UK Officials Argue That David Miranda Was, In Fact, A Terrorist

from the oh-really-now? dept

You may recall the farce in the UK that is the story of the nine-hour detention of Glenn Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, while he was held over while flying through Heathrow to get from Berlin to Brazil. Miranda's devices were seized under an anti-terrorism law, which can only be used to deal with terrorism. Even though many have admitted it was really just to send a message to Greenwald and other reporters, many UK officials have maintained that the detention was fully justified, despite no evidence to support that. Even the author of the law that was used to stop Miranda has argued that it was not intended for such uses.

However, last week in court, the UK laid out its case, as presented by Scotland Yard -- and they actually are going to try to claim that Miranda's actions -- carrying some of Snowden's encrypted documents -- is a form of both espionage and terrorism.
Intelligence indicates that Miranda is likely to be involved in espionage activity which has the potential to act against the interests of UK national security," according to the document.

"We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people's lives," the document continued. "Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism..."
Read that again and let it sink in. UK officials are arguing that if you have any material which, if disclosed, might "influence a government," you are, by definition, a terrorist. That makes a very large number of people terrorists. By this definition, basically any whistleblower is a terrorist. Anyone with embarrassing, but factual, information about a government official might be deemed a terrorist as well. Something is very broken if that's considered the actual standard in the law.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 4:35am

    If Miranda is supposedly a dangerous terrorist, why let him go? Oh wait, they legally couldn't keep him because they knew they had no grounds. Strange, didn't stop them from sending a few bullyboys to smash a few computers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 5:30am

    Something is very broken if that's considered the actual standard in the law.

    Yes, the people in power have gone completely megalomaniac. Time for some beheadings. Metaphorical or not.

    Other than that Rikuo has it spot on. If he is, in fact, a terrorist then the UK pseudo-law enforcement is composed of incompetents since they let a "known" terrorist go.

    As many have noted, terrorists won a complete and flawless victory so far. The Govts are happily confirming it by going fascism.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 5:36am

    It's worse than that...

    The fact that they are saying... "UK officials are arguing that if you have any material which, if disclosed, might "influence a government," you are, by definition, a terrorist."

    Means that anyone, reporter, whistleblower, random citizen with a twitter, facebook or social media account with a smart phone is a terrorist.

    *Shakes head*

    The PAX situation just got a whole lot worse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    The Real Michael, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 5:48am

    The only difference between a terrorist group and government is the latter has far more manpower and resources with which to inflict harm upon the populace.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 5:53am

    Re: It's worse than that...

    Can we use this logic to boot the morons out? After all, they have done tons of damage to influencing government!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 5:57am

    So how many buildings or planes did David Miranda blow up again?

    The qualifications of becoming a terrorist just keep getting lower every year. Before you know it, countries will undergo martial law every time someone sneezes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:03am

    Why the surprise? That's always the view of inherited tyrants!

    The particular labeling word changes, but inherited tyrants always see the supremacy of the State (themselves: "L'etat, c'est moi.") the same.

    Squawking about this must start at the notion of "inalienable rights" granted by god and/or nature, not wimpy Mike's tertiary: "Something is very broken if that's considered the actual standard in the law." -- Because when "the law" is at sole discretion of inherited tyrants, their word is literally law. -- The American principle is that common law is the general consensus of all the people equal before the law; that is NOT the case in the UK, never was, and that's why they're actually still serfs in jolly olde Angle-land.

    A-bas le roi!

    The Rich will always seize more power until stopped. The only non-violent way to stop them is with steeply progressive tax rates, especially on unearned income.

    02:03:51[c-10-6]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:07am

    Re: Why the surprise? That's always the view of inherited tyrants!

    Have a DMCA vote!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    TheResidentSkeptic (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:08am

    Sweet!

    So I've been promoted from "pirate" to "terrorist".. my mom will be SO proud of me...

    Does this come with a raise?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:08am

    Politicians are following the same logic as religions zealots, you agree with us or you are a bad person. With this attitude their is no room for discussion, people are expected to obey the leader.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Guardian, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:09am

    the treasonous bastards have spoken

    when shall you all start calling these nsa types traitors that they are....

    they arent doing anything for you its to protect a paycheck and there rich uber friends world wide

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    ethorad (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:12am

    Re: It's worse than that...

    Not just reporters etc, even senior judges and peers have been known to spend months collecting material the disclosure of which is intended to influence government. Some examples include Lord Hutton, Sir John Chilcott, Lord Justice Leveson and Lord Saville of Newdigate

    Note the last is unrelated to the recently deceased Saville of nudey-gate ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Brazenly Anonymous, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:20am

    Unacceptable

    For after the spying is sufficiently dealt with:

    Even the author of the law that was used to stop Miranda has argued that it was not intended for such uses.


    At some point, we really need to deal with this trend. If a law isn't intended for a certain use, it needs to specify that or unambiguously define a narrow enough scope to rule out such an application. If this can't be expressed in the law, the law shouldn't be passed.

    A politician needs to be able to held to this level of capability so they can also be reasonably held culpable for the contents of the laws they pass. I suggest (again) using the game of Nomic as a training tool.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:25am

    And where do you think this (secret) interpretation stems from?
    The USA!
    And who do you think has concocted this bunch of lies and bull shit and passed it on to the UK police to use? NSA and DoJ! They could never have thought of it themselves!
    And don't forget the 'Special Relationship' between the USA and the UK, until crap hits fan, that is!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Mark, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:31am

    This is a classic example of the definition of terrorism:

    Terrorism - the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

    They threaten to expose the truth, which the politicians are scared of the people learning.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Ruby, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:31am

    Doesn't this mean all lobbyists are now terrorists? Their entire raison d'être is to influence government on certain political causes.

    Always a silver lining ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:37am

    Re: Sweet!

    No but you win a free cavity search.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    abccameron, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:37am

    My Conservative Party Manifesto might "influence a government"

    Can i citizen arrest Cameron as a terrorist?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:41am

    Re: Unacceptable

    "If a law isn't intended for a certain use, it needs to specify that or unambiguously define a narrow enough scope to rule out such an application"

    No matter how well written a law is politicians and law enforcement will always find ways to bend it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:44am

    Re: Sweet!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:46am

    Anyone with embarrassing, but factual, information about a government official might be deemed a terrorist as well.
    So, if I had a piece of paper with "Cameron sucks" written on it in my briefcase, I'd be a terrorist?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:48am

    Freemasonry

    It's sort of Masonic. They give each other secret handshakes and the laws are twisted to benefit each other. Do the police think they are part of a super-secret club and somehow GCHQ isn't spying on them???
    That's pretty dumb.

    A UK minister can spy on his political opponents under the current system, all they need is assistance from the NSA to generate a legal order (e.g. an NSL), and GCHQ will even give technical help in the spying.

    So while you're busy focussing on Merkel and maybe laughing at how *you* are British politicians and part of this special club, you might want to wise up and realize that NSA can spy on any Brit and you are high value targets. Your internet feed goes through those NSA filters too you know. Do yo think Merkel is an OK target and somehow you are special??

    Why, did he give you a special handshake??

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:49am

    If I read this article correctly:

    1. The UK believes he has broken the law.

    2. This site believes he has not broken the law.

    Cinches it for me. This site is obviously right because the writer says so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:55am

    Re:

    No, he was released before they had to put a justification to a court. If they thought he'd broken a law, they'd have made that claim to a court. They didn't, so he hasn't.

    So the question is, could they use the terrorist detention power on a journalist?

    Obviously not, the man who drafted the law they used says not, and their claim lacks substance enough to even present it to a court, let alone convince a court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    dave blevins (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 6:56am

    Gee, everyone's a terrorist, even ...

    ... the politicians, police,... themselves by this definition, EVERYONE.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    RyanNerd (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:00am

    Good thing MLK isn't alive

    At the airport he'd probably be thrown in jail for carrying around his I have a dream speech since it would be: terrorist material that could influence government.
    I didn't think I would live to see the day where democratic governments began to act like Nazi Germany.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:08am

    Re:

    No, you read the article incorrectly.

    1. The UK Police service believe they had the right to detain him as he was a potential terrorist by their interpretation of the Article 7 powers because they believed he might be carrying some of the Snowden docs. They then released him as they had no reason to detain him.

    2. This site and many others question how they came to this interpretation and are alarmed at how readily and easily one can be defined as a 'terrorist' in Britain. There doesn't appear to be any evidence at this stage he broke the law - Mr Masnick is arguing that whether he has or not, the definition of terrorism is amazingly broad and prone to abuse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Alt0, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:08am

    How about Lobbyists

    ..Not sure about the damaging materials, but they do sure influence government in ways sometimes that one would consider unsavory.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    pixelpusher220 (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:09am

    Re:

    So wouldn't basically every minority party in government fall under this definition? Obviously they want to 'influence' the current majority party out of power...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    cpt kangarooski, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:09am

    Re: Why the surprise? That's always the view of inherited tyrants!

