The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Saw a snippet of a story yesterday live on Sky and the BBC about allegations that the British Government had bugged the offices of the UN Secretary General during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion.
And there was somebody from the UN saying if this proved to be true, then it would be considered illegal under 4 or 5 unilaterally signed agreements? (I'm a bit shaky on the details, only caught the tail end of it)
Anybody else see this or was my paranoid commie mind playing tricks on me?
And there was somebody from the UN saying if this proved to be true, then it would be considered illegal under 4 or 5 unilaterally signed agreements? (I'm a bit shaky on the details, only caught the tail end of it)
Anybody else see this or was my paranoid commie mind playing tricks on me?
Page:
So basically the OSA is vague and not worth the paper it is written on? Good job we don't use it for anything important then...oh.
Belldandy wrote:
> Not the point, from what I've read the OSA, when a person signs it,
> sets out clearly what is expected of that person in regards to the
> information they will be given access to.
--------
I've had to read and sign the OSA for the work I'm currently doing, and it doesn't set out clearly what is expected of that person in regards to the information they will be given access to.
It says what could happen should you breach, and gives examples of the sorts of information you could be privy to. It offers guidelines of conduct, but the overall gist is to point out the penalties should you break the OSA.
As well as providing several instances where the act is irrelevant and shows you the areas and information guidelines that could fall outside of the remit.
It's all very non-interesting and hardly makes you feel like James Bond.
> Not the point, from what I've read the OSA, when a person signs it,
> sets out clearly what is expected of that person in regards to the
> information they will be given access to.
--------
I've had to read and sign the OSA for the work I'm currently doing, and it doesn't set out clearly what is expected of that person in regards to the information they will be given access to.
It says what could happen should you breach, and gives examples of the sorts of information you could be privy to. It offers guidelines of conduct, but the overall gist is to point out the penalties should you break the OSA.
As well as providing several instances where the act is irrelevant and shows you the areas and information guidelines that could fall outside of the remit.
It's all very non-interesting and hardly makes you feel like James Bond.
Did anybody watch the BBC news this morning on BBC 2?
Well they had an expert on, and he was very suspicious as to the validity of what she said.
Basically, he said she couldn't have seen the transcript, if it even existed.
He said, because she was a minister, she didn't have access to raw intelligence. Any transcript is just that, raw intellegence. The only thing she could have seen was an evaluation of any transcripts, ergo, according to this expert, she is probably either wrong, or telling lies.
Well they had an expert on, and he was very suspicious as to the validity of what she said.
Basically, he said she couldn't have seen the transcript, if it even existed.
He said, because she was a minister, she didn't have access to raw intelligence. Any transcript is just that, raw intellegence. The only thing she could have seen was an evaluation of any transcripts, ergo, according to this expert, she is probably either wrong, or telling lies.
Surely the only way these claims could be proven is by revealing yet more about British Intelligence, but most people who are remaining very sceptical about these claims are also the people who are insisting that British Intel has been damaged enough already by these claims...
Basically, I'm trying to say that the only way to prove these claims is to reveal more, and possibly endanger people. At present I don't see how this claim has directly endangered any British agents' lives, but to prove it true probably would. If it really is true and is a matter of conscience to Clare Short, isn't it possible she is telling the truth, yet cannot provide the proof as this will endanger people?
Basically, I'm trying to say that the only way to prove these claims is to reveal more, and possibly endanger people. At present I don't see how this claim has directly endangered any British agents' lives, but to prove it true probably would. If it really is true and is a matter of conscience to Clare Short, isn't it possible she is telling the truth, yet cannot provide the proof as this will endanger people?
Well, I guess ultimately we all have to follow our own beliefs, whether they be to stick to the rules, or believe some things are more important.
And I guess that has to extend to Al-Qaeda sympathisers. After all, even those 'monsters' are still just people, following their own chosen path.
And I guess that has to extend to Al-Qaeda sympathisers. After all, even those 'monsters' are still just people, following their own chosen path.
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> As for the OCA's rules? Hell, if they told you to run in front of a
> bus...
> There has to be a point when your conscience interviens. There *are*
> 'bad' laws...
Not the point, from what I've read the OSA, when a person signs it, sets out clearly what is expected of that person in regards to the information they will be given access to. If you sign then you acknowledge you understand those conditions. Short signed.
But, say she did it because of her conscience. Does that mean that if someone else has sympathies for Al Qaeda they can give information to them? Because it's exactly the same, except a different kind of conscience.
> As for the OCA's rules? Hell, if they told you to run in front of a
> bus...
> There has to be a point when your conscience interviens. There *are*
> 'bad' laws...
Not the point, from what I've read the OSA, when a person signs it, sets out clearly what is expected of that person in regards to the information they will be given access to. If you sign then you acknowledge you understand those conditions. Short signed.
But, say she did it because of her conscience. Does that mean that if someone else has sympathies for Al Qaeda they can give information to them? Because it's exactly the same, except a different kind of conscience.
*OSA :^)
Maybe not, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
Then again, a large slice of the media seems to have turned on Short rather than Blair. Not sure if they feel the constant Blair-bashing is getting boring or they're genuinely behind the government. The latter seems most logical I suppose, but I just can't quite believe they don't give a tosh about the allegations...
As for the OCA's rules? Hell, if they told you to run in front of a bus...
There has to be a point when your conscience interviens. There *are* 'bad' laws...
Then again, a large slice of the media seems to have turned on Short rather than Blair. Not sure if they feel the constant Blair-bashing is getting boring or they're genuinely behind the government. The latter seems most logical I suppose, but I just can't quite believe they don't give a tosh about the allegations...
As for the OCA's rules? Hell, if they told you to run in front of a bus...
There has to be a point when your conscience interviens. There *are* 'bad' laws...
But her actions won't prevent similar from happening again. it's not even proven that it happened this time! You really think that the whining of an ex minister is going to change security policy?
Skarra wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> The OSA doesn't contain get out clauses does it? If we allow people
> to break it based purely on their own conscience and morality where
> does that leave us? With intelligence agencies that cannot be
> trusted
> to operate effectively. As it is, if this is true, Short's
> accusation
> could lead to the cover of at least on person being blown - for her
> political gain.
I agree with Bell here.
The OSA doesn't say, keep our secrets, unless you believe otherwise.
> Belldandy wrote:
> The OSA doesn't contain get out clauses does it? If we allow people
> to break it based purely on their own conscience and morality where
> does that leave us? With intelligence agencies that cannot be
> trusted
> to operate effectively. As it is, if this is true, Short's
> accusation
> could lead to the cover of at least on person being blown - for her
> political gain.
I agree with Bell here.
The OSA doesn't say, keep our secrets, unless you believe otherwise.
Page: