Which begs the question, what on earth were C4 news doing stating that "Theresa May and the PM both knew a journalist was going to be detained under terrorism legislation, but did nothing to prevent it. In fact they defend David Miranda's interrogation on national security grounds, saying they can't interfere in police operations".
PoliticsHome @politicshome 5m Lord Carlile on @BBCNews: "[more effective to have subjected Miranda] to the very clear powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act"
Thats the problem Cameron and May have, why did they not point that out when pre warned?
Oh for Christ's sake, Cameron and May are supposed to be experts on the Police & Criminal Evidence Act? You're obviously not either, or you'd have thought of that one yesterday. As well as interfering with operational decisions of the police!
They were briefed as a heads up on the basis that (a) it's to do with national security and a case that Whitehall is showing interest in at the highest level and (b) that it's likely to be controversial and in the press or on the TV news. You would expect ministers to say "thanks for letting us know" and then let the Met get on with it.
You'd think politicans at that level would recognise that using terrorism laws in this way is likely to undermine those terrorism laws wouldn't you?
The use, or otherwise of these laws is 100% an operational matter for the police. If No 10 or May had doubts about the operation when they were informed then they needed to keep those doubts to themself. If the police have used the law inappropriately, yes it will undermine it - but it would have been absolubtely wrong for anyone in Gov't to stop the operation.
The correct response at the time is absolutely 'Thank-you for letting us know' - Not 'Go ahead' or 'Stop' or get into a debate about PACE and the terrorism laws. Cameron and May seem to have acted entirely properly - the police, perhaps not.
The lack of change in speed limit on the motorways probably relects the green agenda. Fuel efficiency is much greater at 65 than 85 mph. The USA 55 mph speed limit came in as a fuel saving measure in the 73 oil crisis, but was kept because of safety issues. It was later made up to 65 on freeways, pre 74 some states had no upper speed limit, the heyday of Detroit Muscle cars.
Off topic. Any strong PB views on motorway top speeds? ... I'd propose we set to 90mph and then rigidly enforce it - rather than having a silly limit that is widely ignored. I suspect this would play very well politically too. (Cue nannystater outrage)
It is 120 kph on Irish motorways, too.
In general I think it is a sound principle not to have laws that are widely flouted - as the motorway speed limit currently is.
I'd be okay with increasing the speed limit if it were properly enforced, but I don't know how feasible that is, given how widely ignored the current limit is. I wonder whether there is any connection between our relatively low speed limit and our relatively low rate of road fatalities.
In my experience one of the main limiting factors to my speed on motorways is not the 70mph limit, but the sheer weight of lorry traffic. If you could encourage a quarter of freight traffic on to the railways then you would do a lot to make motorways move more quickly.
Does anyone know why the government backed away from their proposal to increase motorway speed limits? Were they frightened off by projections on the number of extra deaths it would cause?
To be fair, we don't really know that that sturdy yeomen of Balcombe are against fracking, do we? We know that they are against fracking in Balcombe, which is not quite the same thing (not that anyone is proposing any fracking in Balcombe, but that's by the by).
Which begs the question, what on earth were C4 news doing stating that "Theresa May and the PM both knew a journalist was going to be detained under terrorism legislation, but did nothing to prevent it. In fact they defend David Miranda's interrogation on national security grounds, saying they can't interfere in police operations?!"
PoliticsHome @politicshome 5m Lord Carlile on @BBCNews: "[more effective to have subjected Miranda] to the very clear powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act"
Thats the problem Cameron and May have, why did they not point that out when pre warned?
Oh for Christ's sake, Cameron and May are supposed to be experts on the Police & Criminal Evidence Act? You're obviously not either, or you'd have thought of that one yesterday. As well as interfering with operational decisions of the police!
They were briefed as a heads up on the basis that (a) it's to do with national security and a case that Whitehall is showing interest in at the highest level and (b) that it's likely to be controversial and in the press or on the TV news. You would expect ministers to say "thanks for letting us know" and then let the Met get on with it.
You'd think politicans at that level would recognise that using terrorism laws in this way is likely to undermine those terrorism laws wouldn't you?
The use, or otherwise of these laws is 100% an operational matter for the police. If No 10 or May had doubts about the operation when they were informed then they needed to keep those doubts to themself. If the police have used the law inappropriately, yes it will undermine it - but it would have been absolubtely wrong for anyone in Gov't to stop the operation.
The correct response at the time is absolutely 'Thank-you for letting us know' - Not 'Go ahead' or 'Stop' or get into a debate about PACE and the terrorism laws. Cameron and May seem to have acted entirely properly - the police, perhaps not.
Bar the occasional and very good bit of investigative reporting C4 are hilariously biased. It's Guardian TV. The only reason they did an expose on the Plebgate story is because they hate coppers more than Tories.
If the motorway speed was upped to 90mph as you suggest it should be applied retrospectively to offences committed on the M11 in 2003?
As I understand it, the offence committed in that instance was a driver doing 69mph on a stretch with a temporary speed limit of 50mph - so a change in the standard speed limit to 80 or 90mph would not have had any effect on that incident...
Neil points to the Parish Council survey recieved 296 responses of which the overwhelming majority objected to Cuadrilla
You point to the fact that population of Balcombe is 1750. Therefore, with a turnout of only 17%, the Parish Council 'poll' is wholly unrepresentative of the residents as a whole.
Local Council elections get smaller turnouts. The police crime commissioners were elected on turnout under 15%.
Your statement has implications.
Local election turnouts every May are always above 30%. Agree about the PCCs - these should have been held this May not last November.
Local by-elections get dismal turnout. You can be elected with the support of less than 5% of the electorate.
The idea that this poll is invalid because it queries 17% of the electorate is absurd.
Hold on a sec, I didn't contend it was "invalid" merely that the low turnout should be taken into account when decisions are being taken. Moreover, the poll has no legal standing unlike elections to statutory bodies such as local Councils or indeed to Parliament. Are you advocating a minumum legal turnout for either or both?
I think on reflection you'll agree that "wholly unrepresentative" goes a touch further than "low turnout should be taken into account".
As polls go, it's a pretty big sample. Certainly more than the polls we discuss ad nauseum here. I am not advocating minimum legal turnouts. Clearly you would take a harder line given half a chance.
Anyway, enough gladiatorial combat! I hope you and yours are well and have passed a pleasant summer.
The lack of change in speed limit on the motorways probably relects the green agenda.
I think it's fairer to say that the sidelining of the proposed increase in speed limit reflects the safety agenda (if this and similar reports are to be believed):
What Miranda appears to have been suspected of is stealing information that may be of interest to terrorists. Which to a layman sounds like it is probably covered by "involved with terrorism"
Would people please stop messing with the English language? Yesterday people were trying to redefine terrorism to cover acts of journalism, and now @JohnLiburne is trying to turn "layman" into a synonym for "fuckwit".
I see Southam is now repeating tim's line that Boris is a typical immigrant.
As Southam is a cricket fan he will be aware that there have always been British people who were born overseas to British parents (see the list of English cricket captains as evidence).