    The American principle is that common law is the general consensus of all the people equal before the law; that is NOT the case in the UK, never was, and that's why they're actually still serfs in jolly olde Angle-land.

    Wow.

    The common law originated as the portion of the law which was basically the same in different parts of England, as opposed to the regional laws which were not widespread -- something vaguely like the difference between federal and state law in the US now. And since then it has evolved based upon what the courts thought. Democracy had nothing to do with it.

    The idea that the legitimacy of the government comes from the consent of the governed has nothing to do with the common law, and is certainly not part of the common law or the common law itself.

    You're exploring whole new levels of ignorance here, and I've got to wonder why.

    (Incidentally, given how widespread piracy is, does this mean that all which needs to be done to fully legitimize piracy is for more people to do it?)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:09am

    Re:

    "If I read this article correctly:"

    If those are the only two things you understood in your reading, you didn't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:26am

    Re: Why the surprise? That's always the view of inherited tyrants!

    Do you have any idea how ludicrous and hypocritical it is to put up a post about tyrants and the supremacy of the state that closes with suggesting we should dramatically increase taxes?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:28am

    Re: Re: Why the surprise? That's always the view of inherited tyrants!

    The common law originated as the portion of the law which was basically the same in different parts of England

    Nice theory.

    However, the adjective “common” as used in the phrase “common law” was probably more used in the same sense as it was used in the legal phrases:
    • common victualler
    • common hosteller
    • common innkeeper
    • common carrier

    That is, the “common” in “common law” was used in the sense of ”ordinary” as distinguished from canon law, and other specialized bodies of law. This distinction was not always a bright line: compare “common treason” with “high treason”.

    It is true, though, that the common law was generally the King's law, administered by the King's courts, and gradually extended itself throughout the realm, as the central power grew at the expense of the barons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Blaine (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:31am

    If you have any material which, if disclosed, might "influence a government,"...


    We all know the ONLY known material that influences a government is cold hard cash....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:32am

    Re: Re:

    Animal Farm. And it doesn't matter if it is socialism or whatever. At some point the masses will get fed up and start a revolution. Then it will consolidate and decay. Start over. In a sense you are right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:32am

    Re:

    It all depends on how much money is in the brown envelope that the lobbyists give to the politician.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:38am

    Guess this adds government officials to the list as well as religious leaders activists so on and so foth

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:42am

    Are voters terrorists?

    UK officials are arguing that if you have any material which, if disclosed, might "influence a government," you are, by definition, a terrorist.

    I guess I better quit voting as my vote could influence a government.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Mark Harrill (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:43am

    Re: It's worse than that...

    What does this make the lobbyist and people who contribute money to get law changed?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 7:53am

    "Even the author of the law that was used to stop Miranda has argued that it was not intended for such uses."

    We're starting to hear more and more how the "enforcement" branches of democratic governments are starting to bastardize the laws being made. As noted many times, this is the start of how tyrants gain power.

    However, we're not there yet. The fact that lawmakers aren't happy means they may yet find their balls to take back some of the power the enforcement agencies are taking away.

    The problem is, most of the legislative branches are 100s of people all on (more or less) equal footing while the enforcement branches are top-down/monarch/tyrant shaped. Of course it's easier for them to see/want/take power...

    Hopefully the other two branches will do something to get them back under control soon and not just complain about it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Brazilian Guy, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 8:05am

    Well, at least David Miranda got off better than the last Brazilian the UK surveilance agencies labeled as terrorist - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Anonymous Howard (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 8:13am

    Re: It's worse than that...

    This definition looks like they snipped parts of the Wikipedia article on terrorism.

    What they conveniently left out is there is no internationally accepted and precise definition of "Terrorist".

    What they did is twisting a few requirements to their taste, and left out the rest that didn't apply. (Like, I don't know, "violent")

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 8:18am

    Re: Why the surprise? That's always the view of inherited tyrants!

    The Rich will always seize more power until stopped. The only non-violent way to stop them is with steeply progressive tax rates, especially on unearned income.



    Are you ever going to answer my questions concerning the specifics of your "tax the hell out of the rich" notion?

    Or will you keep on yelling your rallying cries that lack any substance?


    Let me repost them just in case you really don't know what that fancy blue text does:

    Answers to these simple questions would be helpful:

    1) Where and how would you determine the line between "too rich" and "not too rich"?

    2) Where and how would determine the line between a corporation that is "too big" or "not too big"?

