I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post a reply


This question is a means of identifying and preventing automated submissions.
Smilies
eyebrow :header: :woteva: :yikes: :smilin: :bawlin: :wubbers: :canny: :nelix: :trollface: :wurms: :doomed: :wubwub: :leer: :grrrrr: :cuppaT: :more beer: :ooer: :whistle: :link: :cronos: :whogives: :dafinger: :Lucia: :pukeup: :Hiya: :paranoid: :bored: :gigglesnshit: :Wiiiine!: :choc: :flog: :twirl: :pmsl: :brickwall: :artist: :dunno: :pointlaugh: :cheers: :yess: :bum: :snooty: :thud: :shell: :shake head: :thumbsup: :hap: :hand: :shame: :popcorn: :monkey: :off head: :bell: :shoot: :mrgreen: :roll: :oops: :razz: :laughing: :cool: :kinell: :wink: :drool: :grub: :awesome: :slap: :again?: :burfday: :srs?:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post by jp761 » Sun May 28, 2017 6:28 pm

Vam wrote:
NastyNickers wrote:
Axtol wrote:
jp761 wrote:Well, a fair number of those, who you may be pissed off with are on here. Either under their DS name or as a guest.

I'm afraid, I do believe what Mark Rowley says though. :pmsl:


People are saying I'm accusing him of lying etc, I'm not. All I said was that I don't think it makes sense to automatically believe someone who makes a serious allegation if they aren't willing to show us someone to back it up. And I fully understand they can't show us everything, but they could manage to find SOMETHING.


I find your comments on the Manchester bombing thread as baffling as everyone there did. why would they need to officially release anything to 'prove' they have foiled attacks? Surely any information released could prove useful to someone intent on causing us harm? Better to release nothing if you ask me. I don't think the public really need to be privy to such things.

I'll take his word for it because he's a high ranking police officer that knows his shit.


I'm with you on this. I understand there should be a measure of accountability, up to a point, but I don't understand the public's entitled demands for transparency from the Intelligence Agencies and Anti Terrorist Squads :dunno: Surely, because of the very SECRETIVE nature of the work they do, autonomy is essential.

That said, it does seem the ball may have been dropped in Abedi's case. It's been reported that the relevant authorities were alerted about him on five separate occasions, including twice by Muslims from his own local community.
Interesting that Amer Rudd said he was known, 'up to a point'. We've seen the large numbers of people the authorities have to worry about and watch. They no doubt deduced he didn't need investigating further and watching in detail, beyond that 'point'.

Of course, even experts will be wrong on occasion. They only have to be wrong once, a terrorist only needs to slip through once, and lives can be lost.

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post by Vam » Sun May 28, 2017 9:47 am

NastyNickers wrote:
Axtol wrote:
jp761 wrote:Well, a fair number of those, who you may be pissed off with are on here. Either under their DS name or as a guest.

I'm afraid, I do believe what Mark Rowley says though. :pmsl:


People are saying I'm accusing him of lying etc, I'm not. All I said was that I don't think it makes sense to automatically believe someone who makes a serious allegation if they aren't willing to show us someone to back it up. And I fully understand they can't show us everything, but they could manage to find SOMETHING.


I find your comments on the Manchester bombing thread as baffling as everyone there did. why would they need to officially release anything to 'prove' they have foiled attacks? Surely any information released could prove useful to someone intent on causing us harm? Better to release nothing if you ask me. I don't think the public really need to be privy to such things.

I'll take his word for it because he's a high ranking police officer that knows his shit.


I'm with you on this. I understand there should be a measure of accountability, up to a point, but I don't understand the public's entitled demands for transparency from the Intelligence Agencies and Anti Terrorist Squads :dunno: Surely, because of the very SECRETIVE nature of the work they do, autonomy is essential.

That said, it does seem the ball may have been dropped in Abedi's case. It's been reported that the relevant authorities were alerted about him on five separate occasions, including twice by Muslims from his own local community.

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post by NastyNickers » Sat May 27, 2017 11:22 pm

Axtol wrote:
No. Some information could prove useful to terrorists, but I've repeatedly said they shouldn't release that sort of information. But it's ridiculous to say that ANY kind of information they release would be useful to those who want to harm us. That's just paranoia, and secrecy for the sake of secrecy. And I find it sort of feels like hypocrisy that the police and security services want so much secrecy, when they go around telling us "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". If you trust their word, it gives them the opportunity to abuse that power. Not saying that they WILL necessarily abuse it, but without public oversight and accountability, the opportunity is there.