Unless there's some evidence that the number of British people born overseas to British parents has dramatically increased during the last generation then British people born overseas to British parents aren't going to affect the immigrant workers stats.
Because one year's worth of British people born overseas to British parents will drop out of the employment stats when they retire to be replaced by a year's worth of British people born overseas to British parents who enter the workforce.
Which begs the question, what on earth were C4 news doing stating that "Theresa May and the PM both knew a journalist was going to be detained under terrorism legislation, but did nothing to prevent it. In fact they defend David Miranda's interrogation on national security grounds, saying they can't interfere in police operations".
PoliticsHome @politicshome 5m Lord Carlile on @BBCNews: "[more effective to have subjected Miranda] to the very clear powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act"
Thats the problem Cameron and May have, why did they not point that out when pre warned?
Oh for Christ's sake, Cameron and May are supposed to be experts on the Police & Criminal Evidence Act? You're obviously not either, or you'd have thought of that one yesterday. As well as interfering with operational decisions of the police!
They were briefed as a heads up on the basis that (a) it's to do with national security and a case that Whitehall is showing interest in at the highest level and (b) that it's likely to be controversial and in the press or on the TV news. You would expect ministers to say "thanks for letting us know" and then let the Met get on with it.
You'd think politicans at that level would recognise that using terrorism laws in this way is likely to undermine those terrorism laws wouldn't you?
The use, or otherwise of these laws is 100% an operational matter for the police. If No 10 or May had doubts about the operation when they were informed then they needed to keep those doubts to themself. If the police have used the law inappropriately, yes it will undermine it - but it would have been absolubtely wrong for anyone in Gov't to stop the operation.
The correct response at the time is absolutely 'Thank-you for letting us know' - Not 'Go ahead' or 'Stop' or get into a debate about PACE and the terrorism laws. Cameron and May seem to have acted entirely properly - the police, perhaps not.
That is piss poor, shoddy, and downright misleading journalism. There is a story here, but it is not about Cameron or May.
The lack of change in speed limit on the motorways probably relects the green agenda.
I think it's fairer to say that the sidelining of the proposed increase in speed limit reflects the safety agenda (if this and similar reports are to be believed):
The borrowing figures look to be more-or-less in line with the profile expected based on the March budget estimates. Were you expecting something radically different?
No, I was expecting "stalled" deficit reduction and increased spending.
The Public Finances Bulletin this morning is very deceptive in the figures it reveals, partly for the reasons discussed last night but also because of changed departmental expenditure phasing and most significantly because of a massive increase in public sector investment.
Tax receipts (cumulative to date 2013-4) are up by well over 5%.
The Public Sector Current Budget (PSCB) has improved from -£30.1bn in 2012-13 to -19.2bn when Apr-Jul last year is compared to this. That is a massive 36.2% improvement on the current budget, the most important of the various 'deficit' measures (it is the target for the Primary Fiscal Mandate, once cyclically adjusted).
Expenditure was higher in July than forecast but this is being explained by Gauke as phasing anomalies which will reverse out as the year progresses. (The OBR commentary due out about now should explain further).
Apart from the 'dropping out' of most of the Bank of England transfer in July (discussed last night), the figure that stares you in the face when looking at the figures is the increase in Public Sector Net Investment (PSNI). In Apr-Jul 2012-13 PSNI was -£22.9bn. For the same period this year it is +£5.6, showing an increase in net investment of £28.4bn.
The public sector finances are clearly much, much healthier than the headline figures suggest. But interesting to note that George is hiding the surplus by pouring it all into new investment.
Is this a political move or just a accounts phasing issue. More works needs to be done to answer that question.
But whatever the answer, today's bulletin is most defintiely good news..
The lack of change in speed limit on the motorways probably relects the green agenda.
I think it's fairer to say that the sidelining of the proposed increase in speed limit reflects the safety agenda (if this and similar reports are to be believed):
@Jonathan - Thks: no, as I mentioned in my first post on the subject, I believe the company should have done far far more in engaging the local community and should now do so and be consistent and responsive in so doing. And, perhaps through the planning or licensing process, Balcombe should have some funding hypothecated for local projects etc.
But I would not give them or other hamlets the right of veto on whether a development can proceed.
All quiet on the Hersham front....but I have now to attend the funeral of a much loved former Mayor - an absolutely delightful lady - who passed away recently aged 92.
@Jonathan - Thks: no, as I mentioned in my first post on the subject, I believe the company should have done far far more in engaging the local community and should now do so and be consistent and responsive in so doing. And, perhaps through the planning or licensing process, Balcombe should have some funding hypothecated for local projects etc.
But I would not give them or other hamlets the right of veto on whether a development can proceed.
All quiet on the Hersham front....but I have now to attend the funeral of a much loved former Mayor - an absolutely delightful lady - who passed away recently aged 92.
Commiserations for your friend the mayor.
On Balcombe, I think communities are entitled to be compensated for the costs and to share directly in the benefits. And surely someone must have the democratic power to say no. Do you really see that as solely a Westminster thing?
@tim - Chillax, there's only one sentence you need to take any notice of in the OBR document:
However, four months’ data provides only a limited guide to likely trends over the rest of the year, since outturn data for central government spending, and local authority and public corporations borrowing can be volatile on a monthly basis and prone to revisions
In other words, only a prize fool takes any notice of variations in the phasing of spending over a few months of the year.
I've been through the list of 333 candidates already selected for the next election and IMO 47 of them are very likely to be elected at the next election:
All are incumbents except Karin Smyth in Bristol South and Vicky Foxcroft in Lewisham Deptford.
The main debatable one was including Lancaster in Milton Keynes North but not Wilson in Reading East (only a slightly difference in majority).
Of course some might argue that a system where 47 people have already effectively sealed their place in the next parliament is a rotten one, although with a list system that's also true for those at the top of the ballot paper.
In the old days the (unlamented) Standards Board could get you chucked off for something like that (particularly with everything else our favourite "Arsenal fan" has done). ALmost worth campaigning for it to be brought back temporarily. What does Brian do next year when he is off the Council, the GLA and the LFEPA? Become a WAG?
His term expires around the time the Indy Ref campaign begins in earnest.
For those of us holding betting slips that Scotland votes to leave The Union next year, I can only hope the no side hire him as a consultant.
@tim - Chillax, there's only one sentence you need to take any notice of in the OBR document:
However, four months’ data provides only a limited guide to likely trends over the rest of the year, since outturn data for central government spending, and local authority and public corporations borrowing can be volatile on a monthly basis and prone to revisions
In other words, only a prize fool takes any notice of variations in the phasing of spending over a few months of the year.
The paragraph in the OBR commentary which tim will most appreciate is as follows:
Abstracting from both APF transfers and the Swiss capital tax, receipts growth for the year-to-date is 3.2 per cent compared with a full year forecast of 2.4 per cent. This comparison has been helped by a year-on-year rise of over 25 per cent in stamp duty land tax receipts so far in 2013-14. This is well ahead of the 12.2 per cent full year forecast. Receipts have benefited from the strong rise in house prices in London, up 8.1 per cent in the year to June according to the ONS. London accounts for almost 40 per cent of overall stamp duty, due to the larger proportion of residential properties in London that are subject to the 3, 5 or 7 per cent rates.