    3) What is your definition of "unearned income"?

    4) How would you counter the stigma of this being a "success tax"?

    5) What incentives would you use to encourage economic growth from corporations if you remove the profit incentives once they reach a certain point?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 8:24am

    Re: How about Lobbyists

    Sounds to me like the NSA is engaged in terrorism then.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    clon3 (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 8:26am

    We in our western societies are very proud of our democracy and our freedom of speech. Having those basic rights is what makes the difference between our democracy compared to other suppressing countries. Now it seems that democracy is being replaced with totalitarianism. If we the people sit and do nothing about this, then our basic rights to privacy as well as freedom of speech will be violated, and our societies will as we can see happening, end up with a corrupt government that cannot be trusted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 9:07am

    by this logic, doesnt that make the politicians themselves potetial terrorists?
    quick, chuck em all in jail before they notice!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 9:14am

    one of the worst things now in the UK is, that, just like in the USA, it is far more important to have the security agencies be in control than to admit any errors. being totally wrong therefore, is an absolute no-no! they are obviously gonna lie and cheat just as the US agencies have done. we saw exactly how that worked with the Megaupload case (still on-going) and the way the DoJ did what it wanted, twisted what was said and ignored court decisions, adapted laws to suit their claims of wrong doing, whatever it took. and we are no nearer now than a year ago to a conclusion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 9:25am

    Re: It's worse than that...

    I noticed that. It doesn't matter if you intend to disclose it, only that you have it?

    Wouldn't that make just about everybody in any security or spy agency in any government in the world a terrorist? After all, they are in possession of information that could influence a government...

    For that matter, the results of the latest election would fit that definition, of information that could influence a government if released.

    Anyone who votes in any election is apparently now a terrorist in the UK!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 9:27am

    Re:

    Well, a sneeze IS a fairly energetic explosive force...some actual explosives produce less pressure per square inch.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re: It's worse than that...

    Well, they did add the "...endanger people's lives" in the argument, which could be a meaningful separation of terrorism and whistleblowing if he did more than "willfully carry it".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 9:59am

    I would argue the real terrorists are the ones working at Scotland Yard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 10:09am

    Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism...


    I'm having a difficult time coming up with the name of a single politician that wouldn't be considered a terrorist using their logic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Brazenly Anonymous, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re: Unacceptable

    Not exactly. There is a difference between a law that has been bent and a law that has an overly broad scope.

    In most cases where a law is bent, there is some portion of the law that is open to interpretation where judicial prudence has been relied upon. In this case, the legislature has surrendered a portion of the legal decision to the courts.

    When this is not desired, explicit definitions of terms are provided. In this case, the definition in the legal statute overrides any other meaning of a given term and is not open to judicial discretion on the basis of that term. If this was not the intent, then the fault lies with the drafters of the law and not those enforcing it.

    If anything, the enforcers are under-enforcing the statute as per the definition of terrorism given above.

    Further, the easier loop-holes are to spot, the more likely and more often they will be exploited. It may be impossible to close all vulnerabilities, but actively trying to avoid them will still lower the incidence rate of abuse.

    The excuse that "politicians and law enforcement will always find ways to bend it," has become an entirely too convenient way for politicians to evade any repercussions for not paying attention to the laws they sign off on. This means they have more time to spend on the corrupt side of politics because they are spending less time working on behalf of the people. Lose-lose for us, unacceptable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    roarshock44, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 10:40am

    what they are doing is playing a dangerous game of further alienating a skeptical public.  i think we can infer the public reaction in general from the politicians' behavior lately.

    the more the snoops screech nonsense, the shorter their rope becomes, but people in that kind of enterprise naturally see themselves as bullet-proof.  maybe they are right and maybe they are not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    John William Nelson (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 10:48am

    V for Vendetta plot?

    Amusing that this is published on the 4th of November, one day removed from the 5th.

    I am pretty sure this view of the British authorities—that ideological differences and questioning authority make you a terrorist—is a central theme to the movie/graphic novel V for Vendetta.

    Remember, remember, the 5th of November, gunpowder treason and plot indeed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    AC Unknown (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 11:40am

    Re:

    You mean like Madagascar in the game Pandemic 2?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 12:09pm

    Re:

    "This site is obviously right because the writer says so."

    Actually the writer has stated an opinion. Are you not capable of weighing the presented facts and coming to your own conclusion? Because that's exactly what the author and (most) readers have done. If you manage to come up with one of your own, feel free to share it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Re: Why the surprise? That's always the view of inherited tyrants!

