wikileaks

[expat]

The Danish media (politkken) have not described the womends hair colour or dress. They do mention that the procecution first dropped the case then opened it again on 'New evidence' also rape acused normally get bail. Not to mention that the UK is apparently talking to the US about extracting MA to there.

[HAL9000]

Wikileaks: Pakistan hoaxed by bogus anti-India cables

[????]

Hal I think that story raises an interesting point.

The publish it all unedited creates so much noise that it get's lost, encourages hoax, and can compromise people's safety (as in Afghanastain). etc. There;s a bit of a lets just dump it all out there feel.

Of cousre, the odd word in the right jouurnalsists ear worked pretty well too, maybe better. Ponting and, of course, Watergate being excellent examples.

[Sue]

I've just started a thread about one recent leak (concerning the involvement of British police in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann) in the lounge:

The Truth of The Lie

[Dickensman]

All the celebs who need a 'fix of publicity' are giving lumps of dough to make up the bail money for Assange.

[louisiana]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've just started a thread about one recent leak

> (concerning the involvement of British police in

> the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann)

> in the lounge:

>

> The Truth of The Lie

Sue, the Guardian covered the UK police involvement at the time. I read it, at the time.

The Guardian then covered the 'leak' of the report of the cable discussing same. Which has produced zero new evidence, as the Portuguese authorities accurately state.

I don't know which newspapers you read, but it's clear throughout the Wikileaks affair that many papers have failed to report stuff in the Wikileaks stream purely because *they were not among the select press* that were part of the leak process (El Pais, The Guardian etc.); and thus got into a huff about anything in the cables.

But clearly, the cable just confirms stuff already reported by UK media at the time regarding relations between the different police forces. There is no evidence of anything, just hearsay about process. So not quite sure what your point is here.

[Sue]

No, I'm not quite sure what my point was either really :) Of course there's no new evidence!

I read the Guardian on a Saturday and the Observer on a Sunday, otherwise I don't read newspapers. I'm not sure what your point is about what newspaper I read, but having looked into this case I don't trust any of the British newspapers, including the Guardian, to report it accurately.

But the McCanns have all along in this case tried to discredit the Portuguese police, and the British press has consistently gone along with that, calling them - for example - "sardine munchers", "bumbling" etc.

Xenophobic though it might be, in some quarters the fact that the British police were involved (and also incidentally a British dog handler plus two top British sniffer dogs) adds more credibility to the way in which the case was investigated.

Sadly, although there is "indicative" evidence of parental involvement in this child's disappearance, plus evidence which is not permissible in a Portuguese court (for example mobile phone evidence for which permission to obtain it was not received in advance (grammar) - because nobody could know that a child would go missing) there is no conclusive evidence. Not at the moment, anyway. Which was why the case was shelved.

There is, however, no evidence at all of an abduction having taken place, apart from one of the McCann's friends claiming to have seen a man carrying a child away from the apartment (and doing nothing about it, and telling nobody about it even when a search began). There appear to be so many flaws in this claim that it is hardly evidence.

Anyway, apologies, bee in my bonnet, as you were :)

[Dickensman]

I've just started a thread about one recent leak (concerning the involvement of British police in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann) in the lounge wrote Sue.

I fail to see why your obsession with the dead wood or 'old news' mccann story should give you the right to hijack the wikileaks thread.

[Sue]

Excuse me?

How have I "hijacked" it?

I made one VERY SHORT post - which is connected with the stated subject of the thread - and I would have left it there had Louisiana not asked me a question.

I did say "as you were" - it is you who has posted again referring to my post, and hence continued what you seem to be saying shouldn't be on here!

So please don't reply to this, or you will just be perpetuating the situation which you do not like!

[Dickensman]

I consider the link to constitute a hijacking,

except it didn't work.:))

[Sue]

Lots of threads contain posts with links.

How you can consider that a hijacking is beyond me.

If you mean the link isn't working, it is for me.

If you seriously think I've hijacked your thread, then of course I apologise, but you seem to be continuing the "hijack" yourself :))

[Keef]

Sue, Dickensman is taking this whole thing very seriously, and seems to think that this wikileaks thing is important. I think that any post that is even slightly off topic is like him finding a car advert in his porn mag.

[Sue]

:))

[Sue]

Anyway, this is the bloody lounge isn't it! :))

[katie1997]

Is it?

I thought I was in my kitchen :))

PS will wikileaks fix my broken tap?

