Rampant Corruption - A Reality?

[Huguenot]

Demolished by HAL9000? Chuckle :))

So far as I can make out his 'proof' of ubiquitous corruption is to have a vote.

Excellent, what else can we prove by voting? The existence of aliens?

I'm pleased to notice that HAL has downgraded 'ubiquitous' to 'widespread', I hope that he will use his wise judgement to bring him closer to 'sporadic but ill addressed by legislation' which is a more accurate reading of the two excellent articles he has quoted.

Our ED community is corrupt too eh Macroban? You've been bribing the Cheese Block and threatening the Post Office again?

Anyone trying to calculate how widespread corruption is need only review the hundreds of transactions they make personally every week. From buying a pint to hopping a ride on public transport, I can't find any that could sensibly be described as corrupt.

I suppose if you believed that property is theft and making a profit is a menace then they could all be corrupt?

[macroban]

Was that a deliberate attempt of obfuscation by conflation?

I am specifically writing about ~corruption~, that is where one or more parties holds public office.

Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889

1 (1) Corruption in office a misdemeanor. Every person who shall by himself or by or in conjunction with any other person, corruptly solicit or receive, or agree to receive, for himself, or for any other person, any gift, loan, fee, reward, or advantage whatever as an inducement to, or reward for, or otherwise on account of any member, officer, or servant of a public body as in this Act defined, doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed, in which the said public body is concerned, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.

1 (2) Every person who shall by himself or by or in conjunction with any other person corruptly give, promise, or offer any gift, loan, fee, reward, or advantage whatsoever to any person, whether for the benefit of that person or of another person, as an inducement to or reward for or otherwise on account of any member, officer, or servant of any public body as in this Act defined, doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed, in which such public body as aforesaid is concerned, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Demolished by HAL9000? Chuckle :))

I fairly sure that was sarcasm.

> Our ED community is corrupt too eh Macroban?

No. It looks like you?ve missed the point here, again.

> Anyone trying to calculate how widespread

> corruption is need only review the hundreds of

> transactions they make personally every week. From

> buying a pint to hopping a ride on public

> transport, I can't find any that could sensibly be

> described as corrupt.

It never occurred to me that you would take ?rampant? or ?ubiquitous? to mean literally throughout every level of society. This is what happens when quotes are taken out of context.

I?ve been arguing within the original context: ?rampant corruption within the government and judicial system (of England and Wales).?

Huguenot ? seriously, you have a comprehension problem.

[Huguenot]

Everything's possible.

I was responding to Macroban's request that she would "like to reflect on how examples of this pervasive corruption might exist in our local community."

I think if Macroban only intended to discuss local government, then she would be better off writing 'local government' - if she doesn't want to talk about corruption in our 'local community' then I'd recommend not using the words 'local community'. It'll help me understand.

Likewise, if you'd only like to talk about government, then I'd steer clear of words like 'ubiquitous' which mean 'existing everywhere' - it implies you've extended your argument out of government into the 'everywhere' place.

[SeanMacGabhann]

This thread is ever-more-bizaare

Huguenot seems to making some balanced points and Hal is over-compensating whilst making some over-earnest-but-not-out-of-order reposts.

Hostility is coming from Hal tho - I mean

suggests a mis-understanding of "rampant" and "ubiquitous" at best...

Hal - you have some decent points to make - but don't spoil them by overplaying your hand....

[HAL9000]

Well, I hope this debate has been as much fun for you as it has been for me. Notwithstanding it's contribution to global warming :)

We'll just have to be more careful when defining words and arguments in the future.

[HAL9000]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> Hostility is coming from Hal tho - I mean

> > It never occurred to me that you would take

> > ?rampant? or ?ubiquitous? to mean literally

> > throughout every level of society.

> suggests a mis-understanding of "rampant" and

> "ubiquitous" at best...

Surely I am entitled to point out that my argument was taken out of context?

Where's the hostility in that?

[SeanMacGabhann]

At best, it's passive aggressive, at worst.. .well, less passive

If I quote you you will say it's taken out of context. But as you ask...

or more significantly

[SeanMacGabhann]

But my last post is a bit too negative - you haven't crossed any lines and you are the main contributor to the debate - keep it coming. It just reads as a bit TOO "it's only paranoia if it's not true" and Huguenot is probing that angle only for you to be a bit too prickly

The basic premise: UK versus most other countries in the world (corruption wise) - score Huguenot

UK is a bit more dodgy than MOST PEOPLE know.. probably score you

Bigger point of RAMPANT corruption in the sense it affects people's lives.. I don't think so. We are still living on the sunny side of the hill compared to almost anywhere else. It does us well to keep that in check but it does us badly to overstate the case that THEY are agin us...

[HAL9000]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> At best, it's passive aggressive, at worst.. .well, less passive

Perhaps you missed my note in an earlier post within this thread?

End note:

For me, this forum is a source of entertainment, amusement and fun. I don?t take anything too seriously and always intend my posts to be viewed in a light hearted and friendly way. But I realise that plain text doesn?t always come across that way, especially in the midst of a heated debate. If I?ve inadvertently upset or insulted anyone ? I?m sorry ? that was never my intention.

I've been on forums for almost twenty years now. I'm aware that my posts sometimes appear aggressive - it's just the way I express myself, I can't help it. No aggression or hostility is ever intended. Everything I say is with tongue firmly in cheek.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Hmmmm

You can't have it both ways Hal -

You are an intelligent bloke with much to say, and a need to say it

To turn around and say "Everything I say is with tongue firmly in cheek." is disingenuous

I would have to re-read this whole thread and think "oh, he was being tongue in cheek" and i don't think that's true

You have plenty to say, so say it, stand by it but listen to counter-arguments and if need be change your position. No crime there

[HAL9000]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> Bigger point of RAMPANT corruption in the sense it

> affects people's lives.