@Jonathan - Thks: no, as I mentioned in my first post on the subject, I believe the company should have done far far more in engaging the local community and should now do so and be consistent and responsive in so doing. And, perhaps through the planning or licensing process, Balcombe should have some funding hypothecated for local projects etc.
But I would not give them or other hamlets the right of veto on whether a development can proceed.
All quiet on the Hersham front....but I have now to attend the funeral of a much loved former Mayor - an absolutely delightful lady - who passed away recently aged 92.
Commiserations for your friend the mayor.
On Balcombe, I think communities are entitled to be compensated for the costs and to share directly in the benefits. And surely someone must have the democratic power to say no. Do you really see that as solely a Westminster thing?
Thats an age old problem, should people under the Heathrow flight path have a veto or should the wider area be consulted on expansion, and what should that area be?
I would probably devolve power to local authorities. Let them take responsibility for the initial decision. But retain the power for parliament to overturn specific decisions in the national interest. That would cover Heathrow.
In the case of Balcombe, I am sure the local authority would have approved. And if the people didn't like, they could vote them out.
The advantage of such a system is that someone is clearly responsible. And in the case where the whole country is individually against X,Y or Z it becomes quite costly for parliament to overrule.
In the case of shale gas, if it is so beneficial and safe, the case will clearly be made and people will naturally want it.
I used to follow one of the UKIP forums for a few years when previous rounds of internal fighting were a regular feature of discussion. Mr Gilpin is but one in a very long line of people who have tried without success to help put various areas of the UKIP party organisation onto a far more professional footing before finally giving up and standing down. Like others before him, he walks away disillusioned and critical of Farage as a major roadblock to such reform. Be interesting to see the kind of staff turn over UKIP has experienced over the last decade at this level.
As an existing member of UKIP it is interesting to me that Farage is both the main benefit and the main problem for the party. At the last leadership elections I voted for Tim Congdon who seemed to have both the right ideas for the party and the necessary organisational and interpersonal skills to keep everyone on board and help the party advance. To my mind Farage made a huge error in moving back from a very important party spokesman/figurehead role at which he is brilliant into the leadership role. where he has made too many enemies in the past.
I suppose in a way I have been proved wrong by the results of the May elections and the increasing polling support for UKIP but I can't help but think that would have happened anyway and that Farage in his current role might be hindering rather than helping the growth of the party.
There was a profile/interview with Mr Farage recently (Observer?) where he said his attitude changed after the plane accident in 2010.
Prior to the council elections he repeatedly said people should judge UKIP by their results in the coming elections. He certainly appears focused to me.
Its not focus that is the issue, its the ability to work with others, delegate authority and trust those around him. In spite of recent improvements UKIP is still very largely a one man band. Certainly no one who has any serious disagreement with Farage seems to have much chance of remaining in the party. . That cannot be a healthy situation for any political party.
What Miranda appears to have been suspected of is stealing information that may be of interest to terrorists. Which to a layman sounds like it is probably covered by "involved with terrorism"
Would people please stop messing with the English language? Yesterday people were trying to redefine terrorism to cover acts of journalism, and now @JohnLiburne is trying to turn "layman" into a synonym for "fuckwit".
Well, to use tim's analogy, if you suspect someone has stolen a bag of fertiliser you nick him. If you find he has already put half of it on his roses, you probably charge him with theft. If you discover he lives in a high-rise flat and is regarded as a bit of a nutter down the local mosque, you might take it more seriously. Similarly someone who might have stolen sensitive information that might be of interest to terrorist.
In any case, it is the law which defines words strangely, not me. Legally, the fact that I have information in my possession that would be of use to terrorists might mean I am "involved with" terrorism, or it might not.
I see Southam is now repeating tim's line that Boris is a typical immigrant.
As Southam is a cricket fan he will be aware that there have always been British people who were born overseas to British parents (see the list of English cricket captains as evidence).
Unless there's some evidence that the number of British people born overseas to British parents has dramatically increased during the last generation then British people born overseas to British parents aren't going to affect the immigrant workers stats.
Because one year's worth of British people born overseas to British parents will drop out of the employment stats when they retire to be replaced by a year's worth of British people born overseas to British parents who enter the workforce.
Well, indeed. Which is why labelling Brits born overseas immigrants is so misleading/dishonest.
The UK-Swiss Tax Treaty has been the subject of much discussion this year. In March, the OBR put into their Economic and Fiscal Outllook (EFO) report a massive slug of £3.2bn receipts as their estimate of the full year yield to the Treasury from Swiss Banks.
This was widely criticised in the media and by the Swiss Banks themselves and as a result the ONS and OBR removed the forecast by counter-entry in subsequent monthly figures.
Speculation was that the yield may not exceed the initial payment of just over £300m paid up front by the Swiss Banks.
Well, there has been no miracle discovery of unpaid tax by the Swiss Banks, but early fear-mongering appears to have been overstated. The Swiss Banks have made a further payment bring total receipts to over £600m in the fiscal year to date.
The OBR is promising to update their full year forecast before their September EFO following completion of further investigations.
The problem is, our political system seems to require the same person to provide both the executive and campaigning leads.
You probably don't have anyone who can do both well, so you should have an executive Chairman who is responsible for party organisation, and a Leader who is responsible for campaigning.
It probably works the same way in government - there are probably good people who would be great as ministers other than the fact they would be presentationally useless in the Commons.
That makes a lot of sense, but which is the local authority, London or Hillingdon? One of the major arguments for decent sized local authorities/regions is that they tend to take more responsibility for their whole area rather than Liverpool vs Manchester or Portsmouth vs Southampton style bollocks.
In towns, the town council. Outside towns, the county.
I used to follow one of the UKIP forums for a few years when previous rounds of internal fighting were a regular feature of discussion. Mr Gilpin is but one in a very long line of people who have tried without success to help put various areas of the UKIP party organisation onto a far more professional footing before finally giving up and standing down. Like others before him, he walks away disillusioned and critical of Farage as a major roadblock to such reform. Be interesting to see the kind of staff turn over UKIP has experienced over the last decade at this level.
As an existing member of UKIP it is interesting to me that Farage is both the main benefit and the main problem for the party. At the last leadership elections I voted for Tim Congdon who seemed to have both the right ideas for the party and the necessary organisational and interpersonal skills to keep everyone on board and help the party advance. To my mind Farage made a huge error in moving back from a very important party spokesman/figurehead role at which he is brilliant into the leadership role. where he has made too many enemies in the past.
I suppose in a way I have been proved wrong by the results of the May elections and the increasing polling support for UKIP but I can't help but think that would have happened anyway and that Farage in his current role might be hindering rather than helping the growth of the party.
There was a profile/interview with Mr Farage recently (Observer?) where he said his attitude changed after the plane accident in 2010.
