back to article Cops use terror powers to lift BBC man's laptop after ISIS interview

Police have seized the laptop of a BBC journalist who had interviewed men identifying themselves with jihadist organisation Islamic State in order to access these communications. The laptop of Secunder Kermani was taken by police under powers available through the Terrorism Act 2000, according to the Independent. The Register …

  1. boltar Silver badge

    So what?

    I don't like the way journalists think they're under some kind of professional oath not to discuss their sources as if they're doctors who arn't allowed to discuss patient details. They're simply employees for a media organisation that exists to make a profit - if they have information that could help police they should hand it over. End.

    Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So what?

      "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

      I'd rather not...please have an upvote

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Devil

        Re: So what?

        I'd rather not...please have an upvote

        Let me just cancel that out with a downvote. I like my news as undiluted as possible and that rules out having reporters working under the threat of jail.

        1. Dave 126 Silver badge

          How short is your memory?

          The BBC does things like dispute the "45 minutes WMD" dodgy dossier that was given as justification for our war in Iraq. And only last week it was confirmed that what we all suspected was true - the Tony Blair was Bush's side even before the House of Commons had debated the issue.

          Oh, and the source was found dead.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)#Contact_with_Andrew_Gilligan

          1. Scorchio!!

            Re: How short is your memory?

            "The BBC does things like dispute the "45 minutes WMD" dodgy dossier that was given as justification for our war in Iraq. And only last week it was confirmed that what we all suspected was true - the Tony Blair was Bush's side even before the House of Commons had debated the issue.

            Oh, and the source was found dead."

            Non sequitur argument, and it is known very well that Daesh are publicly stoning homosexuals, throwing them from tall buildings and then stoning them, murdering Yasidi men, raping their wives and children - some of pre-pubescent age - setting fire to Jordanian pilots, trapped in iron cages [...].

            Sometimes I hold contempts in the Reg in contempt, this sort of bollox I excoriate and hold in contempt. It is the lowest, most silly and childish form of non sequitur reasoning.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So what?

      Obviously, you don't care much for democracy.

      1. boltar Silver badge

        Re: So what?

        "Obviously, you don't care much for democracy."

        Since when have newpapers ever cared about it? Trial by media is one of their favourite pastimes.

        1. Dave 126 Silver badge

          Re: So what?

          >"Obviously, you don't care much for democracy."

          >>Since when have newpapers ever cared about it? Trial by media is one of their favourite pastimes.

          FFS Boltar. You write a strident post about the BBC, then when challenged you use the behaviour of some newspaper to justify your comment.

          Hey, we have no problem with you having contrarian views, but you do get a bit slippery when asked to expand upon them. Y'know, not citing sources but demanding them from others, that sort of thing.

          And yesterday, you made a tit of yourself by objecting to people being polite. http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/2/2015/10/28/oracle_sparc_m7/#c_2678947

          Are you having a bad week?

          1. fruitoftheloon
            Devil

            @Dave 126: Re: So what?

            Dave,

            assuming Boltar is a 'he' methinks he may be having his period...

            Cheers,

            jay

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @Dave 126: So what?

              assuming Boltar is a 'he' methinks he may be having his period...

              Nice twist, but that is still sexist. Down you go.

              1. fruitoftheloon
                Thumb Down

                @AC Re: @Dave 126: So what?

                Ac,

                err no it isn't have you read any of the papers on monthly cycles?

                Have a downvote...

                Regards,

                jay

          2. channel extended

            Re: So what?

            Maybe he lost his bicycle?

        2. jason 7

          Re: So what?

          I'm amazed someone still thinks we have 'democracy'. We have what appears to be democracy but when you dig deeper it's far from it.

          Doesn't matter for whom you vote for, the 'agenda' carries on. True democracy has yet to be reached.

      2. Charles Manning

        When you're at war....

        ... democracy goes out of the window. Democracy is a quaint idea reserved for peace time.

        You will also notice that we're always at war.

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: When you're at war....

          >>"You will also notice that we're always at war."

          ...with Oceania?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: When you're at war....

            ... Eastasia, surely?

    3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: So what?

      I think it's disgusting that the state security apparatus has to go through all this pointless bureaucracy to access data from the state broadcaster.

      To improve efficiency we need all depts of government to work together so all information from the state health service, state broadcaster is immediately available to the police and cabinet office.

      1. Triggerfish

        Re: So what?

        To improve efficiency we need all depts of government to work together so all information from the state health service, state broadcaster is immediately available to the police and cabinet office.

        Yep we should make it all one body, easier to name as well, we can call the police the nose, the news agency the mouth, security services can be the fingers...

        1. GX5000

          Re: So what?

          Yeah, Brazil was one helluva Christmas Movie wasn't it ?

        2. geascian

          Re: So what?

          Oh?

          Has the party in power changed its name already then?

          Mind you with Nov 5th almost here its the right time of the year.

      2. Smooth Newt Silver badge

        Re: So what?

        To improve efficiency we need all depts of government to work together so all information from the state health service, state broadcaster is immediately available to the police and cabinet office.

        Do I detect a hint of irony there? Have an upvote sir!

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So what?

        And all statements by the Minister of Propaganda are broadcast immediately to the subjects.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So what?

        I for one think there should be mandatory cameras and microphones in every room in every house that the government, police and every large corporation can access through the insecure internet 24/7. That is the only way we will be one step ahead of all the terrorists that are hiding in all our neighborhoods.

        Signed: G. Orwell.

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

          "I for one think there should be mandatory cameras and microphones in every room..."

          Isn't that why we now have smart TVs and Windows 10?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "I for one think there should be mandatory cameras and microphones in every room..."

            Your confused, that was the xBox One ... oh, wait a minte

    4. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

      The BBC doesn't exist to make a profit, but that mistake aside the idea that the state always knows best is naive, childlike even.

      The powerful need to be held to account otherwise they start to abuse their power.

      1. boltar Silver badge

        Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

        "The BBC doesn't exist to make a profit, but that mistake aside the idea that the state always knows best is naive, childlike even."

        Ditto assuming journalists always have the publics best interests at heart. All they want is a salacious story that sells copies or gets viewers. You don't think the BBC is after ratings too? Please.

        "The powerful need to be held to account otherwise they start to abuse their power."

        Who, Murdoch?

        1. Dave 126 Silver badge

          Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

          >You don't think the BBC is after ratings too? Please.

          FFS!!

          Ratings are not the chief 'selection pressure' on BBC news. Their current affairs output is subject to regular review by the BBC Trust, as well as navel-gazing and viewer feedback... see the Radio 4 Media Show for examples.

          The BBC isn't perfect, but it leads to an infinitely better state of affairs than in the US, where Fox and CNN dominate, and a comedy show is considered the most trustworthy news source by many.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

            Not disputing the need for a free press, but ...

            "Ratings are not the chief 'selection pressure' on BBC news. "

            However, not to be too pedantic, but my personal experience where I have actually been part of the news reported by the BBC, I would add that;

            "Neither the truth nor impartiality are the chief 'selection pressure' on BBC news. "

            The BBC is but a shadow of its former self and no longer a reliable source, something that somewhat pains me to admit.

        2. Wolfclaw

          Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

          "The BBC doesn't exist to make a profit", yes it does to offset it's cost, pay for new programmes and bonuses and the threat of losing the licence fee.

        3. Scorchio!!

          Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

          " "The BBC doesn't exist to make a profit, but that mistake aside the idea that the state always knows best is naive, childlike even."

          Ditto assuming journalists always have the publics best interests at heart. All they want is a salacious story that sells copies or gets viewers. You don't think the BBC is after ratings too? Please. "

          The BBC has a very big profit making arm, one which is funded by the licence fee and taxation and is growing all the time... ...to the detriment of the market. It is also true to say that the BBC advertises its own products, and it is true to say that it is engaged in a very big ratings battle. It is disturbing to see this large corporation exercising so much power, when the people behind this are substantially comprised of individuals with a political philosophy of quasi liberal-socialism which includes the concept of 'false consciousness', thus enabling them - like the Labour party - to know better, and thereby destroy parts of British culture and history; for example Florence Nightingale was made into a racist and the BBC were challenged; their weak excuses fell and they apologised, but this is happening a great deal as poorly educated graduates, spoon fed risible crap, flow into the BBC. They have been caught with their pants down, making the news, operating quiz shows for which there were no winners or for which winners were selected, falsifying the news, and on it goes; I can produce evidence for this and am among the sort of people who continually badger them for their misdeeds.

          The BBC has become so powerful that, during the Proms, it has been operating a socialising mechanism for thousands of pounds; free tickets and booze for the famous, squeezing their hands and persuading them to speak against cutting them from many radio stations and too many TV channels. Similarly, they persuaded people to sign a letter condemning the 'cuts'. The BBC are given billions of pounds, both by direct taxation (licence fee) and indirect (govt. finance), and until recently people who failed to pay received a criminal conviction and often a spell in gaol. Even if you do not watch any TV programmes (and to watch any of the BBC's competitors such as Sky, ITV and such you must pay the BBC's licence fee), having a television and using the net to view television programming can get you into trouble; Lord Hall wants licence fee money from computers and mobile phones as well.

          This is the tip of the iceberg; if you look beneath the covers you'll find that the BBC have some excessively high earning staff, and that recruitment of vital posts comes more often than not from within their own PC ranks.

          The BBC would be fined heavily for anti competitive behaviour were this a genuine market, and that is the point; this is a state/licence fee funded organisation, operating in a commercial setting, staffed by a mix of people (particularly in senior positions) whose aggregate political and social philosophy is at variance with the population they presume to serve. It does not matter what you or I think, but it does matter what people want to see (and fewer repeats by this wealthy broadcaster would be a start) and what the truth is, and it certainly is not (e.g.) twisting Neil Kinnock's words to upset US politicians (I hereby show less bias than the supposedly unbiased BBC:

          BBC drama commissioning controller Ben Stephenson; "We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking." Mark Thompson: "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago, there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left.". Andrew Marr: "The BBC is “a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large [All this] creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”. Telegraph: "Horrible Histories criticised for inaccuracy after showing fictional Florence Nightingale racially discriminate against black nurse Mary Seacole, BBC Trust finds" "I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’". Peter Sissons, Former BBC News and Current Affairs presenter.

          You can Grep this stuff on the web, and worse.

      2. Turtle

        @sabroni Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

        "The powerful need to be held to account otherwise they start to abuse their power."

        The media's pretty powerful; are you including them amongst the "powerful that need to be held to account"?

        1. Scubaman66

          Re: @sabroni Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

          I don't know if the OP does but I most certainly do include the media.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

        The powerful need to be held to account otherwise they start to abuse their power.

        They seem to have moved well beyond "starting to". :(

      4. Scorchio!!
        FAIL

        Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

        "The powerful need to be held to account otherwise they start to abuse their power."

        Yeeeessss, but this was an interview of an outspoken terrorist, a part of a bogus state "ISIS" (more appropriately known as Daesh, or something underfoot), and it has bugger all to do with holding the powerful to account. FGS these people are raping even pre pubescent girls, and over here we have sleek, well fed westerners sitting at their expensive IT parroting quasi Marxist lines on holding the powerful to account; utterly childish and badly considered.

        1. Bernard M. Orwell

          Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

          "FGS these people are raping even pre pubescent girls, and over here we have sleek, well fed westerners sitting at their expensive IT parroting quasi Marxist lines on holding the powerful to account; utterly childish and badly considered."

          You know what? I don't actually totally disagree with you. I do feel that there is too much chatting and not enough action on the subject of how to deal with ISIS, especially in the west. People are suffering under these barbarians and we're not actually doing much about it.

          Russia, on the other hand, seems to have little hesitation in taking direct action, so I don't think it's the "Marxists" who are doing the prognosticating any more than its "Capitalists" who are bogging actions down in endless meetings and debates.

    5. dogged

      Re: So what?

      > I don't like the way journalists think they're under some kind of professional oath not to discuss their sources as if they're doctors who arn't allowed to discuss patient details.

      Let's take a hypothetical situation. Say you're a member of some essentially harmless but Government-hated group like the Pirate Party or Occupy or Liberty or Amnesty. Suppose you agree to an interview with a journalist, and they take notes and record your conversation as per normal. They agree to withhold your name from the published copy because that might make you (even more of) a target.

      Then the police come along and seize that laptop. They now have everything. Your name, your contact details, which groups you advocate for, what you plan to do, everything on the record and everything you and the journalist agreed would be off the record.

      You're in the shit.

      The next thing that happens is that word gets around. Pretty soon, nobody will give interviews. What that means is that the only people giving interviews are those "in authority" and only their side of any story is reported.

      If that looks a lot like the current state of affairs, it's not a coincidence.

      1. dogged

        Re: So what?

        Addendum -

        In this case, it's even worse. Suppose this journalist interviewed you in your capacity as a member of Liberty or Amnesty. But the police seized the laptop on the grounds that journalist had also interviewed an ISIS member (and remember, membership of a group is not illegal. Only taking illegal actions is illegal).

        But the police got your details and your conversation too. They got the journalist's pre-copy. Suppose some of what you said was used along with some of what the ISIS guy said? Boom. You're now deep in with ISIS and so is every other member of Amnesty. Imagine what a quiet leak to the Daily Mail could do with that. Imagine the idiot public outcry, the campaigns to get your group - which only cares about human rights and civil liberties - banned as terrorists.

        Imagine David Cameron rubbing his hands with delight. Or Paul Dacre. Or Rupert Murdoch.

        Honestly, this is a travesty. It must stop.

        1. Efros

          Re: So what?

          "membership of a group is not illegal"

          That very much depends on the group, there are proscribed groups and organizations, membership of which is punishable by law.

          https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417888/Proscription-20150327.pdf

          I do agree with the rest of what you said though.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: So what?

            And one of those proscribed groups is ISIS/ISIL/DAESH. Your continued support of those groups makes you suspect and anything you say suspect, Fruitoftheloon!

        2. Scorchio!!

          Re: So what?

          "(and remember, membership of a group is not illegal. Only taking illegal actions is illegal)."

          Wrong, and, remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Membership of organisations such as (from memory) IRA, PIRA, the UDA, the Red Hand Gang, Al Mahajiroun, ISIS (properly known in the middle east as Daesh) and such is illegal. Why? Because they want to kill people like you, me and so on. This is how the democratic rights of people in these fora are protected though, reading things that are printed here, one might be forgiven for wondering... ...about the state of education in this country, about the state of awareness in people whom the like of Daesh/ISIL want to kill, most especially about the ability of people to read and their powers of discrimination (independence of thought if you like) and so on; people who are members of murderous organisations that are at self declared war with this country know such organisations to be proscribed. Terrorism is an offence, to say nothing of an affront to human rights, to democracy (viewed by Plato as the least evil option available) and to common sense.

          If you and people like you are arguing these points as an exercise, well you fail miserably. If you mean it, have a nice death when your turn comes at the hands of these people. As you read my lines think of the poor Yasidi girls that have been repeatedly raped by these barbarians and made pregnant, think about the show executions by axe, RPG7, knife and the autos da fe experienced by the like of that poor Jordanian pilot who, one can reasonably argue, held a more faithful view of Islam than the Islamo-facists of Daesh, Al Mahajiroun and others.

          You are welcome to go out there, tell them you are not a believer, and 'live the dream'. Why don't you do that and come back in a year with a report?

      2. boltar Silver badge

        Re: So what?

        "Then the police come along and seize that laptop. They now have everything. Your name, your contact details, which groups you advocate for, what you plan to do, everything on the record and everything you and the journalist agreed would be off the record."

        Sorry, why exactly would a journalist be storing private confidential informaiton like that on his laptop if its off the record? Laptops can be lost or stolen as well as seized. All the journo needs is a name and mobile number.

        1. fruitoftheloon
          FAIL

          @Boltar: Re: So what?

          Boltar,

          perhaps a stone tablet would have been better eh?

          Regards,

          jay

        2. dogged

          Re: So what?

          > Sorry, why exactly would a journalist be storing private confidential informaiton like that on his laptop if its off the record?

          Because Apple gave him a 25% discount and because that's what people do.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So what?