My original comment was based on how Government and Judicial corruption had affected my life, the effects of which I've only hinted at here because there's a gagging order in force. What happened to me could happen to anyone involved in a mid- to large-scale business venture. It was never about Joe Public - that was H's misunderstanding.

[HAL9000]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> To turn around and say "Everything I say is with

> tongue firmly in cheek." is disingenuous

We keep cross posting - let's try to synch up :)

OK. Let me rephrase that - anything that looks like an insult or aggression is said tongue in cheek. The rest - the obvious "content" is as serious as the discussion merits.

See - I can change my position!

[SeanMacGabhann]

I hear you Hal - but without substantive facts it's all smoke and mirrors isn't it?

I have no reason to doubt you - but then again without anything more you could be any fantasist claiming "they" are out to get you

I don't WANT to doubt you. But I have friends who claim similar things to you. And in their case.... it's bobbins.

I'm an Irishman who has had his phone tapped in the 80s. I know "they" can be paranoid and wrong. But rampant corruption..? Even if everything you know is true - that just amounts to a singular case. Rampant corruption as you describe it? I don't buy it...

[SeanMacGabhann]

ooh I think we have done it again!

Let's not post for 10 mins

[HAL9000]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> I hear you Hal - but without substantive facts

> it's all smoke and mirrors isn't it?

Have you read this thread through? From an early stage I conceeded that it was a case of believe it or not. We've already covered this ground.

Perhaps someone else with a similar experience (sans gagging order) might have chipped in - but no one did.

> I'm an Irishman who has had his phone tapped in

> the 80s. I know "they" can be paranoid and wrong.

> But rampant corruption..? Even if everything you

> know is true - that just amounts to a singular

> case. Rampant corruption as you describe it? I

> don't buy it...

I happen to be personally acquainted with several other Irishmen and women who lost the better part of their lives to rampant corruption within the English Criminal Justice System. It seems to me such a pity that their plight has had such little impact on the English public or, it seems, their own countrymen.

Note: I say "English" because Scotland has a separate legal system of which I have little experience.

[SteveT]

There were many instances of 'rough justice' around that time because of the IRA bombings, and if the police could not find the true perpetrators they would hang it on anyone with an Irish accent, it was brought to the general publics notice on several occasions by Private Eye.

[HAL9000]

SteveT Wrote:

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

> IRA bombings

The irony is that one of the Birmingham Six - Paddy Joe Hill - is now a leading campaigner in the UK against Miscarriages of Justice as a founding member of INNOCENT, of which I am a member (we have meetings in London from time to time, if anyone is interested in attending please PM me). A quote from another member's recent press interview is revealing:-

Campbell Malone, the lawyer whose work largely led to the release of Stefan Kiszko, said he believed there were a large number of innocent people in prison. "I believe we have a government that is positively hostile to the notion of miscarriages of justice," he said. "It would seem to be of the view that it would be better for the odd person to spend their life in prison for a crime they did not commit than to have the inconvenience of it being exposed." He added that there were "just as many" such cases now as in the 70s and 80s. -- 5 May 2009; The Guardian, Justice on Trial.

 

[Huguenot]

I don't know that PJ Hill's campaigning could be considered ironic?

Campbell Malone though, is being highly ironic... "we have a government that is positively hostile to the notion of miscarriages of justice"

As a lawyer he should be working extra flipping hard to get government out of justice. If he's trying to politicise the legal process then I'd say he was your arch enemy HAL9000? That way madness lies....

[SteveT]

Huguenot wrote:- get government out of justice

When home secretarys like Reggie Maudling* are placed in such a position that is difficult to achieve, as they are ultimately in charge of the police and judiciary.

*Remember the Poulson case he was mixed up in?.

[Huguenot]

Quite right SteveT, and an exceptionally good reason to keep government out of justice. The army don't make good judges or juries, they're just very good at executions.

It does not a happy world make.

Strictly speaking the Home Secretary is not responsible for the courts. That's the Ministry of Justice.

The Attorney General is responsible for prosecuting cases and advising the government on legal issues. The AG will traditionally come from a legal not political background.

Both are separate from the Home Secretary.

[Keef]

From what I can see here, Sean has offered nothing to this debate, other than telling HAL how to post, and ignoring the fact that Huguenot has probably been the more aggressive (passively of course) of the two. Not on, isn't this the chair's job? Not trying to start a row here, but it was pointed out to me, which is the only reason I bothered opening this thread. I agree with Huguenot more often that not, but I think there is a habit of smashing his points across in a bullish manner, and that is what I see on this thread.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Oh FFS Keef!

Probably fair comment about refreeing when that's the Chair's job and I'll take a reprimand from either The Chair or you on this one

But I haven't contributed anything to the debate??? Possibly true , I'll bear it in mind

[Keef]

Perhaps harsh, but if you have, it's been lost in with the refereeing. Not trying to be picky, like I say, I was referred here by someone else. I think I am the voice that lies between Sean and BBW. Anyway, where is the chair? Corruption!

[The Chair]

The Chair is happy to watch Hugenot and Hal9000 slug it out: they are both big boys who can handle themselves.

What's the going rate for a forumite's nark these days? ;-)