Prior to the council elections he repeatedly said people should judge UKIP by their results in the coming elections. He certainly appears focused to me.
its the ability to work with others, delegate authority and trust those around him
You seem to be reading a lot into one man's departure.
The underlying political equilibrium has barely changed in over a year: 35-40% of voters favour Labour, giving them a small but consistent lead over the Tories, who are settled in the low 30′s. This balance of forces won’t be shifted by funding fights, racist vans, NHS rows or any of the other emphemera that excite our columnists headline writers yet barely register with the average voter. Our fellow polling analyst Nate Silver has observed: that “most political pundits are completely useless”, and systematic research in the US suggests he is right. Readers looking for clues on the prospects for the main parties would be well advised to ignore the spin put on the polling by the professional tea-leaf readers in the op-ed section, and just focus on the data itself. The signals are there, but often all the pundits add is noise.
Several things spring to mind: 1) The Guardian were keeping sensitive data on a laptop. That may or may not be the best place, depending on the set-up. 2) They used angle grinders. There are much better ways to get rid of computers that stored confidential data: I can only assume that it was agreed that the computer could not be removed from the Guardian's offices, and an grinder was the best way of doing that. 3) Are there any guarantees that the data is not stored elsewhere within the Guardian?
The hard drive was destroyed on July 20th. Could the MirandaMess be a result of Guardian journalists trying to regain the data? In other words, might the data sticks contain the same information that they had before?
Several things spring to mind: 1) The Guardian were keeping sensitive data on a laptop. That may or may not be the best place, depending on the set-up. 2) They used angle grinders. There are much better ways to get rid of computers that stored confidential data: I can only assume that it was agreed that the computer could not be removed from the Guardian's offices, and an grinder was the best way of doing that. 3) Are there any guarantees that the data is not stored elsewhere within the Guardian?
The hard drive was destroyed on July 20th. Could the MirandaMess be a result of Guardian journalists trying to regain the data? In other words, might the data sticks contain the same information that they had before?
Rule 1 of computers, if it's important then have it backed up in a second, totally separate place.
I used to follow one of the UKIP forums for a few years when previous rounds of internal fighting were a regular feature of discussion. Mr Gilpin is but one in a very long line of people who have tried without success to help put various areas of the UKIP party organisation onto a far more professional footing before finally giving up and standing down. Like others before him, he walks away disillusioned and critical of Farage as a major roadblock to such reform. Be interesting to see the kind of staff turn over UKIP has experienced over the last decade at this level.
As an existing member of UKIP it is interesting to me that Farage is both the main benefit and the main problem for the party. At the last leadership elections I voted for Tim Congdon who seemed to have both the right ideas for the party and the necessary organisational and interpersonal skills to keep everyone on board and help the party advance. To my mind Farage made a huge error in moving back from a very important party spokesman/figurehead role at which he is brilliant into the leadership role. where he has made too many enemies in the past.
I suppose in a way I have been proved wrong by the results of the May elections and the increasing polling support for UKIP but I can't help but think that would have happened anyway and that Farage in his current role might be hindering rather than helping the growth of the party.
There was a profile/interview with Mr Farage recently (Observer?) where he said his attitude changed after the plane accident in 2010.
Prior to the council elections he repeatedly said people should judge UKIP by their results in the coming elections. He certainly appears focused to me.
its the ability to work with others, delegate authority and trust those around him
You seem to be reading a lot into one man's departure.
If only it were just one man. There have been many people who have found themselves unable to work with Farage and who have left. It certainly no longer surprises me when it happens.
Twitter Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 23h Don't get it. The liberal left are happy for people to wander round with our most sensitive state secrets, but not a copy of "Loaded".
Several things spring to mind: 1) The Guardian were keeping sensitive data on a laptop. That may or may not be the best place, depending on the set-up. 2) They used angle grinders. There are much better ways to get rid of computers that stored confidential data: I can only assume that it was agreed that the computer could not be removed from the Guardian's offices, and an grinder was the best way of doing that. 3) Are there any guarantees that the data is not stored elsewhere within the Guardian?
The hard drive was destroyed on July 20th. Could the MirandaMess be a result of Guardian journalists trying to regain the data? In other words, might the data sticks contain the same information that they had before?
Rule 1 of computers, if it's important then have it backed up in a second, totally separate place.
Greenwald doesn't seem to be particularly good at this stuff. The Snowden story apparently got held up for weeks because he couldn't figure out how to set up the encryption software Snowden wanted to use to talk to him (PGP). So it's not unthinkable that they'd have overlooked Rule 1 of computers.
Likewise, if the document mule story is true and Greenwald thought his data would be safer going through airport security than over the internet, that's another strong sign that he doesn't know what he's doing.
I'm sure Snowden would have adequate backups, if it's his data, though.
In the grand scale of stories - I'd expect more actual traction from 12% of all magistrate cases being BBC TV licence fee prosecutions than Guardian story about someone's Brazilian boyfriend.
Let's wait and see. I assume the BBC would prefer to talk about the Guardian.
Greenwald doesn't seem to be particularly good at this stuff. The Snowden story apparently got held up for weeks because he couldn't figure out how to set up the encryption software Snowden wanted to use to talk to him (PGP). So it's not unthinkable that they'd have overlooked Rule 1 of computers.
More to the point, it's extremely likely that he'll have made one or more humoungous security blunders - even experts often leave holes, and that's after spending a lot of effort on security audits. No wonder GCHQ and the NSA are frantic about the risk of this stuff ending up somewhere hostile.
The fact that Greenwald doesn't even seem to know the difference between the UK and England doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his grasp of nitty-gritty realities.
Greenwald doesn't seem to be particularly good at this stuff. The Snowden story apparently got held up for weeks because he couldn't figure out how to set up the encryption software Snowden wanted to use to talk to him (PGP). So it's not unthinkable that they'd have overlooked Rule 1 of computers.
Likewise, if the document mule story is true and Greenwald thought his data would be safer going through airport security than over the internet, that's another strong sign that he doesn't know what he's doing.
I'm sure Snowden would have adequate backups, if it's his data, though.
The problem is (and the Guardian showed this over their releasing the Wikileaks password) that if you don't such understand basics, you can't understand security.
It is all too easy to create a copy of the data 'just in case', which then gets thrown into a bag or desk drawer. Security is hard to learn when it goes against ingrained habits; it is best taught to employees as early as possible. There is also a fundamental lack of understanding of encryption, of when it can be applied, and how it should be applied. I'm not exactly an expert on that, but I know enough to ask someone who is an expert before I do anything dangerous.
Who (aside from us techies) knew there was a European standard for data destruction?
Several things spring to mind: 1) The Guardian were keeping sensitive data on a laptop. That may or may not be the best place, depending on the set-up. 2) They used angle grinders. There are much better ways to get rid of computers that stored confidential data: I can only assume that it was agreed that the computer could not be removed from the Guardian's offices, and an grinder was the best way of doing that. 3) Are there any guarantees that the data is not stored elsewhere within the Guardian?