          Sorry, why exactly would a journalist be storing private confidential informaiton like that on his laptop if its off the record? Laptops can be lost or stolen as well as seized. All the journo needs is a name and mobile number.

          What should he have done then? Memorise the discussion and hope he got it right when writing the story, and only use quill and ink for writing it? And only use pigeons to communicate?

          What he could have done is work off USB sticks per story - on OSX you can even set it up that that crypto is transparent until someone tries to use it on another machine - but under RIPA he'll have to provide password anyway or face contempt of court charges.

          I agree that this is a heavy handed approach, and I don't see this as correct. As far as the story currently goes, this story is not assisting in terrorism and so RIPA should not have been used. That is, based on the currently available facts.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So what?

          All the journo needs is a name and mobile number.

          That's not just stupid, that's beyond stupid.

          You wouldn't be working for the TLA's would you? :(

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So what?

          > Sorry, why exactly would a journalist be storing private confidential informaiton like that on his laptop if its off the record?

          That observation is actually correct, at least in my experience with the journalists I have dealt with. Appropriate precautions were taken, proportionate to how sensitive the information was.

          If the journalist was doing his job thoroughly, chances are that no useful information will be obtained about the target by the police.

          This, however, still leaves open the question rightly pointed out by others of third party information disclosure. Information which may not, by itself, merit special precautions, but when combined with other sources may become compromising.

      3. John Lilburne

        Re: So what?

        "What that means is that the only people giving interviews are those "in authority" and only their side of any story is reported."

        This is what already happens. You have journalist either interview 'dissident' in darkened room, and disguised voice, or its some hairy tattoo'd dork, wearing a Tshirt with last months pizza and coffee stains. They then cut to some well dressed fellow in a bright smart office, with a row of hardback books behind him, dissing everything that previous oink said.

      4. kmac499

        Re: So what?

        And a few more case studies could be

        1) A contractor working on the Chinese built Hinckley power station concerned about standards

        2) A care worker in a badly run hospital

        3) A prison officer in a prison with corrupt fellow officers

        4) A taxi driver in Rotherham (for example) concerned about the behaviour of other drivers

        5) Etc..

        The Press are afforded a degree of 'legal' protection because when their profession is working at it's best; it is on the side of the weak against the powerful. They aren't always right, but which of us are?

        1. x 7

          Re: So what?

          none of those correspond or correlate in any way to a journalist interviewing and giving publication to the views of a murdering terrorist with a twisted totalitarian genocidal agenda

        2. Dan Paul

          Re: So what?

          THOSE are totally different examples and I'm smart enough to know the difference. Are you? I didn't think so....

          The western "press" should not have any legal protection when they deliberately give terrorists a public voice.

          Let Al Jazeera do it.

        3. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

          Re: So what?

          I don't understand the comparison.

          A better comparison would be if a reporter interviewed a murderer, still on the run.

          I think the police would be well within their rights to ask for information. Obviously, the journalist would be pretty dumb to then announce this fact widely.

      5. Scorchio!!
        FAIL

        Re: So what?

        "Let's take a hypothetical situation. Say you're a member of some essentially harmless but Government-hated group like the Pirate Party or Occupy or Liberty or Amnesty."

        There is no way on earth that even a risible, moon faced jackanape could consider a 'representative' of Daesh (currently planning mass casualty attacks in the UK, after a long period of rape, pillage, torture and murder in the middle east) can be compared with any of these, though your advocacy for the 'Pirate Party' is of itself interesting, pale though it is by comparison with Daesh. </Boggle>

    6. fruitoftheloon
      Stop

      @Boltar: Re: So what?

      Boltar,

      may I suggest you visit an establishment called "A library"

      Shuffle along to the section called 'history'

      Find some things (books) that cover political history, civil unrest, assasinations, political movements, 'banned groups' you will find references to situations where the powers-that-be have dealt with people that have opinions they disagree with.

      The state will use any tools it has - and stretch them to achieve ones it doesn't have to achieve its' goals.

      You may want to ponder that for a while, A LONG WHILE...

      Regards,

      jay

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So what?

      Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

      Ok then.

      To the main point about whether journalists have a right to protect their sources: apparently they do, under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act.

      There are exceptions to this rule though, one of which is - you guessed it - national security. I'd hazard a guess that that trump card gets played quite a lot these days.

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: So what?

        As I said before, all these so called "interviews" do is give the enemy a chance to spread propaganda and lies. It is the same thing as aiding and abetting the enemy in a wartime setting and should be treated that way. If you have knowledge of the enemy's plans or location, withholding that information from the government is a crime.

        This is not "Journalism", you are literally putting murderers on a soap box in Piccadilly Square and giving them free airtime to say what they want. Why do the rights of terrorists exceed the rights of the victims? The terrorists took their lives so they cannot speak. The terrorists should never have a public voice for that very reason alone.

    8. GX5000

      Re: So what?

      It's the BBC, not FOX, Sky or CBS, so your profit comment isn't applicable.

      You do understand that they get these interviews because of the fact some reporters are outside of the Agenda laden apparatus right ? You might also notice that many of us on here are over fifty, Technologists, and have real life experience in these matters that blunt your uninformed opinions.

    9. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So what?

      > "I don't like the way journalists think they're under some kind of professional oath not to discuss their sources ... "

      I'd suggest reading up on why the "Special Procedures" component (Schedule 1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was introduced ...

    10. Slx

      Re: So what?

      They are, and many will go to prison rather than undermine that position!

      If journalists don't stand up to this kind of thing, they effectively would become unable to work on any controversial subject without a risk of being seen as an arm of the state. This would not only undermine their ability to report, but it could even get people killed.

      How would you report on a conflict for example, imagine say Northern Ireland in the 1980s if anytime anyone spoke to you those tapes / records could be seized by police and the journalist forced to reveal names?

      Journalism is about investigating and understanding situations, not about gathering evidence for prosecutions.

      Protection of confidentiality of journalistic sources in European Law was also established by a ECHR judgement Goodwin v the United Kingdom in 1996.

      If you want a functioning press and an ability to investigate, you need that kind of protection. It's one of the fundamental cornerstones of a democracy, and one which is sadly lacking in many (most) European countries national legal frameworks, including the UK.

    11. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So what?

      You sir get one of my very few downvotes and I'm talking single figures over the 15 years I have been using this site, though I only started commentarding recently to be fair as I actually enjoyed reading the the opinions and thoughts of others who are usually quite like minded which is probably down to a shared age and experience. Kiddies?

      I'm not going to make any of the many well put points already done however I will say this, the moment the press is owned by the government (which is pretty close as it is) then you can kiss all your freedoms goodbye.

    12. Graham Marsden
      Facepalm

      @boltar - Re: So what?

      > if they have information that could help police they should hand it over. End.

      Right, yes, and then paint a big target on the back of *every* journalist in the world because they're obviously working for the security services.

      This is the same kind of short-sighted stupidity which has resulted in suffering for many people because someone in the CIA had the bright idea of using a vaccination programme to track down Osama Bin Laden and great, fine, it worked, they got him.

      Unfortunately they didn't think beyond their narrow goals and now the plan to eradicate Polio worldwide is under threat because vaccine workers in Pakistan have been threatened or murdered as people there think they're spies.

      Now journalists (BTW that's *proper* journalists, the ones who working to find out the truth of what is really happening in the world, not those who work for gutter rags like the Mail or take the Murdoch shilling) are going to find it so much harder to do their job or won't be able to take anything more than paper note because their sources are going to refuse anything that might be on a laptop etc that could be seized because Terrorism...

      Bravo, boltar, you've just made the world so much safer!!!

      1. x 7

        Re: @boltar - So what?

        "Right, yes, and then paint a big target on the back of *every* journalist in the world because they're obviously working for the security services."

        why not? If the idiot journalists are interfering in areas they're not wanted then they deserve everything that happens to them

        they are interfering in a war - and should accept the inevitable consequences, death included.

        1. Graham Marsden

          Re: @boltar - So what?

          > If the idiot journalists are interfering in areas they're not wanted

          "Areas they're not wanted"? Not wanted by whom...? (I bet you'd consider the reporters who exposed the My Lai massacre were "not wanted" and "traitors" for "helping the enemy"...)

          "The first casualty of war is the truth" (Attributed to various)

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Alistair
            Windows

            Re: @boltar - So what?

            Graham;

            The first casualty of war is truth, and the the victor gets to write the history books.

            Apparently you and I and a few others have done the math here sir, and a few folks about have issues with basic addition.

        2. fruitoftheloon
          Stop

          @x7:Re: @boltar - So what?

          x,

          may I point out that I really don't think you have thought this through?

          What would you expect the media/state apparatus you live in to do if any of your children, folk that work for you etc were kidnapped/executed/maimed whilst going about their business in foreign climes?

          So you would NOT want the Diplomatic representative of your country to make representations to his/her counterpart in the 'offending' country?

          I mean the locals over there according to you would be able to say 'why are that f'wit foreigner and his henchmen poking their noses into our locale...?'

          Be VERY CAREFUL what you wish for.

          Kind regards,

          jay

          1. x 7

            Re: @x7:@boltar - So what?

            "What would you expect the media/state apparatus you live in to do if any of your children, folk that work for you etc were kidnapped/executed/maimed whilst going about their business in foreign climes"

            @fruityloon

            I'm not sure how your question relates to the subject matter. No-ones offered to kidnap or maim anyone.

            1. fruitoftheloon
              Go

              @x7: Re: @x7:@boltar - So what?

              x7,

              it really isn't that complex....

              If any of the aforementioned unpleasantness were to happen re someone you care for (and I genuinely hope it doesn't btw), HOW WOULD YOU HEAR ABOUT IT????

              Which is one infinitely small example of how the press in its' forms in most countries can expose shite going on that is basically wrong...

              Be careful what you wish for my friend.

              Thanks for taking the time to comment (and I am not being sarcy btw).

              Cheers,

              jay

      2. Aitor 1

        Re: @boltar - So what?

        It is not that they think they are spies, it has been proven to be the case, at least some of them were.

        So now we have illeterate violent pple thinking these people are spies. Great.

        1. x 7

          Re: @boltar - So what?

          "So now we have illeterate violent pple"

          yep, its spreading

    13. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      Re: So what?

      Best troll ever, a page full of replies and it wasn't even subtle. Just goes to show how dumb El Reg readers have become although maybe I'm being unfair and it's just the new ones. I blame the post pub nosh features, they've turned you all into a bunch of brain dead "wobblies".

      1. Graham Marsden
        Thumb Down

        @Chris W - Re: So what?

        > Best troll ever,

        The point of a troll is that they say something they *don't* necessarily believe in themselves, but they just want to wind people up and start an argument (see Clarkson for details).

        The thing is that, if you read their posts, boltar and x 7 (and, oh look, Scorchio!! is back too!) *do* actually believe in what they're writing and they won't listen to any argument which disagrees with them because they *know* they're right.

        1. x 7

          Re: @Chris W - So what?

          "because they *know* they're right."

          Of course I know I'm right. Thats because I am right.

          As for trolling, my understanding is usually the only people who get trolled are those who deserve it.

          1. Graham Marsden
            Facepalm

            @x 7 - Re: @Chris W - So what?

            > Of course I know I'm right. Thats because I am right.

            Circular Argument [n]: See Argument (Circular)

            1. x 7

              Re: @x 7 - @Chris W - So what?

              no, not a circular argument.

              Just self-knowledge and self-belief.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @x 7 - @Chris W - So what?

                > Just self-knowledge and self-belief.

                And what about self-delusion?

      2. fruitoftheloon
        FAIL

        @Chris W: Re: So what?

        Chris,

        speak for yourself matey...

        So would you be so kind as to detail what your contribution has been to this remarkably polarised debate?

        /irony

    14. Scorchio!!
      Thumb Up

      Re: So what?

      "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down."

      Have an upvote. Democracy is a fragile thing, and the Russell square/Tube incidents showed how certain people (many of whom are now in a self declared hostile state) want to tear it down. When I listened to reporters on the Today Programme wittering on about the cleverness of Libyans who tied goats to their tanks, so the NATO aerial forces would not bomb them, I remembered how once the BBC was extremely careful in these matters, and would already have notified the security services of their data.

      This should not have been done without prior consultation with the appropriate bodies; interviewing terrorists who have set up a hostile rogue state and have declared us a target and, indeed, are targeting us is something to be done with security oversight, and not in the silly ways the BBC have adopted.

      Back to goats and tanks, Gaddafi's air force was still active and, whatever one may think of the insurgents, broadcasting to Gaddafi the means to identify them was pure stupidity, a hallmark of the modern BBC. Such reporters would be among the first to angrily ask the question why if the planned Daesh mass attacks do occur and are massively successful, ditto the down voters. Death has the trick of making people think in straight lines.

      1. x 7

        Re: So what?

        "Today Programme wittering on about the cleverness of Libyans who tied goats to their tanks"

        not so clever.....the RAF and Fleet Air Arm use goats for target practice while in the desert. It deprives the enemy of food. Its a well documented practivce

    15. Supa

      Re: So what?

      That's all well and good - up to the point when (using the same powers) the police kick your door in and squash your head into your carpet in front of your children because someone somewhere "says" you're a terrorist, government whistle blower, animal rights/green energy campaigner, member of anonymous, Accrington Stanley supporter...!

      1. x 7

        Re: So what?

        well come on, be honest.

        If you're an Accrington Stanley supporter you deserve it.

  2. Arctic fox
    Headmaster

    "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

    No need, given the degree to which you have managed to shoot yourself in both feet simultaneously with a truly spectacular display of ignorance and arrogance.

    1. boltar Silver badge

      Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

      "No need, given the degree to which you have managed to shoot yourself in both feet simultaneously with a truly spectacular display of ignorance and arrogance."

      Ad hominem - the usual response of the those of the left leaning persuation.

      1. John H Woods Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

        "Ad hominem - the usual response of the ..."

        Oops, self refuting argument alert!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

        Ad hominem - the usual response of the those of the left leaning persuation.

        As a self appointed representive of the libertarian right, could I join in to even things up by saying that you Boltar, have dug yourself a pit and kept on digging, and there's a plaque at the bottom that says (in its politest form) "Boltar is a Berk". Is that sufficiently ad hominem enough?

        Spying on journalists or snatching their data is the work of the Stasi, past and present. Regardless of who journalists are speaking to, I don't want the bumbling flatfeet and Sturmbahnfuhrer May to have their grasping hands on it. These are the people who maintain that the unlawful killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, and that the subsequent parody of an inquest was an acceptable cost of our "freedom". Not in my name, mate.

        Moreover, why do the police need to snatch journalistic data? If the police weren't so bloody inept, they'd already know who the putative jihadis were. FFS they've got enough powers to intercept and store our communications, CCTV on every street corner, recording of cell phone tower attachments and ANPR movements, etc etc. If an essentially one man band journalist can find himself a handful of bearded lunatics, why can't the entire resources of state do a better job, without having to seize journalists data, potentially endangering intermediary contacts, the journalist himself, and press reporters trying to cover extremist activity around the world?

        1. Dave 126 Silver badge

          Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

          >Ad hominem - the usual response of the those of the left leaning persuation.

          Says the person who kicked off this thread with a pre-emptive ad hominem attack ('Go on Kiddies')on anyone who might downvote him!

          You couldn't make this up! : )

        2. Bernard M. Orwell

          Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

          "they've got enough powers to intercept and store our communications, CCTV on every street corner, recording of cell phone tower attachments and ANPR movements."

          They even made a (laughable) program on C4 to showcase how NO ONE CAN EVER ESCAPE THEIR MIGHTY SKILLZ! Seriously, did anyone watch that guff?

      3. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

        Ahahahahah

        Ad hominem - the usual response of the those of the left leaning persuation.

        I think that can be reduced to :

        Ad hominem - the usual response of <<insert ad hominem here>>;

        It's almost as if you've heard a term, and thought it would make you sound clever if you tried to win an argument with it, without bothering to find out what it actually means first. In general, it's probably not best to accuse someone of committing a logical fallacy by committing the same fallacy yourself.

      4. NeverMindTheBullocks
        Coat

        Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

        Not so much Ad Hominem as On The Nail judging by the ratio of Down votes to Up votes on the original and your response.

        Coat for Sir?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

          Like democracy, popularity is not a guarantee of a correct outcome, nor the truth ... remember this next time you invoke the "will/opinion of the masses"

      5. Triggerfish

        Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

        Yes, go on kiddies

        umm sorry is that not also ad hominen?

      6. Bernard M. Orwell

        Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

        "Ad hominem - the usual response of the those of the left leaning persuation."

        I think you should examine Matt Bryants posts for a master class in ad hominem attacks, and he's as far from the left as you can get without invading Poland.

        1. Triggerfish

          Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

          I think you should examine Matt Bryants posts for a master class in ad hominem attacks, and he's as far from the left as you can get without invading Poland

          Frankly this sort of slang I normally avoid, but for this comment I have to say I lolled

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

          he's as far from the left as you can get without invading Poland

          Owwww. Nice one. I must store that expression somewhere :).

          1. dogged

            Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

            > > he's as far from the left as you can get without invading Poland

            >Owwww. Nice one. I must store that expression somewhere :).

            To be fair, we don't know that he hasn't invaded Poland. We only know their leader is called something that isn't "Matt Bryant" and their policies differ markedly from his in almost exactly every respect.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            FAIL

            Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

            Both the right (Nazi) and Left (Communists) invaded Poland, so?

      7. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

        Ad hominem - the usual response of the those of the left leaning persuation

        Accusations of ad hominem are the last resort of those caught out not getting their facts right. That becomes personal by default because facts are facts, but (mis)interpretation is personal.

      8. Arctic fox
        WTF?

        "Ad hominem - the usual response of the those of the left leaning persuation."

        Utterly amazing. You respond to that which you claim is an ad hominem attack by using the same kind of patronising and insulting language that defined your opening post. Language that in fact provoked my original post which would have been worded very differently had your tone not been so contemptuous. Furthermore although I belong to the left politically I am neither so ignorant or arrogant that I fail to recognise that there are many amongst the libertarian right who are also concerned about this kind of behaviour from "The Man". (See Ledswinger's post on this thread.) Something you are very clearly ignorant of. The issue of freedom of speech and freedom from excessive intrusion whether it is the State that does it or an example of BigCorp is of very great concern to many of us on both the left and the right of politics. There is fact a long tradition of social authoritarianism on both the left and the right and its opposite - an opposition that is reflected in Ledswinger's posting, mine and indeed many others on this thread. Suggest that you consider a paraphrase of an old saying. "Post in haste, repent at leisure".

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Ad hominem - the usual response of the those of the left leaning persuation."

          "... neither so ignorant or arrogant"

          that would be "... neither so ignorant nor arrogant"

          "Something you are very clearly ignorant of"

          that would be "Something of which you are very clearly ignorant".

          Don't let the froth get in the way of your excellent post.

          B+ - can do better --- Teacher Tom

      9. Someone Else Silver badge

        Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

        Ad hominem - the usual response of the those of the left leaning persuation. [sic]

        By definition, facts cannot be ad hominem attacks.

      10. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

        "Ad hominem - the usual response of the those of the left leaning persuation."

        Not so much an ad hom as an insult. And a well-deserved one...

    2. h4rm0ny

      Kiddies!

      I wonder if in Boltar's mind they are pronouncing their wisdom to a mob of naïve yoofs whose heads have been filled with misguided righteous idealism? I think most of us here concerned about things like this are actually the older, cynical ones who have been around long enough to see how successive governments misuse such powers time and again. We're not "kiddies" (not that there's anything wrong with that). We're people who have watched the endless churn of Talibans and IS's and Husseins go from hero to villain (and occasionally back again) and have actually read our history. We'd actually like to be able to understand the enemy of the day, not just listen to the official version. Something hard to do when the government tries to turn every journalist into an informant.

      1. Mayhem

        Re: Kiddies!

        My favourite quote today is the Head of MI5 complaining that Terrorism is a greater risk than at any point in his career. Which based on his age includes when the IRA was actively blowing up parts of London on a regular basis.

        Damn immigrants, coming over here and stealing our home grown terrorist jobs.

        1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

          Re: Kiddies!

          Yeah, I remember that. 1982, Rotten Row, watched the parade the day before the blast, was in the Science Museum on the day of the blast. Could have been the other way round.

          What I don't remember is police armed to the teeth standing on every other street corner, odd that...

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Kiddies!

          Damn immigrants, coming over here and stealing our home grown terrorist jobs.

          Yes, next thing they want a ministerial position too.

          Oh, sorry, was that too honest?

        3. Emperor Zarg

          Re: Kiddies!

          Worth remember that the tactic du jour was highly targeted surveillance, rather than the endless fishing trips they seem to so enjoy these days.

          1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

            Re: Kiddies!

            "Worth remember that the tactic du jour was highly targeted surveillance, rather than the endless fishing trips they seem to so enjoy these days.

            Now that you mention it - it does come across as a bit uninspired and lazy... what to do, what to do... Oh yes, let's thow EVEN MORE money at them!

      2. Arctic fox
        Thumb Up

        @ h4rm0ny "We'd actually like to be able to understand the enemy of the day"

        Indeed. What they willfully and deliberately "misunderstand" is of course that "understand" is not co-identical with "sympathise". The bottom line is that "The Man" has utter contempt for the rest of us - hence the arrogant and authoritarian behavior of the authorities.

      3. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: Kiddies!

        The enemy has publicly stated their opinions and goals. Those are not secrets.

        Anyone operating within the UK for ISIS is a criminal. It's as simple as that.

        If a dissident is interviewed, that is a different matter altogether.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Agreed, the following has been shamelessly ripped from the Guardians website but I think it sounds about right. Ironic that it was a jouornalist that write this.

    <quote>

    Journalism's primary purpose is to hold power to account. This purpose has been perfectly inverted. Columnists and bloggers are employed as the enforcers of corporate power, denouncing people who criticise its interests, stamping on new ideas, bullying the powerless. The press barons allowed governments occasionally to promote the interests of the poor, but never to hamper the interests of the rich. They also sought to discipline the rest of the media. The BBC, over the last 30 years, became a shadow of the gutsy broadcaster it was, and now treats big business with cringing deference. Every morning at 6.15, the Today programme's business report grants executives the kind of unchallenged access otherwise reserved for God on Thought for the Day. The rest of the programme seeks out controversy and sets up discussions between opponents, but these people are not confronted by their critics.

    </endquote>

  4. Creamy-G00dness

    Missing the point

    I think you may be missing the point pal, this isn't to do with how the press view themselves or what they do to obtain or secrete information. It is more to do with the extremely far reach and misuse of the RIPA act which was not intended for this purpose, or to be more accurate the vast majority of underhand undertakings it has been cited for since its introduction.

    I'm not going to vote you down, It appears that you may be spoiling for an argument and you appear to be angry enough already Kiddo.

    Have a pleasant day and remember............... Reading is fundamental to understanding :)

  5. Your alien overlord - fear me

    Just a police fishing trip. Expect all his colleagues to be laptop-less in the next few weeks. They emailed/IMed him, he's talked to IS terrorists. If he emailed his mum, she's no doubt on the no-fly list now.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      This is much more than a fishing trip. This discredits Journalists and the their ability to keep informant information private. This probably has more to do with stopping whistle blowers than terrorists.

  6. Dan Paul

    So What?

    Have an upvote. The media only has a responsibility to report the news, not manufacture it.

    Interviewing known terrorists like ISIS in order to manufacture a contrarian viewpoint shouldn't warrant any protection for these so called "journalists". Even giving a voice to these criminals makes me suspect the news outlets intentions.

    It should be illegal to provide any media exposure to or for terrorists. They do not deserve any consideration and their supporters deserve deportation (at a minimum).

    1. AndyS

      Re: So What?

      Yeah, damn it, we should only be allowed to hear what the government tells us is true! Jail everyone who says otherwise! Better still, hang them! String up the dissenters!

    2. Kubla Cant Silver badge

      Re: So What?

      Interviewing known terrorists like ISIS in order to manufacture a contrarian viewpoint shouldn't warrant any protection for these so called "journalists". Even giving a voice to these criminals makes me suspect the news outlets intentions.

      I'm confused. If a reporter for Newsnight is a 'so called "journalist"', who qualifies as a real journalist? To judge from this post, nobody but the fête correspondent of the Church Times.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Re: So What?

      If you had your way, we would never know about beheadings in Saudi, death by mortar in NK, people ran over by tanks in China, use of white phosphorous in Gaza, hangings in Pakistan, chemical warfare in Iraq, insulting the King in Thailand...shall I carry on?

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: So What?

        In those incidents, the people who were doing the reporting were not the terrorists. It's pretty simple, you don't need to give the terrorists THEMSELVES any airtime or play video of flag burning or other threats. Audio of people screaming "death to whoever" and Allah Akbar etc. does not need to be played.

        Some news outlets played the entire videos of people being burned alive. Excerpts would have been enough to get the point across.

        Instead what you have is the glorification of such actions by the media in the guise of "reporting".

        What you don't get from the BBC is the real video of murdering Palestinians attacking Jews with knives.

        You get the reporter LYING saying there was no knife, while uncut video clearly showed he had a knife.

    4. Triggerfish

      Re: So What? @Dan

      The media have not manufactured Daesh, and sometimes its worth hearing about what the other side have to say, even if it's not what you agree with or you give them some publicity. (pretty sure most of their publicity has been of the sort that would mean most people would happily see them wiped from the face of the planet anyway).

      If you do not hear it no matter how abhorrent it may be then you end up having to go by information from only one side, delivered by the likes of Blair* or Bush*, or Murdoch, or Cameron, which is packaged in a much more media and sensibility friendly package, but is just as much bullshit.

      *Who is frankly far more responsible for the manufacture of Daesh than any journalist. (But of course according to them not much really).

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: So What? @Dan

        The media gave them a voice and that's exactly what they are trying to get from western media.

        It's the same thing as helping create them. You're helping them to spread their message. All they are is a repackaged Al Qaeda that's nastier and more organized. You think our military created them, but that also shows me where your loyalty lies. If you don't give them a platform to recruit from, you weaken them considerably.

    5. Alien8n

      Re: So What?

      The best defence against extremism is knowledge. It's as true now as it was in the 70's/80's/90's in Northern Ireland. To combat extremism you must first know the mentality of an extremist and in order to know that you must talk to extremists. How many people actually know why the IRA existed (not why it still exists, it takes time for that kind of hatred to be expunged from society)? How many people know that the army were not sent in to combat the IRA, but to actually protect the Catholics from the Protestants? And how many realise that the Troubles ended because the government talked to the IRA instead of carpet bombing half of Belfast? It's the same with ISIS, there is a reason ISIS is a growing terrorist organisation and it can only be finally defeated through knowledge. If you know why people join you can combat the causes, rather than the recruits.

      1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        Re: So What?

        How many people actually know why the IRA existed

        I suspect few still (in this country at least) have even heard of the likes of Eamon De Valera, or Michael Collins, the existence of whom provide the all important historical context. In their time, they were treated in turn as terrorist leaders, foreign dignitaries, and finally heads of state (in the case of the first, the other was dead by the time Ireland gained its independence from England).

        Note that I'm not in any way equating IS/ISIS/Daesh with these men, but it is worth noting that if you label everyone you disagree with as a terrorist, it makes it far too easy to dismiss them. It is important to understand what drives such people, and what they want, whether you agree with it or not (although in the case of IS, I think pretty much every civilised person is of the opinion that their actions are abominable).

        To quote Sun Tzu:

        "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

        1. Dan Paul

          Re: So What?

          You freaking idiots still don't grasp the fact that you don't give terrorists ANY airtime, do you.

          It's NOT a matter of "knowing your enemy". You just don't give free advertising to murderers.

      2. Frumious Bandersnatch Silver badge

        Re: So What?

        To combat extremism you must first know the mentality of an extremist and in order to know that you must talk to extremists

        Exactly this. It reminds me of this rather excellent article about what ISIS is, what it wants and how it intends to get there.

        The thing is, much of what's in that article is stuff that I'd never seen discussed on TV. Like how central the idea of a caliphate (and ISIS's self-identification as primarily a religious movement) is, or how ISIS justifies beheadings and other acts of terror (bizarrely, they're seen as a way to avoid bloodshed by hastening everyone's conversion to their brand of Islam), and why direct assault on their territory would actually play into their hands (they feel that it would legitimise their claim of being a valid caliphate).

        There are several controversial people interviewed in that article and together they provide a compelling picture of who ISIS are and why they are doing what they're doing. Imagine a situation (like the one reported on here) where even talking with these people could cause journalists themselves to be subjected to police attention and have their livelihoods threatened (what else was on that laptop? would any other person be willing to talk to them again, even on unrelated issues?). In fact, this is the classic example of the "chilling effect" you sometimes read about. How can a free press and proper democratic processes survive when talking to the wrong person results in state-sponsored searches, confiscation of your property and the threat of imprisonment (via not handing over encryption keys, assuming they exist)?

    6. fruitoftheloon
      Stop

      @Dan Paul: Re: So What?

      Dan,

      well, let's extrapolate your argument a little shall we?

      During the troubles in England/Ireland/Northern Ireland and USA, you think (in retrospect) that no parties should have been able to report on the widely varying viewpoints therein?

      So you also are of the opinion that in any given situation there is 'only one viewpoint' [I am paraphrasing there], WHO DEFINES WHAT THE 'CORRECT' viewpoint is eh?

      What is their agenda, who pays their salary, who approved their copy, who pays for their kit...?

      Homo sapiens can be a challenging creature, as different folk have different opinions you know?

      Have you REALLY thought your statment through? I am always happy to be enlightened and have errors pointed out to me.

      Over to you matey.

      Cheers,

      jay

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: @Dan Paul: So What?

        BOTH the BBC and Al Jazeera and the vast majority of the media today, glorify and amplify the actions of known terrorists and present viewpoints that all existing western authority is bad and that the view of these terrorist is good.

        AS I SAID BEFORE, reporting the news is fine, making it up and promoting it as the truth is NOT.

        For example there has been almost no mainstream press coverage of the Christians (Yazidis) that have been killed and or raped by Islamists but there is PLENTY of press coverage when some Israeli kills a knife wielding Palestinian. These media outlets orgasm all over themselves when they can negatively portray our military or culture. They deliberately PROMOTE the terrorist views of ISIS instead. It is not news, it is PUBLICITY. These "journalists" even deliberately LIED on TV saying that the Palestinian terrorist did not have a knife when the VIDEO CLEARLY SHOWE ONE.

        Furthermore they twist and edit peoples words into convoluted incomprehensible statements that no longer come close to the original events. This is the same thing as lying to the public.

        All in order to make the world into the "liberal paradise" they want it to be.

        As such, they are terrorist sympathizers not news outlets. They deserve everything they get as a result.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          WTF?

          Re: @Dan Paul: So What?

          For example there has been almost no mainstream press coverage of the Christians (Yazidis)

          Have you heard of a search engine. Hear is how it works

          Search for something like Yaziidis murdered by ISIS

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3065517/Isis-militants-slaughter-300-Yazidi-captives-northern-Iraq-thousands-taken-captive-villages.html

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32565809

          http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/05/middleeast/yazidi-women-suicide-in-isis-captivity/

          http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/611558/Islamic-State-ISIS-doctors-Syria-murder-opponents-Putin-airstrikes

          http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/610940/Islamic-State-ISIS-terrorists-gang-rape-women-Yazidi-convert-Islam-al-Baghdadi

          http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/8/10/yazidi-iraq-islamic.html

          They look like pretty mainstream media outlets to me?

          1. Someone Else Silver badge
            Boffin

            @ Lost all faith... -- Re: @Dan Paul: So What?

            Search for something like Yaziidis murdered by ISIS

            [...]

            They look like pretty mainstream media outlets to me?

            Ooooh...facts. Kryptonite for the fundie whack-jobs....

            1. Dan Paul

              Re: @ Lost all faith... -- @Dan Paul: So What?

              Perhaps mainstream for you, but too little, too late, too lackluster for most Christians. No where near the outrage of the announcer when complaining one flowershop owner who did not want to serve gays. That overshadowed the murders of Christians exponentially.

