Sadly, that is probably true, but nothing to shout or boast about really.

    "they want to extradite Julian Assange for not using a condom, for the love of God"

    Yes, but that's not the only charge.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Yes, but that's not the only charge.

      The other one was shagging the other girl the morning after in her sleep.

      Sounds more like misjudgement of what is acceptable in the relationship in question. (Especially since they were fromdifferent cultures). Odds are he was expecting her to reaction to be "What a lovely way to wake up"

      If the stories are true that the two girls only really got upset after they met each other, and presumably realised they were being two timed, then that adds a huge layer of doubt.

      My reading of the situation is he is a love rat who got caught out and upset the wrong girls, in the wrong country at the wrong time.

      If so, he deserved some crap, but not the situation he is in.

      1. Annihilator Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Yes, but that's not the only charge.

        "The other one was shagging the other girl the morning after in her sleep."

        Except it wasn't the only other one, was it? Arguments look good when you cherry pick.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Re: Yes, but that's not the only charge.

          "Except it wasn't the only other one, was it?"

          What others do you have on your list then? I thought there were only the two elements he was wanted for questioning on.

          1. Sir Runcible Spoon
            WTF?

            Re: Yes, but that's not the only charge.

            What's with down voting a question?

            I wish El Reg would link your up/down votes to the voter, or at least make a comment as to why the up/down - I mean it's just confusing otherwise.

            The original response was tantelising and vague, my question sought to clarify what was meant. Am I supposed to understand that asking questions can now be viewed with a negative slant? Is it personal? Is it the original poster who, realising he was wrong, is seeking to oppress any other posters who might highlight this fact? Is it a distraction technique to villify me whilst sketching over an over-zealous Apache helicopter pilot with white emulsion? Perhaps it was the mouse equiavalent of a typo? Who the fuck knows, and who cares right? Well, I CARE..NURSE..MEDS!!m"!"2!!1 aarrrgrhrhrghrh<end of transmission>

  17. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
    WTF?

    If the Ecuadorian president thinks that sexual assualt is not a crime, then perhaps it's time to tell him that his seedy little country doesn't meet standards of common decency, and to expel his ambassador and diplomatic staff until they apologise? I doubt very much if we need them more than they need us.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      That means all the other countries it wouldn't be a crime in, are "seedy little countries" by your reckoning. In fact, most, outside of Sweden ;)

  18. Arachnoid
    Thumb Down

    Its strange how people and more often Politicians will more often than not tend to refer the "group anonymous" as if it were part of a close nit goverment department that met ,made decisions and acted up on them in unison.

    Whilst there may be a hard core of people whos online activity is in their name the whole point of the group as I see it is that it could be anybody anywhere, acting in a way they consider to be correct against the oppressive actions of others.A whole different ball of wool to that being broadcast by the Guberment.

    As for the Assage matter, its a sotarical farce from the 60s Carry on era with many actors all playing a part in making bad decisions with undercurrents of subdefuge and skull duggery.They should make a film about the story it woulkd make a bomb at the cinema.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      For reasons of clarity..

      .. add "wankers" to Anonymous and "the wanted criminal" to Assange.

      It all makes a lot more sense then, although the former is more an assumption to create some perspective, the latter is simply fact.

  19. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    FAIL

    Hain

    Calling people who disagree with him facists....

    Thats a bit rich coming from the man who's contribution to the anti-apartide campaign was going to a Great Britain-South Africa rugby match, buying a pint of beer, drinking it, then smashing the glass and throwing it on the pitch.

    A level of action about equal to the stupidity of anonymous

    1. vagabondo
      Stop

      Re: Hain

      Check out what was actually said. Ms Natalie Apostolou seems to have gotten just about 100% of the "facts" wrong in her report.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

  20. b 3
    FAIL

    peter hain is a bufoon.

    ..and i am totally ashamed of my country for going along with this american piracy..

    we have no independent position, we are a state of the united states..

    our politicians don't serve us or humanity they are gimps for the puppet masters in america..

  21. Sarah Davis
    Coat

    stating the obvious

    Peter Hain is a moron !

  22. Maty

    I'm rather impressed

    Here's people doing stuff online that a politician dislikes, and he hasn't called them child pornographers or terrorists. 'Racists and fascists' represents a welcome widening of the political vocabulary.