The hard drive was destroyed on July 20th. Could the MirandaMess be a result of Guardian journalists trying to regain the data? In other words, might the data sticks contain the same information that they had before?
Rule 1 of computers, if it's important then have it backed up in a second, totally separate place.
Greenwald doesn't seem to be particularly good at this stuff. The Snowden story apparently got held up for weeks because he couldn't figure out how to set up the encryption software Snowden wanted to use to talk to him (PGP). So it's not unthinkable that they'd have overlooked Rule 1 of computers.
Likewise, if the document mule story is true and Greenwald thought his data would be safer going through airport security than over the internet, that's another strong sign that he doesn't know what he's doing.
I'm sure Snowden would have adequate backups, if it's his data, though.
Miranda's whole defence seems to be that he had no idea what documents he was carrying - he must be pretty thick so let's hope he never tries changing planes in Peru.
More on the smashing-computers event at the Guardian:
Could the MirandaMess be a result of Guardian journalists trying to regain the data? In other words, might the data sticks contain the same information that they had before?
Idle speculation. - I doubt we will ever really know what was retrieved at Heathrow, or if anything at all.
However, nor do I think the Guardian Mule was just sent to Berlin on a site seeing trip before returning to Rio.
We’ll have to wait until the film is released – no doubt starring Benedict Cumberbatch.
In the grand scale of stories - I'd expect more actual traction from 12% of all magistrate cases being BBC TV licence fee prosecutions than Guardian story about someone's Brazilian boyfriend.
Let's wait and see. I assume the BBC would prefer to talk about the Guardian.
UKIP call for BBC non-payment to be made a civil not criminal offence
The revelation that 10% of all criminal prosecutions, 180,000 per year are for non-payment of the BBC license fee is horrifying, said Lord Pearson, the UKIP leader in the House of Lords.
The former leader of UKIP is calling for major reform of the way in which the license fee is protected by turning any non-payment offence from the Criminal Justice system to the Civil system.
“It is outrageous that so many people are brought in to the criminal justicesystem through this means. I believe that non payment should be treated in the way that parking tickets are.”
“It is absurd that the courts are being clogged up by such a minor offence” he said.
Lord Pearson’ Bill received its first reading on the 30th of July.
It is calling for this reform and for the Trustees of the BBC to be elected by the license fee payers.
In the grand scale of stories - I'd expect more actual traction from 12% of all magistrate cases being BBC TV licence fee prosecutions than Guardian story about someone's Brazilian boyfriend.
Let's wait and see. I assume the BBC would prefer to talk about the Guardian.
UKIP call for BBC non-payment to be made a civil not criminal offence
The revelation that 10% of all criminal prosecutions, 180,000 per year are for non-payment of the BBC license fee is horrifying, said Lord Pearson, the UKIP leader in the House of Lords.
The former leader of UKIP is calling for major reform of the way in which the license fee is protected by turning any non-payment offence from the Criminal Justice system to the Civil system.
“It is outrageous that so many people are brought in to the criminal justicesystem through this means. I believe that non payment should be treated in the way that parking tickets are.”
“It is absurd that the courts are being clogged up by such a minor offence” he said.
Lord Pearson’ Bill received its first reading on the 30th of July.
It is calling for this reform and for the Trustees of the BBC to be elected by the license fee payers.
That might be a good 'better off with UKIP' offer come the election.
Come on Richard Dave thought Britain was the junior partner in the Battle Of Britain, let's not judge a man by something like that eh? Oh OK then, lets
Well, for that matter I wouldn't trust Dave to set up, on his own, a security system capable of repelling foreign security services, Chinese hackers, Gary McKinnon, Al Quaeda and the Mafia.
In the grand scale of stories - I'd expect more actual traction from 12% of all magistrate cases being BBC TV licence fee prosecutions than Guardian story about someone's Brazilian boyfriend.
Let's wait and see. I assume the BBC would prefer to talk about the Guardian.
UKIP call for BBC non-payment to be made a civil not criminal offence
The revelation that 10% of all criminal prosecutions, 180,000 per year are for non-payment of the BBC license fee is horrifying, said Lord Pearson, the UKIP leader in the House of Lords.
The former leader of UKIP is calling for major reform of the way in which the license fee is protected by turning any non-payment offence from the Criminal Justice system to the Civil system.
“It is outrageous that so many people are brought in to the criminal justicesystem through this means. I believe that non payment should be treated in the way that parking tickets are.”
“It is absurd that the courts are being clogged up by such a minor offence” he said.
Lord Pearson’ Bill received its first reading on the 30th of July.
It is calling for this reform and for the Trustees of the BBC to be elected by the license fee payers.
That might be a good 'better off with UKIP' offer come the election.
The licence poll tax is an anachronism which cannot survive much longer in the internet age. Its demise would prove an interesting test of the true popularity of the BBC.
In the grand scale of stories - I'd expect more actual traction from 12% of all magistrate cases being BBC TV licence fee prosecutions than Guardian story about someone's Brazilian boyfriend.
Let's wait and see. I assume the BBC would prefer to talk about the Guardian.
UKIP call for BBC non-payment to be made a civil not criminal offence
The revelation that 10% of all criminal prosecutions, 180,000 per year are for non-payment of the BBC license fee is horrifying, said Lord Pearson, the UKIP leader in the House of Lords.
The former leader of UKIP is calling for major reform of the way in which the license fee is protected by turning any non-payment offence from the Criminal Justice system to the Civil system.
“It is outrageous that so many people are brought in to the criminal justicesystem through this means. I believe that non payment should be treated in the way that parking tickets are.”
“It is absurd that the courts are being clogged up by such a minor offence” he said.
Lord Pearson’ Bill received its first reading on the 30th of July.
It is calling for this reform and for the Trustees of the BBC to be elected by the license fee payers.
That might be a good 'better off with UKIP' offer come the election.
The licence poll tax is an anachronism which cannot survive much longer in the internet age. Its demise would prove an interesting test of the true popularity of the BBC.
Who will end it? The Conservatives don't seem to want to.
Another Dave..Unfortunately all Those who vote for UKIP at the GE are guaranteeing a Labour Govt, which will not touch the BBC or give a Referendum on the EU.
@MikeL - “UKIP call for BBC non-payment to be made a civil not criminal offence”
Presumably in so doing, each case brought by the BBC would be both time consuming, expensive and fraught with politically embarrassing consequences as yet another old gal is dragged off to the cashpoint?
Another Dave..Unfortunately all Those who vote for UKIP at the GE are guaranteeing a Labour Govt, which will not touch the BBC or give a Referendum on the EU.
Pish. If enough of us vote UKIP, we'll have a UKIP government!
In the grand scale of stories - I'd expect more actual traction from 12% of all magistrate cases being BBC TV licence fee prosecutions than Guardian story about someone's Brazilian boyfriend.
Let's wait and see. I assume the BBC would prefer to talk about the Guardian.
UKIP call for BBC non-payment to be made a civil not criminal offence
The revelation that 10% of all criminal prosecutions, 180,000 per year are for non-payment of the BBC license fee is horrifying, said Lord Pearson, the UKIP leader in the House of Lords.