              By the way, you might want to understand since it is readily apparent you can't. There is a huge difference between being a Christian and being a fundamentalist anything.

          2. Dan Paul

            Re: @Dan Paul: So What?

            Not compared to the constant yammering against Israel, giving part time, intermittent half hearted coverage is even less beneficial than no coverage in some cases.

            It still goes on, BTW where are all the hashtags? Where is the uproar, where is the outrage?

            No, half hearted to no coverage is all the Christians will ever get because the atheist leftist media gives them short shrift versus giving terrorists all the coverage.

        2. nsld

          Re: @Dan Paul: So What?

          "AS I SAID BEFORE, reporting the news is fine, making it up and promoting it as the truth is NOT."

          We call that Fox News over here......

          1. Dan Paul

            Re: @Dan Paul: So What?

            Over here, we see that the BBC makes up the news about the US the way they see fit EVERDAY. They don't report it, they make it up to foster their own agenda.

            Especially if it has something to do with our police, guns or military or our religious beliefs.

            The BBC are full of atheists, leftists, busybodies, anti gun nutters and gays and they need to go back to their own country and fester in their own mess.

    7. Bernard M. Orwell

      Re: So What?

      "Even giving a voice to these criminals makes me suspect the news outlets intentions."

      That line could be lifted directly from the dialogue in 1984. Have you ever heard the phrase "to be made an unperson"?

      In short, if we allow the complete censorship of criminals, or enemies, then the state gains the capability to brand anyone an enemy (for us to hate) without argument or debate. The States enemies become our enemies....should that be the case?

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: So What?

        This has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the truth. The truth that the media has been lying to the public for a very long time and that they are behind the glorification of terrorism and make up most of what they "report" to fit their agenda.

        If you do not give terrorism a platform, it soon loses much of its effectiveness.

      2. Dan Paul

        Re: So What?

        That idea "making an unperson" goes back to the Quakers and their practice of shunning an individual or group that stepped over the line.

        In the same way that terrorist have. And YES the enemies of the state usually ARE our enemies. Too bad....they are a collective waste of the gift of life and don't deserve better.

        Censoring a criminal is done everytime they are convicted and go to prison. They don't deserve and compassion as they have none for you and you are a fool to offer any in return.

    8. nsld

      Re: So What? @Dan Paul

      "It should be illegal to provide any media exposure to or for terrorists. They do not deserve any consideration and their supporters deserve deportation (at a minimum)."

      ==========

      Given the unfettered support for those lovely irish freedom fighters thats most of the NRA fucked with your laws Dan.

      And thats before we get onto the issues of the support for the Afghans against the Russians etc. etc.

      Best not mention Nelson Mandela either, another long time terrorist in the eyes of the South African goverment.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: So What? @Dan Paul

        And in the eyes of the UK and USA government.

      2. Dan Paul

        Re: So What? @Dan Paul

        The IRA "freedom fighters" have NOTHING top do with the NRA or gun laws you stupid ignorant twat. I support the NRA and I support a Free Ireland devoid of British interference. You stole their land like you did all over the world.

        The issue there was that YOU BRITISH DELIBERATELY gave them no other choice but to revolt against PROTESTANT rule. In order to throw that rule off, your actions almost justified their attacks on civvies.

        We helped the Afghans against the Russian, just not admittedly the right way. Bringing up Nelson Mandela is interesting because he was considered political here, not a terrorist like the British government did.

        There is NO such ambiguity about ISIS/ISIL/DAESH. They deserve to die, each and everyone of them.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    Note to those who don't want to be subject to RIPA

    Wherever possible.

    Live CD, encrypted USB drive for storage.

    At first chance upload to your Protonmail email account.

    Once uploaded, smash USB drive to pieces and burn.

    Access to files no longer possible.

    1. Steve Mw

      Re: Note to those who don't want to be subject to RIPA

      Yep, then expect two years inside for refusing to provide access.

      1. DavCrav Silver badge

        Re: Note to those who don't want to be subject to RIPA

        "Yep, then expect two years inside for refusing to provide access."

        Yes and no. You have to divulge passwords and account details, but if they don't exist because you smashed the drive then you cannot. Or you have a dead man's trigger that wipes a computer if you don't log in every day, or something similar, then you can provide access but there isn't anything to see. I don't think it's clear what the result would be then.

        1. Grikath

          Re: Note to those who don't want to be subject to RIPA

          you'd get dobbed for Obstruction , Loitering with and without Intent, Mopery and Dopery. And whatever they can find to make your life difficult.

          Authorities tend to get pretty nasty when they can't have their merry old way...

          1. Bernard M. Orwell

            Re: Note to those who don't want to be subject to RIPA

            "whatever they can find to make your life difficult"

            If they can't get you for terrorism, they'll find "images" on your computer and get you for that instead. That's why they seize computers physically rather than simply going to GCHQ and asking their vast intelligence to provide intercepts, like they keep saying they can. That's how they stop all the terrorpedos from getting us, isn't it?!

          2. Someone Else Silver badge
            Coat

            @ Grikath -- Re: Note to those who don't want to be subject to RIPA

            Authorities tend to get pretty nasty when they can't have their merry old way.you demonstrate that you're smarter/more clever than they are...

            There, FTFY

        2. Brian Morrison

          Re: Note to those who don't want to be subject to RIPA

          Perverting the course of justice I should think...

      2. Aqua Marina

        Re: Note to those who don't want to be subject to RIPA

        Isn't RIPA only relevant for something the authorities have physically in their possession? My last reading of it gave me that impression. I.e. if they have an encrypted USB stick, then they ask can ask you for the password. If you have a smashed up USB stick, they can still ask you for your password, because it's still in their possession. A proton mail account however, is not in their possession, and you have no obligation to give them access to it via RIPA.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Note to those who don't want to be subject to RIPA

      I've been reading in RIPA (and DRIPA) and it is very unclear (look on some Police forums, they don't seem to have a clue either).

      When it comes to physical media it's pretty clear cut, they can demand access.

      The bit it get murky on is likes of webmail.

      They have the right to intercept data, but it's encrypted.

      They can issue international warrants and "force" access, however Protonmail is based in Switzerland and they have VERY strict laws on data and are unlikely to comply.

      They do not hold the keys to the account, so technically can't access it if they were asked to.

      When you decrypt the mailbox, that is taking place on a server in Switzerland not in the UK.

      Therefore is this covered under RIPA.

      Discuss.

      (Actually it would come down to how good a lawyer you can afford, but lets pretend we are all equal).

      1. Aqua Marina

        Re: Note to those who don't want to be subject to RIPA

        Well you have section 49 (1) confirming that protected information has to be in the possesion of the appropriate authorities.

        ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/III/crossheading/power-to-require-disclosure )

        So IANAL, but you cannot be forced to provide a key for something, that the authorities cannot prove they have a physical copy of. That would be considered fishing.

  8. Tony S

    This is a poem written by Pastor Martin Niemöller following the Nazis' rise to power and the subsequent attacks on their chosen targets, group after group.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

    “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.

    1. johnaaronrose

      Neighbour

      Or to quote a similar biblical source:

      If I don't look after my neighbour, who will look after me.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      I hope you aren't in the UK - that sounds like you are supporting the words of a known terrorist.

    3. The Original Steve

      @ Tony S

      I have never seen / heard that poem before. Gave me Goosebumps, what an amazing poem about a truly awful time.

      That will stick with me all my life, powerful reading.

      Thank you for posting.

    4. Alistair
      Windows

      @Tony S. Excellent points

      I keep both of those in mind when I deal with crap in my life.

      I find it *very very* interesting that the wikipedia entry for Niemoller lists a reference to a book (which I just verified is still on my shelves) "They thought they were free" - but the reference has been removed from wikipedia........

    5. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      I'm so confused. How does ISIS fit in to this?

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Works for me

    Journalists are not above the law. Just posting interviews from acknowledged terrorists is unscrupulous as it promotes/validates their agenda to kill innocent people. Braindead journalists who do these interviews to get viewership at the cost to human lives and national security should be held accountable and all of their activities and digital equipment should be reviewed for evidence in prosecution and prevention of terrorists activities. In no way is this journalists or any other journalists who does these types of interviews, serving the best interest of the public. In fact they are undermining efforts by authorities to protect the populace from these terrorists. These people are treading very closely on treason.

    1. hplasm
      Facepalm

      Re: Works for me

      Easily scared, aren't you.

      1. dogged

        Re: Works for me

        > Easily scared, aren't you.

        Have an upvote.

        That's what I can't abide. This country didn't freak out during the Blitz or when the IRA (who were actually competent terrorists) were murdering people. The worst the happened was they took the bins away at railway stations.

        Our current politicians (and I mean since about 2000) are such utter cowards. And they expect us to be cowards too and give them powers tuck us in at night and keep us all safe and lovely from the Bad Men.

        Fuck that. I'm not scared.

        1. Triggerfish

          Re: Works for me

          I don't think our politicians are cowards. I think its more like some sort of bread and circuses type gambit, but instead of good times they are promising bad and using that as an excuse to consolidate their power over the populace.

          1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

            Re: Bad times

            Well, shepherds use dogs

            http://www.allposters.com/-sp/We-re-from-the-F-B-I-going-from-house-to-house-making-sure-that-everyon-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Posters_i9168764_.htm

        2. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

          Re: Fuck that. I'm not scared.

          This. Exactly this. I'm not scared by terrorists, on principle, because that's what they want.

          Hell, it's far more likely - by orders of magnitude - I get killed on my daily commute on the motorway by an outsourced, underpaid, overworked and sleep deprived lorry driver in an accident. That's the 'sleepers' you must watch for.

          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: Fuck that. I'm not scared.

            "Hell, it's far more likely - by orders of magnitude - I get killed on my daily commute on the motorway..."

            Shortly after the twin towers malarkey, I heard an interview on the radio (ABC here in The Land of Under) with a retired CIA ant-terrorist specialist. He pointed out that terrorists, even after Sept 11 accounted for only a few hundred deaths during the 20th C. Governments OTOH were responsible for millions of deaths of their own citizens. Hitler 6 million, Stalin 10 million, Mao 100 million...

            So I'm not so scared of terrorists; it's governments that scare me.

    2. frank ly

      Re: Works for me

      "... it promotes/validates their agenda to kill innocent people."

      So if I read or watched such an interview, I'd be 'infected' with terrorist opinions and beliefs? Your attitude is patronising, insulting and offensive.

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: Works for me @frank ly

        The publicity of simply being in the news validates these terrorists actions and promotes their cause. If you believe that BBC is completely neutral and just "reports" the news instead of ginning up something else that gets more ratings than "reporting" (just the facts ma'am), you are sadly mistaken and yes you have been infected with their terrorist views.

        Your arrogance, naivety and inability to comprehend how the media and terrorists are manipulating you is astounding.

    3. AndyS

      Re: Works for me

      Bloody hell, what's with all the top-level, anonymous comments promoting censorship, abuse of the press and over-reaching government powers here today?

      Is The Reg's readership really sinking to the same level as the Daily Mail? Are you all so stupid that you really believe that reporting = sympathising? Or is there some sort of flood coming in from elsewhere?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Works for me

        "... that you really believe that reporting = sympathising?"

        Absolutely not, but neither are we so stupid as to be incapable of discerning the difference!

    4. The Travelling Dangleberries

      Re: Works for me

      So, if you really believe what you just posted, why post as an "Anonymous Coward"?

      1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

        Re: why post anonymously

        That's 'cause he is like that annoying reedy kid that always hides behind the big bully on the playground.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Works for me

        So, if you really believe what you just posted, why post as an "Anonymous Coward"?

        You're in a comment chain about possible state abuse of power and you're still asking that question? Really?

    5. Triggerfish

      Re: Works for me @ AC

      No they are not in fact if anything seeing these interviews make me think two things, 1. These people are insane in the way that rabid dogs are and need to be stopped. 2. Maybe we should stop fucking around with other regimes because we really aren't learning from it.

      At no point though have I felt the need to stop eating bacon and go and behead a kaffir.

      1. Richard 126

        Re: Works for me @ AC

        1. These people are insane in the way that rabid dogs are and need to be stopped.

        I don't believe they are insane and any method of combating them based on this belief will almost certainly be a total failure. They are extremely religious believing that every word of their holy books is literally true.

        Any Christian who lived according to the bible would be virtually indistinguishable from ISIS. (Stoning people to death, keeping slaves, eating shell fish in an abomination etc) I feel it is very important that we understand this when trying to combat them. We need to talk to them and and understand not just listen to the UK / US government point of view.

        1. x 7

          Re: Works for me @ AC

          They are extremely religious believing that every word of their holy books is literally true.

          = INSANE

        2. Bernard M. Orwell

          Re: Works for me @ AC

          "I don't believe they are insane..."

          I think it could be argued that fundamentalist beliefs are possibly a sign of mental disfunction, buts that's an argument for another day. I personally think that adults who believe in sky fairies to the degree that they are willing to kill over it have something not quite right going on upstairs, but I don't have much evidence to support that assumption.

          "We need to talk to them and and understand not just listen to the UK / US government point of view."

          We're not going to have much success trying to talk to ISIS I fear. Their goal is to provoke a conflict and little else. They've even created an internal rule that states if the Caliph himself speaks to the Kaffir (us) then he will be executed and replaced with one who will not.

          Here's a link to what I think is the best analysis of ISIS politically and motivationally that I've seen:

          http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Mushroom

      Re: Works for me

      In fact they are undermining efforts by authorities to protect the populace from these terrorists. These people are treading very closely on treason

      The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. - Hermann Göring

    7. Kane Silver badge
      Childcatcher

      Re: Works for me

      "In fact they are undermining efforts by authorities to protect the populace from these terrorists. These people are treading very closely on treason."

      You are DCI Andrew Gould, and I claim my £10 M&S voucher!

      And if you believe so vociferously what you say, you should post under your handle.

    8. fruitoftheloon
      WTF?

      @AC (the naive one) Re: Works for me

      Ac,

      if one is trying (and failing...) to criticise journalists (as opposed to hiding behind the cowards' curtain on here), may I make a few suggestions:

      - learn how to use your keyboard

      - try and figure out a clear set of points before touching the keyboard

      - do some research - what creditable info do you have to back up your many flimsy accusations (I am being uncharacteristically poilte there btw)?

      - try and figure out who the 'authorities' are protecting AND WHY. Clue: it ain't you and me matey..

      - what form of treason are you alluding to...?

      Clear replies would be much appreciated.

      Regards,

      jay

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: @AC (the naive one) Works for me

        @AndyS

        >Is The Reg's readership really sinking to the same level as the Daily Mail?

        Don't worry mate. If you have a quick scan of responses and up/down votes on this thread, you'll be able to answer your own question.

        Cheers!

      2. Dan Paul

        Re: @AC (the naive one) Works for me

        How about providing aid and abetting the enemy for one form of treason? In the form of free publicity by interviewing them. And since you would have had to contact them to arrange the interview, you had information related to the location of known criminals that you are obliged by law to give to the government.

        But then again "fruitoftheloon" YOU are definitely pro islamist so you wouldn't know the difference.

        1. x 7

          Re: @AC (the naive one) Works for me

          Dan Paul

          You're right on the money every time

          ISIS / ISIL / Daesh have declared war on the western world and wish to destroy us, and our way of life. They want an Islamic year zero.

          ANY communication with them is communication with the enemy. ANY reporting of their words or views is promulgating the message of people who are sworn to genocide against our civilisation.

          Anyone who communicates with them is guilty of treason.

          1. Dan Paul

            Re: @AC (the naive one) Works for me

            Unfortunately x7, this forum is full of people who support and condone the actions of these murdering terrorists. Especially as it applies to the killings of Americans and Jews.

            They have been brainwashed by the BBC and other left leaning media since they first learned to read.

            These are much the same people who leave Europe to go fight for ISIS and Al Qaeda. Is it any wonder that their own governments treat them as hostiles?

            1. x 7

              Re: @AC (the naive one) Works for me

              "They have been brainwashed by the BBC and other left leaning media since they first learned to read."