[Dickensman]

Keef wrote:- I think that any post that is even slightly off topic is like him finding a car advert in his porn mag.

I've never purchased porn mags, and never got the expected buzz from just looking,

and I don't relish page3 of the Sun either.

I've always believed that sex was far more enjoyable as a participation sport!

[Keef]

Really? I buy the sun every day just for page 3.

[Dickensman]

Good for you!

[Hill Dweller]

Shouldn't we have real time coverage of Mr Assange's every minute on the net, right now? I'm surprised he hasn't suggested it himself (or that if he has he has not had it published).

Shouldn't we know all about all his convos with his counsel about the sex charges? Should they remain private if nothing else should?

At the very least should his counsel not be publishing every conversation they have, every conversation he has about Assange with whomsover and every scrap of opoinion he has of the man? After all, why should the principle of any exchange being ripe for broadcast stop at when it's been exchanged? When will we have the right to know what people are thinking that they haven't yet thought of expressing?

Thought Police Mr ASSange?

-----

Real time matters because chronology matters; we can read what someone has said to someone else at some time but we do not know what they had read or heard from their Inbox/tray and how apprised they were of situations' totality ...... few of us see or read everything that reaches us via its own channels in the actual order sent.

What about hearing what the household servants heard of Jemima and Imran's marriage as it fell apart?

Real time matters because chronology matters; we can read what someone has said to someone else at some time but we do not know what they had read or heard from their Inbox/tray and how apprised they were ...... few of us see or read everything that reaches us via its own channels in the actual order sent.

I'm sure Mr Assange must be among those that use the 'no forward plan' criticism about the invasion of Iraq. I think that crown of thorns belongs on him about his careless lazy behaviour.

[Huguenot]

and *breathe* ;-)

Welcome Hill Dweller. Remember, don't go down into the cellar.

[louisiana]

Hill Dweller, perhaps there is a difference between

public information that we pay people to generate, out of our taxes, as part of their jobs, and that we authorise them to generate, as part of their jobs, through the ballot box (where such a thing exists); in other words their official, tax-payer-funded duties for which they are professionally accountable

and

people's private lives, the stuff they do when they go home at night, their love or hatred for chicken vindaloo, Family Guy, brasicas or bondage.

Non?

[Huguenot]

BRASICAS?

Which no-good low-down dirty fiend was reavealed to be a broccoli fan????

[Hill Dweller]

Perhaps you could let the world know when the line occurs Lou?

We have to allow for people's differing conditionings/cultures and that some people can just 'get over it' when they know others' opinions of them.

Some of us are thin-skinned and some of us are not.

Some of us are given to playing to the in-crowd (such as a person in whose culture it has a meaning to show the soles of one's feet in an exchange).

The exchanges that happen in international diplomacy and politics have to allow for the local differences, they're not simply 1:1 and I for one would not want any hooligan that happens to have the vote to have a say in how international politics should be conducted.

Should members of the EDL have a say in how our diplomats behave?

Of course as much as possible should be out in the open and Machiavelli-type double dealing is not good and confidentiality shouldn't allow for torture but there simply isn't enough time in everyone's day to know about and give permission for everyotherlittlething that people are to do in their roles.

Re my accidentally duplicated para above, about the order of things, what is seen and known about when, whether things are seen and become known in the right order or not ..... it's all delicate enough in one 24hr cycle, now that days roll in to other country's nights .... we can't pretend everything should be on hold till all the world's Joe Bloggs approve everything first.

Assange is vain.

In releasing docs he has not yet read himself is he 'proving' he's not being judge and jury or simply being as cack-handed as some of us (not all) believe the Alliance was pre-Iraq?

So ...... where do his own priorities lie?

.

[Hill Dweller]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> and *breathe* ;-)

>

LOL < I've given in to this one after years of resistance!

[Hill Dweller]

Hill Dweller Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps you could let the world know when the line

> occurs Lou?

I'm sure that the alleged crimes matters that Assange is discussing with his legal team have ramifications for international relations. The very fact that he hypes them up to being disingenuous attempts to get him to the US via Sweden (as opposed to extradition being a day2day thing) prove that. His being a wannabe-messiah does not make him above sex-crime law.

The very fact that we have the US's Mr Moore alleging that the charges are politically-motivated - when he doesn't even understand them well enough to know that extradition (between countries that erm ..... don't include US) is an automatic thing ..... oi vey.