The former leader of UKIP is calling for major reform of the way in which the license fee is protected by turning any non-payment offence from the Criminal Justice system to the Civil system.
“It is outrageous that so many people are brought in to the criminal justicesystem through this means. I believe that non payment should be treated in the way that parking tickets are.”
“It is absurd that the courts are being clogged up by such a minor offence” he said.
Lord Pearson’ Bill received its first reading on the 30th of July.
It is calling for this reform and for the Trustees of the BBC to be elected by the license fee payers.
That might be a good 'better off with UKIP' offer come the election.
The licence poll tax is an anachronism which cannot survive much longer in the internet age. Its demise would prove an interesting test of the true popularity of the BBC.
Whether you like the TVLF or not - its a huge waste of court time for 12% of all cases to be prosecuting non-payment. It's 1 in 8 FFS.
For a telly tax? It is also very regressive since its flat and has no regard for ability to pay even if you watch just ITV which arguably aims at the CDE audience more.
I hope this provides the necessary catalyst to overhaul this post -war anachronism. All the frustration with *real* criminals would at least be ameliorated by making it a civil offence like not paying a credit card bill.
Another Dave.. Pish to you too ..tthat will not happen .. you might get a few MP's but you will not be in charge of the government, even the PB idi*ts can see that .. so your vote will put Ed in number 10..No EU Ref , no change at the BBC..
Another Dave..Unfortunately all Those who vote for UKIP at the GE are guaranteeing a Labour Govt, which will not touch the BBC or give a Referendum on the EU.
Pish. If enough of us vote UKIP, we'll have a UKIP government!
At least you can pay it by monthly direct debit, unlike other payments such as Vehicle Excise Duty - I forgot mine this year as I was on holiday when it fell due and forgot all about it.
Another Dave..Unfortunately all Those who vote for UKIP at the GE are guaranteeing a Labour Govt, which will not touch the BBC or give a Referendum on the EU.
Pish. If enough of us vote UKIP, we'll have a UKIP government!
On the destruction of the Guardian data - Why would David Cameron personally authorise that, surely the top spook (Whoever they are) should be authorising that (And Cameron/May being informed (Not the other way round)). I can only see that DC being involved makes it look... potentially political.
I think the separation of National Intelligence from the political side of Gov't is essential.
Come on Richard Dave thought Britain was the junior partner in the Battle Of Britain, let's not judge a man by something like that eh? Oh OK then, lets
Well, for that matter I wouldn't trust Dave to set up, on his own, a security system capable of repelling foreign security services, Chinese hackers, Gary McKinnon, Al Quaeda and the Mafia.
Al Qaeda don't show much sign of technical genius either. Relying on a sneaker-net to get data out was what did for Osama bin Laden.
I'm sure the Chinese military would have already had whatever Snowden leaked before he leaked it. People who will put themselves on the line like that to leak data for free must be vanishingly rare compared to people who will sell data clandestinely for money, and if you run an immense spying operation you inevitably have to involve a lot of people in it. There must be thousands or tens of thousands of contactors who could get the information Snowden could get, and one is them is bound to have sold it.
The only way to secure immense amounts of data from people's private communications is not to collect it in the first place.
At least you can pay it by monthly direct debit, unlike other payments such as Vehicle Excise Duty - I forgot mine this year as I was on holiday when it fell due and forgot all about it.
IIRC you actually pay more if you pay in instalments than in one go. It certainly was a few yrs ago and caused quite a fuss.
Another Dave..Unfortunately all Those who vote for UKIP at the GE are guaranteeing a Labour Govt, which will not touch the BBC or give a Referendum on the EU.
You say that like you think there's anybody else we can vote for who will give us those things if they win. Sorry, but there's no such party - a Cameron led Conservative party (which is what I presume you mean) certainly won't.
Al Qaeda don't show much sign of technical genius either. Relying on a sneaker-net to get data out was what did for Osama bin Laden.
They don't need much, or indeed any, in terms of the organisation as a whole - just a few smart guys somewhere with the necessary expertise, motivation and luck, possibly acting pretty much on their own.
BBC..Nowhere else in the world are people threatened with prison for not paying to watch a state broadcaster.It has to go .. It might introduce some business reality into the BBC top brass.
Hodges seems to have missed the point about the use of terrorism laws doesn't he.
No.
Unless you mean they should apply to everyone except people doing mysterious, apparently unpaid, work for the Guardian.
No, they should apply to those who might commit or support terrorist acts. Embarrassing the government is not terrorism.
As I said yesterday it is so sad that those who were attacking this legislation when it was being used by labour to avoid embarrassment are now supporting it when it is being used by the present administration for exactly the same purpose.
When you look at what the top managers and 'talent' are creaming off in salaries, pensions and golden goodbyes, its the nearest thing to legalised extortion that I can think of.
As I said yesterday it is so sad that those who were attacking this legislation when it was being used by labour to avoid embarrassment are now supporting it when it is being used by the present administration for exactly the same purpose.
That is an astonishingly arrogant thing to say. Quite apart from anything else, how can you, Richard Tyndall, have the slightest, faintest smidgen of a speck of knowedge about what is on those discs and the reasons why the security services are so concerned about it?
You are simply jumping to conclusions. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that the present 'administration' (whoever they are - are you suggesting politicians ordered the questioning of Miranda?) were acting to avoid embarrassment to the government.
Indeed, it's an absolutely bonkers suggestion. If they wanted to avoid embarrassment, they would have done nothing.
Taffy's I have worked for the BBC for many years The profligacy is astounding and it is thought of as the norm Some Producers and Directors think that taking a paid for taxi .. anywhere..is using public transport
Random..only a real dimwit UKIPer thinks they will win the majority of seats..Vote UKIP and you will get Labour
I'm not a ukipper and I'm certainly not a dimwit. And yes, I'm well aware that voting not-Conservative increases the likelihood of a Labour government. You are assuming however that people who want an EU referendum share what appears to be your view that the only way of getting one is with David Cameron as prime minster. Here's the thing - many such people don't, for the excellent reason they've been stung by him on this before. Remember the promises about Lisbon, and how after it was ratified he wouldn't allow the situation to rest there? It looks pretty damn rested now. Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me and all that.
Random .. when you start with the Lisbon rubbish then you just lose your argument..Go back and read..very carefully..what Cameron said at the time.. At least he has offerd one this time ..with caveats, which one would expect..Labour are flatly ruling one out
Random..only a real dimwit UKIPer thinks they will win the majority of seats..Vote UKIP and you will get Labour
Only a fool thinks there is any real difference between the Tories and Labour when it comes to leaving the EU. If that is the main driver behind some people such as myself voting UKIP then it doesn't matter very much if we cost Cameron the election. In fact many of us believe the only real chance we have of withdrawal (slim as it may be) is for Cameron to lose and be replaced by someone more receptive to the idea of withdrawal instead of someone who makes clear at every opportunity that he will not, under any circumstances, agree to the UK leaving.