              Spot on, again. You get better balanced news from ITN, or even Sky, or even (believe it or not) Russia Today

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @AC (the naive one) Works for me

              Unfortunately x7, this forum is full of people who support and condone the actions of these murdering terrorists. Especially as it applies to the killings of Americans and Jews.

              I will tone down my opinion of your assumption and leave out the words I would normally use, but being in support of the journalist having the discussion does not in any way equate to supporting the activities and atrocities of ISIS. You are, in effect, using the exact model of thinking the terrorists use: someone who thinks different to you should have no voice. Well, f*ck that. I want to know what drives these people because it means I can fight them better. It means I can work out what exactly they do to get innocent teenagers to throw their lives away in a fight where they are nothing more than cannon fodder. It means I need to know what means they use to communicate so that if I come across it I can alert authorities as any upstanding citizen should (no, this is not something you pursue by yourself).

              In other words, I need the knowledge that such journalists gather and that blockheaded idiots like you try to keep away from me because some of what happens over there starts right here, and has to be stopped.

              Now, let me see. Who doesn't let me have my own opinion, allows me to think for myself or even accuses me falsely and demands I follow arbitrary rules in conflict with my human rights? Yes, them, but we knew that already.

              No, you just did too.

              1. x 7

                Re: @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                "Well, f*ck that. I want to know what drives these people because it means I can fight them better. It means I can work out what exactly they do to get innocent teenagers to throw their lives away in a fight where they are nothing more than cannon fodder. It means I need to know what means they use to communicate so that if I come across it I can alert authorities as any upstanding citizen should (no, this is not something you pursue by yourself).

                In other words, I need the knowledge that such journalists gather and that blockheaded idiots like you try to keep away from me because some of what happens over there starts right here, and has to be stopped."

                Don't be such an idiot. You've no chance of carrying out such work. YOU fight them better? Yeah, sure. Idiot journalists don't help in that sense anyway - we will already have ISIS / ISIL penetrated and having journalists around just complicates things by making the Islamic terrorists more sensitive to the spy risk.

                YOU don't need any such knowledge. Our security authorities do. Journalists should shut up, get out of the way and let the professionals do their job.

                1. Someone Else Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  @x 7 -- Re: @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                  YOU don't need any such knowledge.

                  Who the fuck died and made you the sole arbiter of what I need to know? That is sooo ISIS of you!

                  Bugger off, fuckhead!

                  1. x 7

                    Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                    "Who the fuck died and made you the sole arbiter of what I need to know?"

                    no-one. Its just damned obvious. When amateurs like you start trying to dabble with domestic security its when things go wrong. Idiots like you just confuse things. By pressing for "knowledge" all you do is make that knowledge more freely available on behalf of our enemies. It makes you complicit in their recruiting.

                    Now go open your mind and shut your mouth

                    1. nsld

                      Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                      Did I just wake up on the set of Team America World Police 2?

                      1. Kane Silver badge

                        Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                        "Did I just wake up on the set of Team America World Police 2?"

                        Fuck, Yeah!

                    2. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                      To whom are you referring to when you say "enemies" I wonder? Where is this defined? And who controls what may enter into it? Do any controls on members exist at all, or is the term itself too broad to consider?

                      If there is something that is missing in the article that is critical to your position, please, by all means, provide a source.

                      I'll extrapolate your argument, at the risk of making you into a straw-man:

                      To share any form of knowledge that is controlled by the government is to implicitly deliver it to "enemies" of our own. Accordingly, all information of any importance that is controlled by the government must necessarily be so, or else we run the risk of unregulated actors doing whatever they choose with it.

                      While I can see your argument as derived from the view of strictly confidential information, relevant to immediate government interests remaining in their control (no confidential document leaks), there's a few flaws immediately preventing it from reconciling with the opinions presented by others present.

                      The major flaw would likely be that you've made the assumption that whatever was actually taken from the journalist was pertinent to the continued operations of national security forces, in the interest of seeking it for clues on terrorist operations. No such thing can be established from the information presented, nor is it particularly likely that damaging journalist relations with their necessarily confidential sources would contribute to SIGINT in any reasonable way.

                      In 2014 it was readily established that the NSA's phone collection program did not significantly benefit in any noticeable way from the mass-collection of metadata, as a majority of all significant terrorist operators captured was due to the goodwill of the people around them, who feared for their own safety and reported them. Indeed, they were only able to confirm a single case in the history of the program where it proved vital to locating an offender: a case in which they prosecuted a taxi driver for accepting payment from radical elements in exchange for a ride. With this information on the ineffectiveness of intercepting communications, it's somewhat surprising that it continues regardless, but I suppose that is the world we live in today.

                      I await your logical refutation.

                      - Apathetic Canuck

                      1. x 7

                        Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                        @ Apathetic Canuck

                        I'm not really too sure what you're trying to say - your argument seems too rambling.

                        However to try to get to the core of what I think you're asking, there is a possibility that laptop contains records, conversations, photos or other data which may help our security forces locate and eliminate the enemy. The idiot journalist was already in breach of UK law by entering Syria, and arguably further in contravention by speaking to ISIS / ISIL members. In which case he deserves every piece of legal action thrown at him. He deserves prison. As to the idea that he should be free to publicise the terrorists views on the BBC, then that is simply obscene.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                          Travel to Syria is not recommended at this time, but by no means illegal.

                          https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/syria

                          Have a little respect for someone willing to risk kidnapping or even death, from friendly fire, to try and find the truth. Perhaps the spooks have something to gain from knowing of a single paranoid member of the radicals, who already suspects that they're being spied on regardless.

                          Unless you're suggesting that this reporter was, in fact, in collusion with them? A rather... serious, accusation, to accuse someone whose purpose in their organization is purely to gather information of attempting to topple the government...

                          I question whether someone who risks their life should be punished for trying to do their job. Particularly if said job is then stolen from them, their credibility stripped, and for what?

                          Life may not be fair, but the law needs to be.

                          - Adverse Criminal

                          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                            Travel to Syria is not recommended at this time, but by no means illegal

                            "In response to the significant threat to Australia and our way of life from returning foreign fighters and supporters of foreign conflicts, the Australian Government has enacted amendments to the Criminal Code to prohibit individuals travelling to areas where terrorist organisations are engaging in hostile activities."

                            Sounds like it's illegal for The Git to travel London then. Headline in the Australian edition of The Daily Mail:

                            "Married British ISIS commanders dubbed 'Mr and Mrs Terror' claim bombers are ready to carry out 'lone wolf' terror attacks in the UK - including VJ Day plot targeting the Queen".

                            Whoda thunkit!

                          2. Dan Paul

                            Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                            Sure, they were colluding even to get their and do the interview. As far as "risking their life", too bad if they get kidnapped and beheaded.

                            The fact is that ALL of you chicken shit cowards won't give your own military any credit for their risks to life and limb every day so fuck these so called journalists. They are unprepared, naïve and complete dolts if they take the word of terrorists.

                        2. fruitoftheloon
                          Stop

                          @x7: Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                          x7,

                          this is not a sarcy question, could you detail what statute makes it illegal for a UK citizen/journalist to enter Syria?

                          I look forward to a reply with a link to the item of legislation.

                          Kind regards,

                          jay

                      2. Someone Else Silver badge

                        Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                        I await your logical refutation.

                        - Apathetic Canuck

                        Waiting on x 7? You've got a looooong wait, my Northern friend.

                        1. Bernard M. Orwell

                          Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                          *Watches the tumbleweed roll on by*

                    3. h4rm0ny
                      Facepalm

                      Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                      >>"Now go open your mind and shut your mouth"

                      This from the person arguing FOR the government limiting access to other viewpoints and information from independent sources! This is becoming hysterical. Doublethink is alive and well.

                      1. x 7

                        Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                        the implication was he should shut his mouth while he thought, and not try doing the both at the same time as it was obviously too difficult for him. To be honest he comes across as someone who listens with his mouth open

                    4. Pompous Git Silver badge

                      Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                      "Now go open your mind and shut your mouth"

                      Whatever you do, don't say anything that might deter your neighbours' teenage children from going to fight for IS (based on your understanding of the way the world really works). x7 wants the IS promoters to have free reign here...*

                      Fuckhead!

                      * He/she/it [delete whichever is inapplicable] has the somewhat naive belief that the authorities protect us. They don't, though they may be observed cleaning up afterwards.

                      1. Vic

                        Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                        they may be observed cleaning up afterwards.

                        Yep. And not in the "mop and bucket" sense of that expression...

                        Vic.

                    5. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                      When amateurs like you start trying to dabble with domestic security its when things go wrong. Idiots like you just confuse things. By pressing for "knowledge" all you do is make that knowledge more freely available on behalf of our enemies. It makes you complicit in their recruiting.

                      Ah, so you're an expert then? You attempt to place yourself in that position by labelling others as amateurs and somehow assume that you have the right to tell others what to do. Here's a hint: you're not. Your comments have already made that clear.

                      1. x 7

                        Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                        "Ah, so you're an expert then?"

                        I suspect I have more experience to you, but as you insist on posting as "anonymous communist" its difficult to separate your effuvium from that of the other cowards here, meaning its impossible to get a feeling for your real feelings or mendacity

                    6. fruitoftheloon
                      Happy

                      @x7: Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                      x7,

                      if the 'amateur' you are alluding to is indeed an amateur, does that imply that you are a 'professional'?

                      Would you be so kind as to share with us what your professional contribution to the world at large is? No need to name the organisation, a job title would be fine...

                      Cheers,

                      jay

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                    "Who the fuck died and made you the sole arbiter of what I need to know? That is sooo ISIS of you!"

                    Well, technically, you don't "need" to know. That you "want" to know to improve your understanding of the world that surrounds you is a different issue.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @AC (the naive one) Works for me

                  YOU don't need any such knowledge. Our security authorities do. Journalists should shut up, get out of the way and let the professionals do their job.

                  Really? As you have no clue what A/C does for a living you're making assumptions that are not based on any available facts. However, since you clearly do not value the contributions journalists make to informed debate I would suggest you move to places that agree more with your way of thinking. Russia, maybe, or China. Anything but a democracy will do.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Alert

              Re: @AC (the naive one) Works for me

              While its certainly not the only reason; could it be that these people just don't trust our State in what it says? and how could that have come about?

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @AC (the naive one) Works for me

            ANY reporting of their words or views is promulgating the message of people who are sworn to genocide against our civilisation.

            I rather have a reporter asking decent questions and giving these people the opportunity to show just how far they are removed from reality, even in a civil conversation than have "social" media sites get lots of advertising hits because they find it "difficult" to prevent the upload of videos of the latest atrocities. THAT is the kind of material that has no place.

            Blandly assuming that a BBC reporter is going to create a propaganda piece for IS on BBC TV is doing them a major disservice - we need to know what moves these people so we can see how we prevent more people into being brainwashed to join the fight.

        2. fruitoftheloon
          WTF?

          @Dan Paul:Re: @AC (the naive one) Works for me

          Dan,

          for the first time ever, I genuinely had to think about how to reply....

          Can you please, please, pretty please how you came to the conclusion that I am 'definitely pro islamist'????

          That is without doubt the dumbest, most shallow, arse-about-face, utter fuckwit of an accusation I have ever received, but thanks buddy you actually made me laugh!!!

          I look forward to your reply, but ideally based on:

          - your view of what I have written on this and other threads

          - NOT BASED on what yo think I have said or second-guessing...

          Over to you boyo...

          Thanks for your contribution to the debate btw.

          Cheers,

          jay

          1. Dan Paul

            Re: @Dan Paul:@AC (the naive one) Works for me

            One does not defend viewpoints that gives Islamists credulity without being a proponent of their ideals.

            You have. That's all the justification I need. You are islamist.

    9. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: Works for me

      boltar, is that you again?

    10. Alistair
      Windows

      Re: Works for me

      While part of your commentary:

      "Braindead journalists who do these interviews to get viewership" is relevant, those journalists who "do interviews to get viewership" are not very likely to be out talking to "Terrorists". Those journo's are lined up outside the Kardashian mansion(s) with telephoto lenses and parabolic microphones, waiting for the next drama lama moment.

      And, in reality, I highly doubt anyone *other* than the journalist or their support staff (if they have them) would likely face death due to the interview.

      Assumption of Guilt By Association will get even *you* one day, because I'm sure you know someone that has taken an extra breath or two, and some day that will be all it takes.

  10. John H Woods Silver badge

    bullying ...

    ... if the security services were really interested in the contents of the laptop they'd have subverted it quietly; this is just about making a point. Conversely, if this is really counter-terrorism then heaven help us, it's a hopelessly incompetent approach.

    1. The Travelling Dangleberries

      Re: bullying ...

      The PST (Norway's feeble attempt at emulating MI5) recently did the same to a Norwegian film maker who has been working on a documentary on "jihadists". One of his interviewees has been arrested for trying to travel to Syria and the PST wanted all the dirt they could get on this young man for the court case.

      The film maker has not just lost all his work but also the chance of working in a similar area in the future. Who in their right minds will speak to that film maker now? Self censorship is much easier to enforce than state censorship.

      1. Vinyl-Junkie

        Re: bullying ...

        "Who in their right minds will speak to that film maker now?"

        And there in a nutshell you have the reason that journalists do currently enjoy (or did up until this travesty) the right to protect their sources, indeed it is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights to which the UK is a signatory. Those who find corruption or wrongdoing in their workplace or elsewhere where a direct report to the authorities is not advisable or possible must have a channel to which this can be brought to others' attention and, if the alleged practice is widespread, the media is often the best way to bring it to the public's attention so that change is demanded.

        If journalists are not able to protect their sources then people will not talk to journalists, and the world will become even more corrupt than it already is.

        1. x 7

          Re: bullying ...

          this is nothing to do "with protecting sources". Its all to do with dealing with the enemy. ISIS/ISIL/Daesh are our enemies.

          Can you imagine what would have happened during WWII to a journalist who published an interview with a member of the SS?

          1. dogged

            Re: bullying ...

            Well, the Mail would almost certainly have published it.

          2. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

            Re: bullying ...

            "Can you imagine what would have happened during WWII to a journalist who published an interview with a member of the SS?

            Someone from the British Free Corps perhaps? They didn't stop interviewing Mosley, AFAIK.

            1. x 7

              Re: bullying ...

              "They didn't stop interviewing Mosley, AFAIK."

              yes they did -and he got interned for his views. The authorities had the right idea then. Pity they didn't shoot him

              1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

                Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                This just for context, emphasis by me: "On 23 May 1940 Mosley, who was then mostly focused on negotiated peace advocacy, was interned under Defence Regulation 18B along with most active fascists in Britain. [...] His wife Diana Mitford was also interned, shortly after the birth of their son Max; they lived together for most of the war in a house in the grounds of Holloway prison. [...]

                The Mosleys were released in November 1943, when Mosley was suffering with phlebitis, and spent the rest of the war under house arrest. On his release from prison he stayed with his sister-in-law Pamela Mitford, followed shortly by a stay at the Shaven Crown Hotel in Shipton-under-Wychwood. He then purchased Crux Easton House, near Newbury, with Diana. He and his wife were the subject of much media attention. The war ended what remained of Mosley's political reputation." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley (sorry for that)

                "Pity they didn't shoot him" Aren't we bloodthirsty today... On what grounds would they have shot him? Wartime Britain wasn't like Nazi Germany.

                1. x 7

                  Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                  "He and his wife were the subject of much media attention."

                  Yep, he did get much attention - he was vilified. His views weren't reported, just what a twat he and his wife were (and his wife's family - remember one of them shagged Hitler)

                  He was lucky he wasn't lynched.

                2. x 7

                  Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                  "On what grounds would they have shot him? "

                  collaboration with the enemy

                3. Pompous Git Silver badge

                  Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                  "Wartime Britain wasn't like Nazi Germany."

                  For which many of us are truly grateful. It would seem that the likes of x7 want the Britain of today to be precisely like wartime Nazi Germany, but even more effective.

                  1. x 7

                    Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                    "the likes of x7 want the Britain of today to be precisely like wartime Nazi Germany, but even more effective."

                    not at all, I'm no right wing sympathiser. If you read the other current threads you'll see that I felt it unfortunate that a Nazi fellow-traveler such as Oswald Mosley wasn't shot

                    1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                      Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                      "not at all, I'm no right wing sympathiser."

                      Your comprehension skills appear a little lacking. I said nothing about right (or left) wing. Hitler was a socialist; Nationalsozialismus translates to National Socialism in English. If you check out The Political Compass (Gurgle it) you will see that Hitler was only ever so slightly right of centre, but very much an authoritarian. And it's the authoritarian stance you espouse that irks.

                      1. x 7

                        Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                        "And it's the authoritarian stance you espouse that irks"

                        Well as you're a pompous git I guess everything irks you. I bet not having a schooner of sherry for breakfast irks you. You essentially accused me of being a Nazi, I pointed out I was not. If you can't understand that, then your pompous brain is in your pompous posterior

                        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                          Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                          And again you show your comprehension skills are lacking. I have not "accused [you] of being a Nazi"; I said that you espouse an Authoritarian stance. If that's being a Nazi then Mao Tse Tung, Joe Stalin, Frederick the Great, Queen Elizabeth I, and Pol Pot were all Nazis.

                          Oh, and I'm not in the least irked by being "deprived" of a schooner of sherry for breakfast. While I am free to drink as much sherry as I like, at whatever time of day I choose, it's not been my primary choice of tipple since joining the Labor Club at LaTrobe University in 1969.

                          If you know my habits as well as you seem to think, mine's the coat with the bottle of Marlborough sauvignon blanc in the pocket. And I'm not in the least irked by it ;-)

                          1. x 7

                            Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                            " joining the Labor Club at LaTrobe University in 1969."

                            I commiserate with you.

                            Presumably in a Labour club you were encouraged to drink port?

                            After all you always pass the piss to the left

                            "mine's the coat with the bottle of Marlborough sauvignon blanc in the pocket"

                            You have low expectations then

                            1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                              Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                              How very odd! One moment you use the term schooner, a measure of beer confined AFAICT to that part of the world known to the constabulary as New South Wales* and the next you misspell Labor. The Australian Labor Party has never included the letter U in Labor.

                              The port drinkers were in the Liberal (Tory) Club, their meetings were by invite only and held in secret locations.

                              Clearly you have never drunk a decent sauv. blanc.

                              http://winefolly.com/review/new-zealand-sauvignon-blanc/

                              *NSW, the realm of pastel shorts, macchiato with sugar, thin books read quickly and millions of dancing queens. Its capital, Sydney, has more queens than any other city in the world and is proud of it. Its mascots are Bondi lifesavers who pull their Speedos up their cracks to keep the left and right sides of their brains separate.

                              1. x 7

                                Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                                "Clearly you have never drunk a decent sauv. blanc"

                                I have, just not from the Antipodes

                                "Schooner"

                                Same word, different meaning. In UK parlance a schooner glass is an oversized sherry / port / madeira glass, not a beer glass. I have to admit its becoming an archaic term

                        2. Bernard M. Orwell

                          Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                          You're not a Nazi, that's true.

                          ...but you are a fascist.

                          If you do not understand the distinction, I recommend some research.

                          1. x 7

                            Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                            "You're not a Nazi, that's true.

                            ...but you are a fascist."

                            Thats OK, you can think what you like, it doesn't offend me, even though I did point out that Mosley should have been shot

                            You THINK you know what I am, but I KNOW that you're an idiot. And in the morning when you wake up you'll still be a bleedin idiot

                            1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

                              Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                              "You're not a Nazi, that's true.

                              ...but you are a fascist."

                              Thats OK, you can think what you like, it doesn't offend me, even though I did point out that Mosley should have been shot

                              I'm going to weigh in here and point out that in Nazi Germany, prior to the second world war, there happened something called the 'Night of the long knives'. Adolf Hitler (both a Nazi, and a fascist) had a bunch of his political opponents killed (who were fascists, but not members of the Nazi party).

                              By saying that Mosley should have been shot, you are pretty much putting yourself in the same position as Hitler. You have repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that you have a fascistic authoritarian ideology (anti free-speech and kill those who don't agree with you or oppose you).

                              Now, you will also notice that I have equated you with Hitler. This therefore invokes Godwin's law, at which point the conversation ends, you should take notice and shut the fuck up.

                              1. x 7

                                Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                                @Loyal Commenturd

                                Your argument is based on factual inaccuracy

                                The "Night of the Long Knives" was an attack on the Sturmabteilung - the SA or "Brownshirts" who by then were fully incorporated into the Nazi party heirarchy. The attack was essentially due to a clash of egos between Hitler and Röhm, representing different factions within the Nazi party.

                                If you can't get that well documented basic fact of history correct, what else are you confused over?

                                As to Godwin's law.....is that your answer to everything? Invoke that and then hide anything you personally disagree with under the carpet? Actually I think you misunderstand what Godwin actually said - I suggest you look that up for yourself, I'm getting too bored to do it for you

                            2. Vinyl-Junkie
                              FAIL

                              Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                              "You THINK you know what I am, but I KNOW that you're an idiot"

                              Given that each of you only knows about the other from the statements they have made on this forum if you can't see the inherent stupidity in that statement I feel REALLY sory for you.

                              1. x 7

                                Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                                "Given that each of you only knows about the other from the statements they have made on this forum if you can't see the inherent stupidity in that statement I feel REALLY sory for you"

                                But I KNOW he's an idiot from the simple fact he's shown himself to be, by claiming he knows what I am. If he wasn't an idiot he would not have made that claim.

                                PS whats feeling sory? Is that sore in a past imperfect tense?

                                1. Vinyl-Junkie

                                  Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                                  You don't *know* he's an idiot, you *think* he's an idiot based on what he has written in his posts and what your definition of an idiot is. Other people's opinion may differ.

                                  Likewise he *thinks* you are a *fascist* based on what you have written and on his definition of what a fascist is. Again, other people's opinions may differ.

                                  You have both shared your opinion of the other; to a third party there is no difference in the way that the conclusions were arrived at, and therefore your opinions of each other carry equal weight.

                                  Personally I *think* you are someone who has misguidedly bought into the lie that the US and UK governments have sold you about how these measures are vital for democracy and the American/British way of life. Again that is my opinion based on what you have written; it may, or may not, be accurate.

                                  I utterly deplore and detest ISIS and its various related organisations; I find their practices abhorrent and their philosophy warped and repellant (having actually had chance last night to watch some of the interview in question, which if you had your way I would not be allowed to do). However I believe that journalists have the right to go where they want and interview who they like without fear of reprisal or having to disclose source material. Anything else is allowing the thin end of the wedge; it may be ISIS this time but perhaps next time it will be a journalist who has interviewd a Greenpeace activist responsible for disrupting a Japanese whaling mission, or a member of CND for organising a peaceful protest outside the Trident submarine base or... well you get the drift..

                                  As for "sory" blame a touch screen that I apparently double-tapped too fast, so I was auto-corrected!

                                  1. x 7

                                    Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                                    " to a third party there is no difference in the way that the conclusions were arrived at, and therefore your opinions of each other carry equal weight."

                                    but therein lies the point: I have no great caring for what third parties think. I have told him, deservedly, that he's an idiot, and thats all that matters. Because he is an idiot.

                                    As for " a member of CND for organising a peaceful protest outside the Trident submarine base", well if the member fell of the quay into the sea I wouldn't feel it essential to rescue them. Another lefty communist-hugging brainwashed fool doing the enemies work. Let him (or her) drown. CND is a foreign financed proxy pressure group dedicated to the overthrow of UK democracy, its just lucky that their membership has declined in recent years: the younger generation are less susceptible to commie brainwashing than their hippy elders of the 1960's

                                    As for whaling? I'd send the Royal Navy's subs down to the Antarctic to silently sink the whaling ships. We can't use them for much else - not enough subs left to form a deterrent to foreign military force.

                                    1. Vinyl-Junkie

                                      Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                                      "CND is a foreign financed"

                                      Hard evidence please? Successive Tory governments throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s tried very hard to prove that CND was foreign funded and failed (wasting a great deal of taxpayers' money in the process). Furthermore despite the fact that the KGB and other eastern European intelligence services have been open to western scrutiny for years now, no evidence linking foreign funding to CND has ever emerged. I am not, and never have been, a member of CND, for the record.

                                      "the younger generation are less susceptible to commie brainwashing than their hippy elders of the 1960's"

                                      Absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we are no longer living under the permanent threat of a global thermonuclear war then? Not to mention the fact that the Green Party, who also espouse the scrapping of Trident without replacement, has to a large extent taken over from CND as the political face of nuclear disarmament (since New Labour severed its links with CND), and which has a considerably larger membership, of all ages, than CND ever had.

                                      I also think you are (probably deliberately) missing the point; you can insert a suitable organisation of your liking into the example; unless of course you believe everything the government does is right and should never ever be questioned or protested against.

                                      Either way, and using your own criteria, I conclude that you are an idiot. ;)

                                      1. x 7

                                        Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                                        Vinyl Junkie

                                        So where did the large cash donations handed in at CND branch meetings from chaps in smelly greatcoats who claimed allegiance to whatever was the favourite "hard left" group of the week come from?

                                        CND was Soviet funded.

                                        Just as much as the UK Commie Party, and a bunch of other socialist activist groups.

                                        1. Vinyl-Junkie

                                          Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                                          I asked for hard evidence; unsubstantiated stories of cash donations handed in at CND branch meetings is not hard evidence. There is absolutely no hard evidence (and practically none of any other sort) that CND was funded by the Soviets (or any other foreign power). I know that many of the members of our local CND who I used to see in my local high street in the 1980s handing out leaflets were friends of my parents and/or parents of my friends. I also saw the same people when they were raising money for the local Round Table, and campaigning on behalf of our local Tory MP. Hardly left-wing.

                                          If you really believe that CND was Soviet funded, please feel free to send a record of your comments on this site, together with your name and address, to CND and see how long it takes them to sue you for libel....

                                          1. x 7

                                            Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                                            Vinyl Junkie

                                            I'm afraid I have to categorise you - along with your CND chums, as members of Lenin's "useful idiots".

                                            The money was there, though trailing it after all this time I agree would be hard.

                                            However just because time has occluded the trail, it doesn't make my statement incorrect: the money came from the USSR

                                      2. Dan Paul

                                        Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                                        Not living under threat of global nuclear war? Where have YOU been? We are under a far more sinister threat of global nuclear war since Iran got it's "peace agreement" that lets them get the bomb.

                                        Russia and China both know enough not the "play the game" that can't be won.

                                        Iran and North Korea both would like to launch as soon as possible. They WANT nuclear war.

                                2. Anonymous Coward
                                  Anonymous Coward

                                  Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                                  But I KNOW he's an idiot from the simple fact he's shown himself to be, by claiming he knows what I am. If he wasn't an idiot he would not have made that claim.

                                  FFS. You make Jay look good.

                                  1. fruitoftheloon
                                    Happy

                                    @AC, Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                                    Ac,

                                    If indeed I am the 'Jay' you are alluding to, would you be so kind as to extend your comment a bit?

                                    Perhaps to a complete, cohesive sentence?

                                    Also what is with the 'cowards curtain', I mean what have you got to hide?

                                    Just wondered...

                                    1. Dan Paul

                                      Re: @AC, Pity they didn't shoot him

                                      The fact that you keep adding "Jay" to the bottom of some of your posts would be one indication.

                            3. Bernard M. Orwell

                              Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                              "You THINK you know what I am, but I KNOW that you're an idiot. And in the morning when you wake up you'll still be a bleedin idiot"

                              Assumption again. Well done you. It's like watching a little child scream unfair.

                              And you're a fascist. Here's the definition from Websters (for kids) dictionary.

                              " a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition "

                              Note how this doesn't require right wing idealism. Fascist !~ Nazi.

                        3. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                          Well as you're a pompous git I guess everything irks you. I bet not having a schooner of sherry for breakfast irks you. You essentially accused me of being a Nazi, I pointed out I was not. If you can't understand that, then your pompous brain is in your pompous posterior

                          Little boy, there seems to be a direct correlation between the amount of invective you spew and the absence of rational thought and an ability to reason in your brain. Tell me, does it echo in your skull when you talk? As soon as someone comes with a reasonable argument you don't like, out comes the cussing from an in my opinion disappointingly limited vocabulary. I would focus more on learning how logic works, and afterwards maybe do something about your choice of words. I know kids who have barely passed their GCSEs who have better reasoning skills and who have already mastered the art of discussion without the need to resort to insult.

                          Humility is far harder to learn than arrogance, yet is far more beneficial for your continued development, and to me it appears you still have quite a lot of developing to do.

                          1. x 7

                            Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

                            HoHoHo

                            Another pompous git on the horizon, false flagged as an anonymous coward

                            Whats up - refuse to use your real ID so that you can act as your own sock puppet?

                            When you're in a position to separate your posts from the herd, then I may just take you seriously

                            Until then, your anonymous opinion counts as much as a pile of stale pigeon droppings

              2. Bernard M. Orwell

                Re: bullying ...

                "Interned for his views"

                Sounds to me like you'd be happier living in ISIS rather than the UK. You see, liberties, such as freedom of speech, is one of the primary tenets we are fighting against absolutist ideologies such as those espoused by our (unofficial) enemy.

                But, for fun, lets entertain the idea that having a radical opinion, one that criticises or even condemns the government du jour, or the broader idea of a society such as the UK as a whole, can get you imprisoned or even summarily executed (for the crime of having an unpopular view). Such a law, I'm sure you'd agree, would have to be proposed by the elected government of the nation in question, and would, no doubt, be reflective of that nations majority opinion. After all, we're not talking about some dictatorship or theocracy here, are we? We're talking about the UK.

                So...a law gets passed whereby the majority opinion is paramount and critical, minority, even offensive opinions gets you a bullet to the back of the head, or imprisonment, or waterboarding or some other childish and unenlightened revenge. Why, I bet we could even make it automatic and remove legal representation on the basis of the legal status being "enemy combatant" rather than "criminal"!

                *glances at the upvote/downvote ratio on your posts*

                ...It would appear that your opinion, strongly held and offensive to many people here, would be at odds with the sample majority. You are at odds with the majority, democratic opinion.

                Guilty. Bang.

                Do you not see this flaw in your argument, or are you going to simply rest on the idea of white/uk privilege ('cos this laws for THEM not US!).

                Back to EDL land with you.

        2. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

          Re: bullying ...

          It doesn't apply if the source itself is a criminal.

      2. Dan Paul

        Re: bullying ...

        Good, bad people who make bad decisions need to find out what the consequences of their bad actions are. It's NOT bullying.

        Too bad for him, he is now a terrorist sympathizer, and should be shunned if not arrested.

        1. John H Woods Silver badge

          Re: bullying ...

          Sorry, Dan but it IS bullying (I can use CAPS too).

          If I were in charge of an operation to exploit the journo's interviews to track jihadis, there is NO WAY I would have seized the laptop in a highly public way. It would be no problem to subvert it, with no-one being any the wiser. That could likely, as more jihadis trust the journo, lead me to even more targets.

          You got it right (accidentally) when you sad "bad people ... need to find out the consequences" -- in other words that the confiscation of the laptop is effectively some form of summary extra-judicial punishment of which you approve. This is the truth of the matter, they are sending a message.

          If you really believe that (a) they need the contents of the laptop and (b) that the only way they can get it is a highly public seizure, you are an even greater fool than your ridiculous posts suggest.

      3. The Travelling Dangleberries

        Re: bullying ...

        Well good news on this front. The PST lost their case and have had to return all the material to the film maker Ulrik Imtiaz Rolfsen. Still, he acknowledges might have problems completing the film as his sources may not wish to carry on working with him.

        http://www.nrk.no/kultur/rolfsen-_-na-kan-jeg-fortsette-a-lage-film-1.12664113

    2. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: hopelessly incompetent approach

      What do you think are the odds that the laptop in question is taken to the basement and smashed to bits? This is an established modus operandi for UK security services, isn't it?

  11. scrubber

    To quote a Roman poet

    Who watches the watchers?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Unhappy

      Re: To quote a Roman poet

      whats worse is why some people insist on emulating the enemy they so detest - those who gaze into the void etc

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Snowden?