    1) Really? To you that's a stumper? Just because it's going to vary and change over time?

    2) If the corporation can lean on a state, it's too big, if the state can lean on a corporation it's not too big.

    3) Income that you do no work to get.

    4) How does anyone currently avoid the stigma of not paying their fair share. The fact that one pays more tax the richer one is, should be a badge of pride, somehow some people have managed to convince idiots that it's somehow unfair for those who do best out of society to contribute meaningfully to the society that has enabled them to do so well.

    5) In a capitalist society there really is no necessity whatsoever to encourage people to do business, they will chase profit, power and influence any chance they get. The big problem is reining them in so that you do cut off ways of doing so that are harmful to society. Slave Labour, Child Labour, low pay, terrible conditions, lack of health and safety measures etc.
    If corporations can get so big that they can get too big to fail without destroying a vast section of the society around them, there is a point where you don't actually want them to keep growing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 2:12pm

    Re:

    Of course not, because that's no secret.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 2:16pm

    The government has finally realized that Lobbying is just as evil as terrorism.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 2:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Why the surprise? That's always the view of inherited tyrants!

    1) Really? To you that's a stumper? Just because it's going to vary and change over time?

    Can you explain how you are going to codify such a thing?

    2) If the corporation can lean on a state, it's too big, if the state can lean on a corporation it's not too big.

    Also, how are you going to codify such a thing?

    3) Income that you do no work to get.

    Ok. So give me some examples then. Would property rents fall under your definition? Would a lending service, like a video store count?

    4) How does anyone currently avoid the stigma of not paying their fair share.

    We aren't talking about "fair share". Blue's notion is to "tax the hell out of the rich" simply because they were successful.

    5) In a capitalist society there really is no necessity whatsoever to encourage people to do business, they will chase profit, power and influence any chance they get.

    Yes, I know. But Blue wants to "tax the hell" out of corporations once they reach a certain size. How would you keep encouraging growth while at the same time punishing for too much growth?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 3:03pm

    A Toast to you Brits ! You need to rise up now ! Your Government is full of Police State Loving People and they need to be torn out of your lives.
    Dawn your V Masks and get out there on your Streets.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    OldMugwump (profile), Nov 4th, 2013 @ 4:07pm

    Re: Re: Why the surprise? That's always the view of inherited tyrants!

    1) Too rich = 2x my current income

    2) Too big = 2x bigger than any company I own

    3) Unearned income = income that I didn't think of a way to get

    4) I want there to be a stigma to "success" if "success" means I look bad in comparison. It's all about me looking better to the ladies - how am I supposed to compete against the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs?

    5) So, everybody would be poor. So what? The main thing is how I look to the ladies.

    /sarc

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    JustSomeGuy, Nov 4th, 2013 @ 4:18pm

    Hang on.

    OMG, I just realised that *I* carry something with me that might influence a government. Yes, folks, it's my vote.

    It's not *too* influential since it's only one of about 20 million but, were I in the US, I'd be using it to send a message to the f**ktards running the country :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 12:01am

    Re: Sweet!

    I'll RAISE a glass to this ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Paul Keating, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 2:23am

    "If you have any material which, if disclosed, might "influence a government," you are, by definition, a terrorist."

    FINALLY, a way to get rid of lobbyists.............!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 5:27am

    Re:

    It does sadly make you want to recommend that Brazilians are better off not visiting the UK.

    Maybe the Brazilian authorities can get some 'revenge' on UK-ers at the World Cup? Now, if they could indefinitely detain some Millwall/England supporters... ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    Niall (profile), Nov 5th, 2013 @ 5:29am

    Remember, Remember,

    The Fifth of November - Gunpowder, Treason and Plot...

    Hmm, lots of us buying explosives today, expressly to celebrate an attempt to 'influence' the government (into its constituent atoms)...

    Maybe they'd better ban fireworks!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 5th, 2013 @ 7:49am

    Secrets revealed would make us soil our pants

    a government official might be deemed a terrorist as well. Something is very broken if that's considered the actual standard in the law.

    You must have an awfully simplistic view of the world if you believe that the secrecy of governments and in particular our own isn't keeping us all alive even at this moment. You would spoil your pants as would we all if we knew everything going on. Its more, way more than we need to know. Enjoy your blog.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    observer, Nov 10th, 2013 @ 4:48am

    Re: Secrets revealed would make us soil our pants

    You've said too much. The black helicopters are coming for you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This