    Well done, that man!

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ecuador should expect to pay for their stupidity

    The clowns at the Ecuadorian ministry must be very naive or just plain dumb. They will pay quite a price for harboring Assange. Assange and Ecuador deserve the punishment they get.

    1. Local Group
      Trollface

      Re: Ecuador should expect to pay for their stupidity

      "They will pay quite a price for harboring Assange."

      What did you have in mind? Carpet bombing Quito?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ecuador should expect to pay for their stupidity

        What did you have in mind? Carpet bombing Quito?

        No, having to put up with Assange is harsh enough. I give it two weeks, tops :)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ecuador should expect to pay for their stupidity

      Perhaps some kind of extra-judicial revenge is what you had in mind? With or without the rest of the world watching? Perhaps you can suggest what and who is on your wish list. In public.

      And what kind of clowns do you think they have in there, the Marcel-Marceau types or more the kind with squirty buttonholes?

      But they all dress like diplomats, right?

  24. Das Robsta

    Donkey

    It has often been said that the people of Neath (Mr Hain's constituency) would vote for a Donkey if it was put up for election on a Labour ticket......... need I say more.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Donkey

      It's a shame he's Labour, but also, on the wrong side, like Blair. And I don't mean politically, just morally.

      Hain however, at least has a conscience somewhere.

    2. Dave the Cat
      Thumb Up

      Re: Donkey

      Having previously lived and worked in the area I can agree fully. The phrase "blind leading the blind" springs to mind.... Though indefence of the lovely people of Neath this is the same in most of the traditional "labour" heartlands across the country... a complete inability to see the bad decisions taken by one group and a complete, utter and total swivel-eyed** hatred of another group for no other reason than some percieved ill from 25-30 years ago.

      1. Dave the Cat

        Re: Donkey

        ** Someone else used this term earlier and I liked it.

  25. Big_Boomer Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Hypocrites

    As usual the UK & US governments are being hypocrites, something that they do excel at.

    The ONLY reason that they want to extradite Assange to Sweden/USA is that he EMBARRASSED them and they are afraid he'll do it again.

    Remember that the ONLY thing that most Pollys care about is getting re-elected and lining their pockets.

    The US are particularly embarrassed because it turns out that the security surrounding their diplomatic cables was laughable.

    As for the Swedish charges, why don't the judges come to the UK?

    I am sure that the Ecuadorian embassy would allow them in to question Mr Assange, which is all that they claim to want to do to him.

    The treaty under which they want to extradite him under should require someone to be CHARGED before it can be issued. Otherwise anyone could be extradited anywhere to face questions about anything.

    Welcome to the European Police State. When are they going to form the EU-Stazi??? or is it already too late?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hypocrites

      The treaty under which they want to extradite him under should require someone to be CHARGED before it can be issued. Otherwise anyone could be extradited anywhere to face questions about anything.

      Once again, Sweden requires that you have a second interview before you can be charged. So they can't charge him until they've questioned him, so even if they could prove he was guilty of murder in this situation, they couldn't ever extradite him under the system you suggest.

      It's not difficult is it?

    2. Chad H.

      Re: Hypocrites

      Not only what the above poster has stated, but by the UK definition of the term "Charged" (rather than the Swedish one) he has been charged, as determined by an English judge.

  26. Ants V

    FFS

    If nothing else, this whole "Assange offered to be interviewed in London" thing pisses me off the most.

    Oh, that's alright. Let's just allow the person being accused of a serious offence dictate how the investigation is conducted, hell even 'Women Against Rape' fell for that one - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange

    "I'm terribly sorry officer, but I can't reasonably help you with your enquiries right now as I'm off to work. Perhaps you can nip round to my home this evening? I'll put the kettle on and you can ask me all about this armed robbery. Ta-ta for now!".

    Bollocks.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anon not that anon

    As these clowns ship off to prison they don't seem to be anonymous at all. Assange is going to have lots of cellmates who live in the same fantasy world.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fighting a war they will never win

    Anon and Assange are fighting wars they can never win. They will be punished for their crimes like other criminals.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's all good

    More Anon members to do the Perp Walk soon. People like Assange and Anon members are in deep denial but they sure open their eyes when they get hauled into court and face a long prison sentence.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021