    I can't imagine why Edward Snowden, Duncan Campbell, and James Bamford, do what they do. Could be because the government abuses its own laws?

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Snowden?

      They don't abuse their own laws. They do exactly what the laws were designed to do - keep journalists afraid and compliant.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Question

    Did they ask if they could see the information they were interested in before resorting to the lump hammer?

  14. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Bad Bad Bad

    I can't imagine anything stopping this downward race now. It seems to be unstoppable. What an utterly crazy world we live in.

  15. x 7

    Enemy combatant

    This journalist was communicating with an enemy combatant. That counts as treason.

    He needs prison. Or shooting.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Enemy combatant

      As does the Queen and Prince Charles for meeting Mr Adams

    2. Vinyl-Junkie
      FAIL

      Re: Enemy combatant

      I am curious as to when exactly we declared war on IS. Given the government's policy of referring to IS as the "so-called Islamic State" I suspect we haven't, as you can only declare war on another country. So, not enemy combatants then.

      Criminals? Probably; although you have no evidence that the person interviewed is an active member of IS or merely a sympathiser. If talking to sympathisers was treason, then most of the current generation of politicians are guilty of treason for talking to the sympathisers of the PIRA, UDF and other organisations in order to secure the Good Friday agreement. If communicating with criminals is treason then there are a lot of traitors in this country; let's start shooting the ones who turn up at prison visiting time each week shall we?

      I would actually like to hear interviews with these people, as I have often read, watched or listened to accounts from people on both sides of the government v freedom fighter/terrorist (which usually depnds on your point of view) to understand what their grievances are and maybe go some way to resolving them without resorting to carpet bombing, as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread. I suspect I will find their views and their philosophy as repugnant as I find their actions, but hey!, let me make up my own mind; I don't want the government making it up for me.

      1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

        1. Vinyl-Junkie

          Re: Enemy combatant @vinyl-junkie

          Clearly you can't read:

          "I suspect I will find their views and their philosophy as repugnant as I find their actions"

          But hey, why should a bigot like you take any notice of what I actually wrote when reading what you wanted to read suited your vile agenda far better?

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. x 7

        Re: Enemy combatant

        "Hold on, did you mean to say "he needs to be prosecuted, and the death penalty needs to be reintroduced" or do you really think extrajudicial execution is a good thing?"

        I never mentioned extrajudicial killing. However I can see that under certain circumstances of warfare it could be necessary for certain categories of enemy sympathiser - essentially to encourage the others

    4. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Re: Enemy combatant

      This journalist was communicating with an enemy combatant. That counts as treason.

      He needs prison. Or shooting.

      Firstly, since ISIS is not a recognised state, technically its fighters are not legally 'enemy combatants'. Also, I'm pretty sure that there is no law that makes speaking to an enemy a treasonable offence. The logical conclusion of this viewpoint would be that anyone signing a peace treaty would be shot for it.

  16. adnim

    "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear. Right?"

    That statement depends on congruence (All parties agree what is wrong). And as we are all different, we have much to fear from those who would have us consume, conform and obey.

    1. Chika
      Trollface

      Re: "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear. Right?"

      @adnim

      That statement depends on congruence (All parties agree what is wrong). And as we are all different, we have much to fear from those who would have us consume, conform and obey.

      True.

      Oh wait! Is this sarcasm again? :p

      No, seriously, this has been an entertaining rant! I never really noticed this Boltar person before...

      As for the whole business, I'd probably consider this to be yet another example of why an unwritten constitution isn't worth the paper it isn't written on. "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" always assumes that the people prosecuting you have no evil intent.

  17. herman Silver badge

    Foreign journalists

    The only solution I can think of is that journalists should all exchange jobs, so that all newspapers are published from foreign countries. Somewhat like Voltaire had to do in the 17th century, by publishing his French works in Holland and England.

  18. Concerned Bystander
    Big Brother

    Give me liberty or...

    How does that popular misquotation go?

    Those who are willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    As much as I hate journalists in general, or at least those who think that half of the trash that appears in the tabloids somehow qualifies as news, I am grudgingly forced to recognise that a free press is indeed necessary in any country that aspires to call itself free and democratic.

    If journalists are incriminated for not ratting out their sources then all that will happen is that nobody with anything worth saying will talk to the press, and what we'll get served to us is whatever the Ministry of Truth decides is a true and accurate account of world events.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Give me liberty or...

      "Give me liberty or... give me cheezeburgers" ?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Coat

        Re: Give me liberty or...

        as liberty appears to be lacking, I'll take my cheeseburger and fries please

    2. Vinyl-Junkie

      Re: Give me liberty or...

      "any country that aspires to call itself free and democratic."

      I think you mean "any country that aspires to BE free and democratic." The USA calls itself free and democratic, is neither, and does not have a free press. Calling itself something does not mean that it is; witness the many "Democratic Republic of ...." which flourished under Soviet influence which were neither republics nor democratic.

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: Give me liberty or...

        I think if you bothered to read and comprehend the subject you will find that the USA is actually a REPUBLIC.

        One that rejected the unjust rule of monarchists many years ago and were considered by those monarchists to be terrorists. Just like your government consider the IRA to be terrorists and did the very same things that you complain about now.

        However, we did not decapitate or burn our captives alive (The British did even worse during the Revolution) and hide behind a so called religion to do so and that makes us better than ISIS or the IRA. The fact that some of our citizens supported Sinn Fein during those years only affects THOSE who supported them, not all citizens but you damn us all nonetheless. I don't damn all people of the middle east, only those in ISIS, Al Qaeda and Iran.

        And I know that I am quite a bit freer than any of you Europeans who gave up freedom long ago for the false security of conformity.

        1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken
          Pint

          Re: Give me liberty or...

          "And I know that I am quite a bit freer than any of you Europeans who gave up freedom long ago for the false security of conformity."

          Good one, have a pint! Really, it's the way you tell 'em...

        2. Laura Kerr
          Facepalm

          Re: Give me liberty or...

          'I don't damn all people of the middle east, only those in ISIS, Al Qaeda and Iran.'

          Iran. You damn the best part of 80 million people purely because of where they were born? Apart from being racist and ignorant, that says rather a lot about how simplistic your world view is. You condemn an entire country, right after insisting that it's only some Americans who threw money at the IRA. Are you genuinely unable to see the hypocrisy there, or do you genuinely believe that Iran is wholly united against the US? If it's the latter, you really need to look at other media outlets than Faux News and Murdoch prolefeed.

          This thread's been quite revealing, as it's been frighteningly easy to spot the stereotypical US world outlook of The Land Of The Free (TM) vs The Enemy(TM). Real world problems aren't as black-and-white as Hollywood likes to believe.

          1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

            1. dogged

              Re: Give me liberty or...

              > The Islamists hate us. Most Islamists are black/brown. Must of us aren't.

              Please, please tell me you're trolling now. Please.

              I actually can't believe I just read that. Wow.

              Request double-facepalm icon, please.

              1. x 7

                Re: Give me liberty or... @ dogged

                Partly a troll my boy

                If Laura Kerr is daft enough to say "Real world problems aren't as black-and-white as Hollywood likes to believe." when you consider the racial tensions in the USA, I think my comment was quite funny.

                Still fundamentally true though, if rather insensitively stated.

                1. Bernard M. Orwell

                  Re: Give me liberty or... @ dogged

                  "Partly a troll my boy"

                  Behold the frantic back-pedalling from the racism.

                  1. x 7

                    Re: Give me liberty or... @ dogged

                    "Behold the frantic back-pedalling from the racism."

                    Not at all, what I said was factually correct. However when I said it I anticipated the Pavlovian response of left wing marxist-hugging islamophile terrorist-apologists such as yourself creeping out of the woodwork and offering foul justifications for allowing the ISIS / ISIL / Daesh bastards to continue their perverted ways. I received exactly the response I expected from yourself and others, thus proving your separation from reality. The ISIS / ISIL / Daesh bastards are a bunch of insane Islamists dedicated to the destruction of Western society. And its a fact that most Islamists are of non-white origin, while those for whom they reserve their greatest hate are white. As far as they're concerned, we're in the firing line

                    1. Bernard M. Orwell

                      Re: Give me liberty or... @ dogged

                      " left wing marxist-hugging islamophile terrorist-apologists such as yourself..."

                      I am no apologist, lets get that clear for a starter, but I am a neo-Marxist, yes, so well identified there comrade.

                      "creeping out of the woodwork..."

                      No creeping going on, you'll find I'm here quite a lot and not exactly 'lurking'.

                      " ...and offering foul justifications for allowing the ISIS / ISIL / Daesh bastards to continue their perverted ways."

                      Where did I offer any such thing? Care to quote me? No. Didn't think so. Your argument rests upon your own assumption, rather than fact.

                      "The ISIS / ISIL / Daesh bastards are a bunch of insane Islamists dedicated to the destruction of Western society."

                      I agree with this entirely. ISIS primary goal is to invoke a conflict with "Rome", which is a reference to the "west" as a whole. They believe this will bring about an apocalypse that only they will survive. This is fundamentally insane. See? No apology going on here.

                      "And its a fact that most Islamists are of non-white origin"

                      Almost certainly true, but I've not seen any stats to confirm it.

                      "while those for whom they reserve their greatest hate are white."

                      Probably not true. For ISIS, it's not about skin colour its about specific interpretation of their scriptures. I think you will find that the majority of people killed by ISIS so far are both middle-eastern in origin and Muslims.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Give me liberty or...

                > "The Islamists hate us. Most Islamists are black/brown. Must of us aren't." <

                While your left wing sensitivities might be offended by such a statement, there is an inherent truth to it.

                While the caucuses is populated by Caucasians (by definition I think) and Persians are in this group, Western European Christians do not (and have not for centuries) seen themselves as belonging to the same ethnic group. Including the aforesaid group, in the "black/brown" pretty much is an inclusive list of adherents to Islam (this does not mean that all black/brown are Islamic, before someone pokes some broken logic at me). The fact that they number 3 billion or so (I have not checked this figure) is somewhat concerning, because the first part of the statement is, according to Islamic Doctrine axiomatic!

                I would like to believe in the western christian notions of humanity - independent of the religious system under which these notions reached ascendency. Islam proves to me that such a belief is misplaced

            2. Laura Kerr

              Re: Give me liberty or...

              'The Islamists hate us.'

              They do not; and of those that do, some of them might have reason to. The American-backed Shah was a nasty piece of work, but as long as he kissed Uncle Sam's arse, Washington didn't give a monkey's about how he kept his people oppressed. Just keep that ol' black gold a-flowing, brown boy. The revolution had a LOT of popular support.

              You will find dissent in Iran if you look hard enough, but dislike of the Iranian government does not mean they're desperate to embrace the American model of diabetes, consumerism, I'm-all-right-Jack, frivolous litigation and rampant militarism. Arab culture is very different to that of the West. Not hostile, just different. Iran is a country with a long and proud history, and the reason you think they hate you is that they don't like being pushed around by America. Keep your nose out of their business and they'll keep theirs out of yours.

              It might hurt to realise it, but if Washington stopped throwing its weight around in the Middle East, you'd find that Iran, together with the rest of the Arab countries, doesn't give a flying fuck about you.

              1. x 7

                Re: Give me liberty or...

                "The American-backed Shah was a nasty piece of work"

                really? Compared to his successors he was fairly easy going. Compared to the leaders of the adjacent countries he was positively benign. If you start from that fundamental inaccuracy then the rest of your argument goes out the window

                1. Laura Kerr

                  Re: Give me liberty or...

                  That's neither here nor there. The point, which you appear to have missed, is that the Shah's approach caused a lot of resentment. To put it in nice simple terms for you, it was a case of a lot of people seeing him as a tyrant and a toady. Rejection of him meant rejection of America, and there are still plenty of people there who fell like that, especially those whose families suffered under the Shah. Suggesting that the Shah wasn't as bad as his successors is utterly disingenuous, especially when you remember that America's attitude towards Iran hasn't changed one iota since 1979.

                  1. x 7

                    Re: Give me liberty or...

                    "The point, which you appear to have missed, is that the Shah's approach caused a lot of resentment."

                    On that basis you'd justify a coup against Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair......both of those were seen by a lot of people as tyrants.

                    Rejection of the Shah was primarily due to Russian finance creating a paid pressure group which carried out a classic usurption of power through a propoganda-led insurgency, mainly among the youth, helped by the idiot French who sheltered and bankrolled Khomeni in an attempt to break the USA and UK oil contracts in Iran. The revolutionary influences were all sponsored and directed from outside the country. The problem now is too many Iranians have been brainwashed into believing the fake history

                    1. Alistair
                      Windows

                      @x 7 Re: Give me liberty or...

                      And the Americans, the Chinese have *never* financed coups anywhere ever... of course.

                      1. Laura Kerr
                        Thumb Up

                        Re: @x 7 Give me liberty or...

                        Absolutely. All those poor benighted Chileans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, Cubans and Filipinos have just been brainwashed by Russian propaganda and had false memories implanted.

                        1. x 7

                          Re: @x 7 Give me liberty or...

                          "All those poor benighted Chileans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, Cubans and Filipinos have just been brainwashed by Russian propaganda and had false memories implanted"

                          Dunno about the Philipines or Chile, but after multiple generations of communist funded education / brainwashing in the other states you mention I think you'll find there is a preponderance toward some very twisted beliefs

                    2. DrBobMatthews

                      Re: Give me liberty or...

                      Give me Liberty... Oh Please a US stooge using the word "liberty" who's liberty? Giving the US the liberty to destabilise sovereign states, invade countries, bomb, maim and kill civilians, destroy economies, support, arm and finance known terrorist groups,sanction governments because you don't like their politics, continue to pay Danegeld to AIPAC who determine your foreign policy?

                      You need serious help, just get it into our thick skull, the rest of the world does not want Cocacola, Big Macs, corrupt banking, dodgy arms deals or worthless US dollars justb to please the USA. It's called freedom of choice, something the neocons in the USA have never lied let alone understood. If in doubt ask Cheyney?

                2. dogged

                  Re: Give me liberty or...

                  Apparently x7 has never heard of SAVAK.

                  1. x 7

                    Re: Give me liberty or...

                    yes I've heard of SAVAK. Its methods read as standard operating procedure for Islamic states, and SAVAK would appear to have been less violent than the equivalents in neighbouring countries. Its main target appears to have been Communist insurgents - so quite possibly its methods were justified.

                    Certainly Khomeni seems to think they were justified - he didn't disband SAVAK, he just gave it a new name and identity and let business carry on uninterrupted. If anything, Khomeni-era SAVAMA appears to have been more oppressive and violent toward the average Iranian than the Shah's security forces ever were.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Give me liberty or...

                Laura Kerr is slightly incorrect. Iran is not an Arab country. As any Iranian or Persian will tell you, they are not Arabs, and quite firm on that particular point.

                1. Laura Kerr

                  Re: Give me liberty or...

                  Fairy nuff, my bad there. But the point about different cultures and values still holds, though.

              3. Alistair
                Windows

                @Laura Kerr Re: Give me liberty or...

                I'll have to agree 100% with most of that commentary. Sole point is that if the excited snakes stopped tossing its weight around in the Oil States & Israel, there would be a very short, ugly, messy war, in which the United Nations would loose at least one, possibly three members, and *THEN* the arab nations wouldn't give a flying fuck about the US.

              4. This post has been deleted by its author

              5. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Give me liberty or...

                "...Iran is a country with a long and proud history"

                Not enough adjectives, you left out "belligerent"!

            3. Someone Else Silver badge
              Stop

              Re: Give me liberty or...

              "Iran. You damn the best part of 80 million people purely because of where they were born?"

              Why not? They damn us westerners for where we were born. Its a reciprocal feeling.

              The trouble with ultra-simplistic retorts like "Why not?" is that it makes you sound real stupid...you know, like you can't be bothered to spend the small amount of brain power needed to understand that the salt-of-the-earth Iranian is much too busy raising his/her family and living day-to-day to worry about taking up arms against other salt-of-the-earth "westerners" who are much too busy raising their families and living day-to-day. Maybe you simply don't have that much brain power available?