As I said yesterday it is so sad that those who were attacking this legislation when it was being used by labour to avoid embarrassment are now supporting it when it is being used by the present administration for exactly the same purpose.
That is an astonishingly arrogant thing to say. Quite apart from anything else, how can you, Richard Tyndall, have the slightest, faintest smidgen of a speck of knowedge about what is on those discs and the reasons why the security services are so concerned about it?
You are simply jumping to conclusions. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that the present 'administration' (whoever they are - are you suggesting politicians ordered the questioning of Miranda?) were acting to avoid embarrassment to the government.
Indeed, it's an absolutely bonkers suggestion. If they wanted to avoid embarrassment, they would have done nothing.
Garbage. Your fanaticism when it comes to the current Government doing no wrong is legendary. Given that Greenwald has done nothing to date to threaten security with his journalism, there was no reason what so ever for you to believe that has changed. You are simply thrashing around looking for reasons to excuse this unacceptable behaviour.
Garbage. Your fanaticism when it comes to the current Government doing no wrong is legendary. Given that Greenwald has done nothing to date to threaten security with his journalism, there was no reason what so ever for you to believe that has changed. You are simply thrashing around looking for reasons to excuse this unacceptable behaviour.
You haven't responded to either of the points I made, I never said Greenwald had done anything to threaten security with his journalism (he hasn't, as far as I know), and I haven't excused, or condemned, the behaviour of the security services.
The difference between me and you is that you have jumped to conclusions because your irrational prejudice against Cameron infects your judgement, whereas I am sensible enough to realise that, since I don't have the faintest clue what the security services were looking for or why, I can't have an informed opinion on whether they were right to detain Miranda for a few hours.
After a media storm the OED claimed that "if enough people use a word in a particular way it will find its way into the dictionary,” but does that make it correct? Not for most of the British public, according to a new YouGov survey.
Indeed, the majority of British adults (52%) say it is generally unacceptable to use ‘literally’ merely ‘for emphasis or to express strong feeling.' Only 36% say the informal usage is ‘generally acceptable.’ http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/08/21/literally-unacceptable/
Comments
As polls go, it's a pretty big sample. Certainly more than the polls we discuss ad nauseum here. I am not advocating minimum legal turnouts. Clearly you would take a harder line given half a chance.
Anyway, enough gladiatorial combat! I hope you and yours are well and have passed a pleasant summer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/22/motorway-speed-limit-plan_n_3481853.html
As Southam is a cricket fan he will be aware that there have always been British people who were born overseas to British parents (see the list of English cricket captains as evidence).
Unless there's some evidence that the number of British people born overseas to British parents has dramatically increased during the last generation then British people born overseas to British parents aren't going to affect the immigrant workers stats.
Because one year's worth of British people born overseas to British parents will drop out of the employment stats when they retire to be replaced by a year's worth of British people born overseas to British parents who enter the workforce.
But I drive a Fiat 500, not a Chelsea tractor.
http://order-order.com/2013/08/21/awkward-24-hours-for-ukip/
Tax receipts (cumulative to date 2013-4) are up by well over 5%.
The Public Sector Current Budget (PSCB) has improved from -£30.1bn in 2012-13 to -19.2bn when Apr-Jul last year is compared to this. That is a massive 36.2% improvement on the current budget, the most important of the various 'deficit' measures (it is the target for the Primary Fiscal Mandate, once cyclically adjusted).
Expenditure was higher in July than forecast but this is being explained by Gauke as phasing anomalies which will reverse out as the year progresses. (The OBR commentary due out about now should explain further).
Apart from the 'dropping out' of most of the Bank of England transfer in July (discussed last night), the figure that stares you in the face when looking at the figures is the increase in Public Sector Net Investment (PSNI). In Apr-Jul 2012-13 PSNI was -£22.9bn. For the same period this year it is +£5.6, showing an increase in net investment of £28.4bn.
The public sector finances are clearly much, much healthier than the headline figures suggest. But interesting to note that George is hiding the surplus by pouring it all into new investment.
Is this a political move or just a accounts phasing issue. More works needs to be done to answer that question.
But whatever the answer, today's bulletin is most defintiely good news..
But I would not give them or other hamlets the right of veto on whether a development can proceed.
All quiet on the Hersham front....but I have now to attend the funeral of a much loved former Mayor - an absolutely delightful lady - who passed away recently aged 92.
On Balcombe, I think communities are entitled to be compensated for the costs and to share directly in the benefits. And surely someone must have the democratic power to say no. Do you really see that as solely a Westminster thing?
However, four months’ data provides only a limited guide to likely trends over the rest of the year, since outturn data for central government spending, and local authority and public corporations borrowing can be volatile on a monthly basis and prone to revisions
In other words, only a prize fool takes any notice of variations in the phasing of spending over a few months of the year.
Con: 23
Lab: 23
LD: 1
Con: Baldry, Dorries, Evenett, Lee, Newmark, Neill, Javid, Leigh, Wiggin, Lancaster, Davies, Johnson, Rosindell, Duncan, Davies, Henderson, Williamson, Poulter, Gale, Wollaston, Afriyie, Pritchard, Baker.
Lab: Byrne, Smyth, Doughty, Hoyle, Gwynne, Engel, Jones, Glass, Sharma, Efford, Pearce, Abbott, Phillipson, Cooper, Foxcroft, Meale, Blenkinsop, Esterson, Cunningham, Creasy, Spellar, Hodgson, Watson.
LD: Clegg.
All are incumbents except Karin Smyth in Bristol South and Vicky Foxcroft in Lewisham Deptford.
The main debatable one was including Lancaster in Milton Keynes North but not Wilson in Reading East (only a slightly difference in majority).
Of course some might argue that a system where 47 people have already effectively sealed their place in the next parliament is a rotten one, although with a list system that's also true for those at the top of the ballot paper.
For those of us holding betting slips that Scotland votes to leave The Union next year, I can only hope the no side hire him as a consultant.
Abstracting from both APF transfers and the Swiss capital tax, receipts growth for the year-to-date is 3.2 per cent compared with a full year forecast of 2.4 per cent. This comparison has been helped by a year-on-year rise of over 25 per cent in stamp duty land tax receipts so far in 2013-14. This is well ahead of the 12.2 per cent full year forecast. Receipts have benefited from the strong rise in house prices in London, up 8.1 per cent in the year to June according to the ONS. London accounts for almost 40 per cent of overall stamp duty, due to the larger proportion of residential properties in London that are subject to the 3, 5 or 7 per cent rates.
As Pork might say: *chortles*
In the case of Balcombe, I am sure the local authority would have approved. And if the people didn't like, they could vote them out.
The advantage of such a system is that someone is clearly responsible. And in the case where the whole country is individually against X,Y or Z it becomes quite costly for parliament to overrule.
In the case of shale gas, if it is so beneficial and safe, the case will clearly be made and people will naturally want it.
In any case, it is the law which defines words strangely, not me. Legally, the fact that I have information in my possession that would be of use to terrorists might mean I am "involved with" terrorism, or it might not.