              I don't know what the average Iranian has done to you to create so much hate in you. Could be simple racism, as expressed by the last two sentences of your post. Perhaps some counseling would be in order to explore that?

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Give me liberty or...

            "Real world problems aren't as black-and-white as Hollywood likes to believe."

            What, you mean Hollywood is not a good historical source? Damn, who knew?

        3. nsld

          Re: Give me liberty or...

          "The fact that some of our citizens supported Sinn Fein during those years only affects THOSE who supported them, not all citizens but you damn us all nonetheless."

          Nothing to do with Sinn Fein, the support was for the IRA and was in large numbers, the fact you cannot even bring yourself to admit that speaks volumes really.

          And thats before the meet and greets with likes of Gerry Adams and the rest of the IRA army council at the direct invitation of US senators.

          Worth remembering that for many years Osama Bin Laden was also fighting the good fight with US funded weapons against the Russians and Saddam wasn't exactly hamstrung in the war with Iran either. But then, the Iranians didn't miss out either with lots of nice missiles shipped to them with a little light money laundering to fund the Contra's in Nicaragua all done via those peace loving Israelis.

          The bottom line is that none of our countries have histories that are commendable when it comes to the funding or fighting of terrorism, trying to paint one as some kind of paragon of virtue only makes you look like a bit of a cockwomble Dan.

        4. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: Give me liberty or...

          "I think if you bothered to read and comprehend the subject you will find that the USA is actually a REPUBLIC."

          You might want to check that with Jerry Pournelle (he of Chaos Manor fame). He has long lamented the demise of the American Republic.

        5. Bernard M. Orwell

          Re: Give me liberty or...

          " I don't damn all people of the middle east, only those in ISIS, Al Qaeda and Iran."

          Why Iran and not Saudi?

        6. fruitoftheloon
          Happy

          @Dan Paul: Re: Give me liberty or...

          Dan,

          Would I be correct in assuming (if I am mistaken, pls ignore this) that you are from the US of A?

          If so, may I ask how travelled you are?

          Kind regards,

          Jay

          1. Dan Paul

            Re: @Dan Paul: Give me liberty or...

            I've been to England, Switzerland, Germany and France as well as Mexico and Canada. More "traveled" than you would ever give credit for.

            Particularly Germany and Alsace, where the people I've spoken to feel exactly the same as I do about "the Turks" invading their country.

    3. Joefish
      Boffin

      Re: Give me liberty or...

      "Give me liberty or give me death*!"

      *subject to the understanding that it is not necessarily my own termination that may be called upon to fulfill all necessary requirements.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nice one Gov, you've probably just signed the death warrants of a few war zone field journalists who will now be executed as spies.

    1. Dan Paul

      Any Wartime Field "Journalist"

      that interviews the Enemy, deserves what they get.

      If they conveyed confidential information to them, then they ARE spies and should be shot.

    2. x 7

      "Nice one Gov, you've probably just signed the death warrants of a few war zone field journalists who will now be executed as spies."

      the idiots have no business being there. If they are executed perhaps it will encourage others not to support ISIS / ISIL by reporting their propaganda

  20. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    @ Dan Paul:

    You just can't stop digging, can you?

    1. dogged

      Re: @ Dan Paul:

      He never does. I think he's fifteen.

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: @ Dan Paul:

        No, I'm old enough to be your grandfather.

        EXCEPT if I were your grandfather, I would have cut my own balls off with a rusty spoon for the shame of helping to bring you into the universe.

        I already know that Dogged, H4m0ny, Fruitoftheloon, and many others are still living in mummies basement if they are not still underage.

        Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it's failures. Growthefuckup!

        1. Bernard M. Orwell

          Re: @ Dan Paul:

          "The issue there was that YOU BRITISH DELIBERATELY gave them no other choice but to revolt against PROTESTANT rule. In order to throw that rule off, your actions almost justified their attacks on civvies."

          I note that you do not extend your assumption to the people of Palestine. Do you not see the direct comparison? Also, the issues of NI were resolved by talking to people, after the reporting embargo was lifted.

          "No, I'm old enough to be your grandfather"

          Then you should know better. When you've wiped the foaming spittle from your mouth go and take a good, long look in the mirror, consider your statements as a whole. Your words regarding Palestinians, reporters, Christians (of denominations other than yours) and atheists reveal a lack of tolerance and consideration for any ideas other than those you hold personally. The anger you display shows that you are rabidly defensive of them; a sure indicator that you know, in your heart, that they are wrong, false, and illogical. Even if not (and I am guessing here, to a degree) your faith in your own religion should surely tell you this kind of hatred you express for others is misguided. I suggest you head back to your church and seek some guidance on peace, understanding and the universality of humanity, because you have clearly lost your way somewhere along the line.

          If this reply angers you, good. Let that anger seep in and understand where it comes from - it's anger generated by the understanding that your beliefs, held for so long, are not good ones. I had the same revelation many years ago. (Yes, I am old enough to be a grandfather to some here too, and I have never had a basement of any kind to live in.)

          If you refuse that reflection, if you cannot see what's wrong with your arguments, then you need to realise that your selective hate is just the same as ISIS and, in my opinion, whilst that doesn't make you an islamist (whatever that is), it certainly makes you a fundamentalist.

          .....and fundamentalism is *always* wrong.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: @ Dan Paul:

      At this rate, he'll wind up in China, and might even like it.

      In all seriousness, this action can't afford to stand. This is a downright lethal precedent to set in the world today, for everyone's "freedom of association". For all the talk about trading between safety and free nowadays, it seems rather curious that no politician ever seems interested in allowing it the other way. Much easier to claim that any attempt to regain lost freedoms interferes with police interests anyways, and is therefore obstruction of justice.

      I wonder if we have a valid case now to arrest anyone who decides to sign a petition against government corruption because that would lead to a reduction in policing power used to ensure government corruption, or some other such nonsensical drivel?

      Such interesting times...

      - Acrimonious Canadian

  21. Blitheringeejit
    Headmaster

    I'm not generally in gavour of censorship, but...

    ...please could we ban the phrase "known terrorist"? It's a useful indicator, in the sense that we can be sure that anyone who uses it is a complete twat - but it's an insidious use of the passive voice, translating roughly as "Someone with whom I agree has defined this person as a terrorist, and has by implication also defined the term terrorist to mean something which they have decided it means, and is now railroading any attempt at debate by presupposing that we all agree what a terrorist is, and that this person is one."

    When I were a lad, back in the day when the IRA were doing proper terrorism, a "terrorist" was often defined as "Someone with a bomb, but no air force to deliver it." But now apparently it can be used to refer to someone with a machete and an off-meds bipolar disorder.

    If you find yourself tempted to use the phrase "known terrorist" here, please would you be kind enough to clarify who knows this, and on what basis and definition of "terrorist" they have made this judgement?

    Thankyou.

  22. Alistair
    Windows

    OMFG Journaterropedolist

    I find the extremists down south of (me/the rest of my country) are getting somewhat more intense in the ways and means of their extremism. Partly because they have an erection election coming up, and because of their internecine racial issues calling out things that make them uncomfortable in their skins.

    Government for the people by the people was the idea, but now, unfortunately "the people", thanks to Citizens United, are the corporations. The corporations that *own* our southern neighbour's media, banks, food companies, transport companies, oil companies, and rather apparently the government in it's entirety.

    "Journalism" comes in many flavours, and its quite apparent, to me at least, sitting up here in my igloo, feeding my sled dogs rejected american beef, burning oilsands pond scum, that many many journalists in the mainstream media are either enthusiastically supporting the "people", or are unfortunately subverted to the "people" that Citizens United created. Those few that do not toe the religious or political "line" painted by the Citizens United Peoples are not allowed into the mainstream and are often painted with the vituperative brush of "terrorist sympathiser" or "Feminist radical" or "Racial terrorist".

    There are a couple of old world "news men" <sadly, they didn't have that many news women who could publish similarly> who've written books on the art of being a journalist in what is supposed to be a democratic society, and what it means to take the position of "respected journalist" seriously. Clearly - and more so every day - what we read in most media, even online, is coloured by not questioning the "line", or having swallowed the horseshit that is being, and has been spewed by american mainstream media, in all forms (entertainment, news, comedy, advertising) for at least 25 years.

    For those few journalists who DO take their positions seriously we need to ensure that the "people" of Citizens United cannot buy, subvert, terrorize or otherwise suppress their alternate viewpoints.

    While I'm certainly of the opinion that (IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh) in Syria and Iraq is an organization that should not be allowed to succeed, one cannot completely suppress all contact with them. In fact, the position that "a journalist interviewing " a "terrorist" is in fact a terrorist sympathiser and "deserves to be shot" is something I'd rather expect from the IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh ruling class themselves, but this is the nature of extremism, in that one at the extreme cannot see itself.

    Journalism should be keeping Enterprise, Government, Police and Judiciary in check, by being able to publish the cases where these elements of society are violating the rights of People, however when Enterprise owns Journalism, Police, Judiciary and Government, there is no chance of this happening. Sadly, social media <gag> gets more traction over here in getting the public to attend to issues of this nature, than do the media.

    This episode simply underlines the largest set of problems in the world today. And folks like Boltar, x7, Dan Paul simply *cannot* see that they have already sacrificed themselves on the altar.

    1. Laura Kerr
      Pint

      Re: OMFG Journaterropedolist

      Beautifully put. Sir, I salute you. Have a pint and an upvote.

    2. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

      Re: OMFG Journaterropedolist

      Journalism should be keeping Enterprise, Government, Police and Judiciary in check, by being able to publish the cases where these elements of society are violating the rights of People, however when Enterprise owns Journalism, Police, Judiciary and Government, there is no chance of this happening. Sadly, social media <gag> gets more traction over here in getting the public to attend to issues of this nature, than do the media.

      And so, in one paragraph, a proper journalist shows how the art of journalism can condense issues down to their essence without losing anything essential in the process.

      Yes, I called you a proper journalist. It is a difficult skill to reach a conclusion in spite of your own biases, and it takes effort and commitment to remain objective in the face of so much pressure to chose a "side" when there is in reality a wider palette of choices and positions. In effect, it is a skill to present a condensed version of the facts in such a way that you still leave the intelligent reader to draw their own conclusions.

      Thank you.

  23. Soap Distant
    Meh

    Good god...

    I've never downvoted so many posts in my time here as a 'tard until reading this thread!

    I agree with all who think journos and their sources should be protected. I'd also recommend those interested in the state of the Middle East watch this.

    I found it utterly fascinating, wonder if he's still got his laptop?

    SD

  24. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Strange thread this

    Almost as if the trolls were getting organised.

    Nah. Surely not. That might be construed as terrorism.

    1. Laura Kerr
      Trollface

      Re: Strange thread this

      The impression I get is that the US contingent is putting up a fight because they know they're skating on thin ice ;-)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Strange thread this

        The impression I get is that the US contingent is putting up a fight because they know they're skating on thin ice ;-)

        Nope - they crashed through the ice years ago. What you hear is the frantic knocking against the underside of the ice, trying to find a hole before the oxygen runs out..

        1. x 7

          Re: Strange thread this

          " the US contingent"

          who's that then?

  25. Commswonk Silver badge

    Is there any chance...

    ... of being able to come out from under the table / stairs / behind the sofa anytime in the foreseeable future?

    This topic is now on page 4 and if IIRC it became a shouting match somewhere on page 1.

    A dialogue of the deaf, perhaps.

    1. Alistair
      Windows

      Re: Is there any chance...

      While I'll concur that the thread is very long winded, there really isn't much shouting here - the issue (at least to me, if not to a few others) is quite simply that the action < government very publicly seizing a journalists data store under effectively trumped up "national security" rules > deeply and utterly offends some of us who have watched our human rights, our freedoms, and our controls on big government, global corporations, money hoards etc be constantly be niggled away based on ridiculous fearmongering by the puppets of big government, global corporations and money hoards.

      I'm no spring chicken here, and I work in an industry that manipulates data for information. And I've seen what can be done with metadata feeds in a large pool, with sufficient computational resources. In fact I performance tune those resources. Please see my previous post in this thread - this one action is a signature of the demise of anything that remotely resembles freedom to some of us cranky old bastards. Sadly most of the shouting is coming from the wrong side of the issue.

      If this debate scares you, contemplate what happens next if the event in the article becomes considered normal, acceptable and "right".

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Is there any chance...

        I'm no spring chicken here

        I can confirm that.

        /hides quickly :)

    2. Dan Paul

      Re: Is there any chance...

      Are you really that much of a chicken shit coward that you can't even comment?

      Do you cry real tears when someone says something you don't agree with?

      Because this is one place where having a thick skin is de regere. Perhaps you should plug your ears and go back to hiding under the stairs.

      And for the record, I don't care much about "popularity" as a measure of a persons worth.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: Give me liberty or...

    "... demise of the American Republic."

    I think he speaks in the present tense

  27. DrBobMatthews

    When the government no longer trust the electorate, it is time for the electorate to remove the government.

    No longer "of the people, by the people, for the people" it has been prostituted to become "by the powerful, for the powerful" Warmongers, corrupt bankers, on the take politicians, big Pharma, tax avoiders, arms dealers, and state sponsored terrorist supporters (hello CIA, NSA, State Department, FCO, MI5, IDF, AIPAC) we all know who you are. Not forgetting the died in the wool neocons, (Hello Yes go on kiddies) who haven't an original thought in their empty skulls and rely on Fox News (That's a joke in itself) the Daily Wail and the assorted gutter press.

  28. Joefish
    Joke

    This clearly requires a Juvenile quote...

    "Quis custodiet ipsos porcōs?"

  29. CAPS LOCK Silver badge

    As this event (seizing of a laptop) has been on the cards for journos for years...

    ... I'd expect there to be a big fat zero for the Five Oh to look at. No files, no encrypted container, nothing. Except a 3G dongle controller app.

  30. blackhat

    don't trust em...

    All politicians (when they get into power) want to limit the spread of information that contradicts whatever current 'truth' they are espousing . They want ultimate control over journalists, not because they (politicians) want to do overtly bad things, its just they actually and fervently believe, they know best for us. Therein lies the huge danger of any kind of control by Govt or any bureaucracy on the information that gets through to the public. Better to have a few maverick journo's (phone tapping etc) than the nightmare of state controlled information.

    1. Vinyl-Junkie
      Pint

      Re: don't trust em...

      As it is now officially the weekend, and I will not be responding any more to this thread, please accept an upvote and a virtual pint!

      The only thing I would add is that media controlled by big business is almost as bad; in this respect the BBC is a rare thing, being state-owned but not state-controlled (although the Tories are working on it) and truly independent (it gets as many accusations from the left about being right-wing biased as it does from the right about being left-wing biased, suggesting it is, if not totally objective, at least biased to a fairly neutral standpoint).

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We have to take your liberties away, so we can protect your liberties.

    You stupid plebs just fail to see the bigger picture.

    Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

    We continue to take liberties away in our own country - but we can still continue to liberate people in other countries. Even when people in these countries don't want to be liberated.

    And once we're done liberating these people, we can start taking their liberties away again.

    What's important is that it it us who controls the amount of liberty. In a few years the entire world will be a semi-liberated blob. Nicely sedated.

    You'll have the liberty to consume whatever you like, but you probably won't get away with shitting on the street.

    Hopefully AI or Aliens will pose a real threat to mankind by then. Nothing appears to be more liberating than having gone through a period of real suffering. E.g. WWi and WWii.

    After a period of suffering it'll feel nice to be liberated again.

    We're constantly being told that we need to be feel free and happy that this bcomes a major concern.

    I envy those who just don't give a shit and get on with life.

    So let the powerful liberate you and than take it away over and over again. Just get on with life. Ignorance is bliss.

    1. x 7

      "Just get on with life. Ignorance is bliss."

      it would help if we set up mass lobotomy clinics everywhere and forced attendance. Ten minutes with an ice pick and they'd be happy for life. Free vasectomies could be offered at the same time as an inducement

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        No vasectomies! We need sheeple to reproduce so they can be liberated.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021