The UK-Swiss Tax Treaty has been the subject of much discussion this year. In March, the OBR put into their Economic and Fiscal Outllook (EFO) report a massive slug of £3.2bn receipts as their estimate of the full year yield to the Treasury from Swiss Banks.
This was widely criticised in the media and by the Swiss Banks themselves and as a result the ONS and OBR removed the forecast by counter-entry in subsequent monthly figures.
Speculation was that the yield may not exceed the initial payment of just over £300m paid up front by the Swiss Banks.
Well, there has been no miracle discovery of unpaid tax by the Swiss Banks, but early fear-mongering appears to have been overstated. The Swiss Banks have made a further payment bring total receipts to over £600m in the fiscal year to date.
The OBR is promising to update their full year forecast before their September EFO following completion of further investigations.
The problem is, our political system seems to require the same person to provide both the executive and campaigning leads.
You probably don't have anyone who can do both well, so you should have an executive Chairman who is responsible for party organisation, and a Leader who is responsible for campaigning.
It probably works the same way in government - there are probably good people who would be great as ministers other than the fact they would be presentationally useless in the Commons.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398521/Pictured-Guardian-hard-drive-containing-Edward-Snowden-leaks-destroyed-David-Camerons-orders.html
Several things spring to mind:
1) The Guardian were keeping sensitive data on a laptop. That may or may not be the best place, depending on the set-up.
2) They used angle grinders. There are much better ways to get rid of computers that stored confidential data: I can only assume that it was agreed that the computer could not be removed from the Guardian's offices, and an grinder was the best way of doing that.
3) Are there any guarantees that the data is not stored elsewhere within the Guardian?
The hard drive was destroyed on July 20th. Could the MirandaMess be a result of Guardian journalists trying to regain the data? In other words, might the data sticks contain the same information that they had before?
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 23h
Don't get it. The liberal left are happy for people to wander round with our most sensitive state secrets, but not a copy of "Loaded".
Likewise, if the document mule story is true and Greenwald thought his data would be safer going through airport security than over the internet, that's another strong sign that he doesn't know what he's doing.
I'm sure Snowden would have adequate backups, if it's his data, though.
Let's wait and see. I assume the BBC would prefer to talk about the Guardian.
The fact that Greenwald doesn't even seem to know the difference between the UK and England doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his grasp of nitty-gritty realities.
It is all too easy to create a copy of the data 'just in case', which then gets thrown into a bag or desk drawer. Security is hard to learn when it goes against ingrained habits; it is best taught to employees as early as possible. There is also a fundamental lack of understanding of encryption, of when it can be applied, and how it should be applied. I'm not exactly an expert on that, but I know enough to ask someone who is an expert before I do anything dangerous.
Who (aside from us techies) knew there was a European standard for data destruction?
http://www.isoqsltd.com/iso-certification/bs-en-15713/
Or just use an angle grinder ...
Miranda's whole defence seems to be that he had no idea what documents he was carrying - he must be pretty thick so let's hope he never tries changing planes in Peru.
However, nor do I think the Guardian Mule was just sent to Berlin on a site seeing trip before returning to Rio.
We’ll have to wait until the film is released – no doubt starring Benedict Cumberbatch.
Breaking
@ExaroNews find lost #SFO files re #BAE
tinyurl.com/msvuszb
UKIP call for BBC non-payment to be made a civil not criminal offence
The revelation that 10% of all criminal prosecutions, 180,000 per year are for non-payment of the BBC license fee is horrifying, said Lord Pearson, the UKIP leader in the House of Lords.
The former leader of UKIP is calling for major reform of the way in which the license fee is protected by turning any non-payment offence from the Criminal Justice system to the Civil system.
“It is outrageous that so many people are brought in to the criminal justicesystem through this means. I believe that non payment should be treated in the way that parking tickets are.”
“It is absurd that the courts are being clogged up by such a minor offence” he said.
Lord Pearson’ Bill received its first reading on the 30th of July.
It is calling for this reform and for the Trustees of the BBC to be elected by the license fee payers.
Presumably in so doing, each case brought by the BBC would be both time consuming, expensive and fraught with politically embarrassing consequences as yet another old gal is dragged off to the cashpoint?
Sounds like my kind of policy….! ;-)
Unless you mean they should apply to everyone except people doing mysterious, apparently unpaid, work for the Guardian.
For a telly tax? It is also very regressive since its flat and has no regard for ability to pay even if you watch just ITV which arguably aims at the CDE audience more.
I hope this provides the necessary catalyst to overhaul this post -war anachronism. All the frustration with *real* criminals would at least be ameliorated by making it a civil offence like not paying a credit card bill.
At least you can pay it by monthly direct debit, unlike other payments such as Vehicle Excise Duty - I forgot mine this year as I was on holiday when it fell due and forgot all about it.
I think the separation of National Intelligence from the political side of Gov't is essential.
I'm sure the Chinese military would have already had whatever Snowden leaked before he leaked it. People who will put themselves on the line like that to leak data for free must be vanishingly rare compared to people who will sell data clandestinely for money, and if you run an immense spying operation you inevitably have to involve a lot of people in it. There must be thousands or tens of thousands of contactors who could get the information Snowden could get, and one is them is bound to have sold it.
The only way to secure immense amounts of data from people's private communications is not to collect it in the first place.
You might be right as to the rest - who knows?
As I said yesterday it is so sad that those who were attacking this legislation when it was being used by labour to avoid embarrassment are now supporting it when it is being used by the present administration for exactly the same purpose.
When you look at what the top managers and 'talent' are creaming off in salaries, pensions and golden goodbyes, its the nearest thing to legalised extortion that I can think of.
You are simply jumping to conclusions. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that the present 'administration' (whoever they are - are you suggesting politicians ordered the questioning of Miranda?) were acting to avoid embarrassment to the government.
Indeed, it's an absolutely bonkers suggestion. If they wanted to avoid embarrassment, they would have done nothing.
At least he has offerd one this time ..with caveats, which one would expect..Labour are flatly ruling one out
Only a fool thinks there is any real difference between the Tories and Labour when it comes to leaving the EU. If that is the main driver behind some people such as myself voting UKIP then it doesn't matter very much if we cost Cameron the election. In fact many of us believe the only real chance we have of withdrawal (slim as it may be) is for Cameron to lose and be replaced by someone more receptive to the idea of withdrawal instead of someone who makes clear at every opportunity that he will not, under any circumstances, agree to the UK leaving.
The difference between me and you is that you have jumped to conclusions because your irrational prejudice against Cameron infects your judgement, whereas I am sensible enough to realise that, since I don't have the faintest clue what the security services were looking for or why, I can't have an informed opinion on whether they were right to detain Miranda for a few hours.
After a media storm the OED claimed that "if enough people use a word in a particular way it will find its way into the dictionary,” but does that make it correct? Not for most of the British public, according to a new YouGov survey.
Indeed, the majority of British adults (52%) say it is generally unacceptable to use ‘literally’ merely ‘for emphasis or to express strong feeling.' Only 36% say the informal usage is ‘generally acceptable.’ http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/08/21/literally-unacceptable/