The authorities just seem obsessed with secrecy as a matter of routine, even when there might not be any specific reason for it. Look at the so called "leaks" by the American press. I just saw that as journalists doing their job by reporting on the facts. It's in the public interest for us to know how an investigation into such a brutal attack against our country is proceeding. And they didn't report any sensitive information, they didn't tip the terrorists off to anything they wouldn't have already known. I got the impression that the authorities seem to like being the ones who know all the facts of a case when the public don't. Their anger at the US press seemed to me just to be them being jealous that the public were getting more information about the case from somewhere other than them.


Surely paranoia best describes believing the information is being kept from us because the police want to abuse their power or are making it all up to blag a bigger budget.

Why would the majority of the public need to know any of the information or see any of the images released by the US press in an ongoing terror investigation? We don't. We don't need to see a photo of a detonator, especially so soon. The victims had barely been identified and next of kin told, and the US is leaking out details like a fucking colander.

If Mark Rowley says that 5 plots have been foiled, I'd think "Fucking hell, it's relentless". If Mark Rowley told me 5 terror plots had been foiled and went into details, I'd still think "Fucking hell, its relentless". I'm not sure what they could release that could be classed as 'proof'?

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post by Guest » Sat May 27, 2017 11:11 pm

Red Okktober wrote:
Axtol wrote:I'm pissed off with some of the posters on Digital Spy so I'm getting the mods to unregister my account. So I'll be spending more time here on Dogs Sleeping.


Fascinating.

On the one hand I don't blame you, as DS appears to be moderated by gender fluid, terrorist-loving liberal ladyboys.

On the other other hand, you look like a tosser by making a song and dance about it.

Swings and roundabouts I guess, but overall you come across as being a bit of a knob. Just saying.


DS is run by those who support May selling weapons to Wahabbists?

On the other other hand, you look like a tosser by making a song and dance about it.

Swings and roundabouts I guess, but overall you come across as being a bit of a knob. Just saying

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post by Red Okktober » Sat May 27, 2017 10:59 pm

Axtol wrote:I'm pissed off with some of the posters on Digital Spy so I'm getting the mods to unregister my account. So I'll be spending more time here on Dogs Sleeping.


Fascinating.

On the one hand I don't blame you, as DS appears to be moderated by gender fluid, terrorist-loving liberal ladyboys.

On the other other hand, you look like a tosser by making a song and dance about it.

Swings and roundabouts I guess, but overall you come across as being a bit of a knob. Just saying.

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post by Axtol » Sat May 27, 2017 8:54 pm

NastyNickers wrote:
Axtol wrote:
jp761 wrote:Well, a fair number of those, who you may be pissed off with are on here. Either under their DS name or as a guest.

I'm afraid, I do believe what Mark Rowley says though. :pmsl:


People are saying I'm accusing him of lying etc, I'm not. All I said was that I don't think it makes sense to automatically believe someone who makes a serious allegation if they aren't willing to show us someone to back it up. And I fully understand they can't show us everything, but they could manage to find SOMETHING.


I find your comments on the Manchester bombing thread as baffling as everyone there did. why would they need to officially release anything to 'prove' they have foiled attacks? Surely any information released could prove useful to someone intent on causing us harm? Better to release nothing if you ask me. I don't think the public really need to be privy to such things.

I'll take his word for it because he's a high ranking police officer that knows his shit.


No. Some information could prove useful to terrorists, but I've repeatedly said they shouldn't release that sort of information. But it's ridiculous to say that ANY kind of information they release would be useful to those who want to harm us. That's just paranoia, and secrecy for the sake of secrecy. And I find it sort of feels like hypocrisy that the police and security services want so much secrecy, when they go around telling us "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". If you trust their word, it gives them the opportunity to abuse that power. Not saying that they WILL necessarily abuse it, but without public oversight and accountability, the opportunity is there.

The authorities just seem obsessed with secrecy as a matter of routine, even when there might not be any specific reason for it. Look at the so called "leaks" by the American press. I just saw that as journalists doing their job by reporting on the facts. It's in the public interest for us to know how an investigation into such a brutal attack against our country is proceeding. And they didn't report any sensitive information, they didn't tip the terrorists off to anything they wouldn't have already known. I got the impression that the authorities seem to like being the ones who know all the facts of a case when the public don't. Their anger at the US press seemed to me just to be them being jealous that the public were getting more information about the case from somewhere other than them.

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post by NastyNickers » Sat May 27, 2017 2:26 pm

Axtol wrote:
jp761 wrote:Well, a fair number of those, who you may be pissed off with are on here. Either under their DS name or as a guest.

I'm afraid, I do believe what Mark Rowley says though. :pmsl:


People are saying I'm accusing him of lying etc, I'm not. All I said was that I don't think it makes sense to automatically believe someone who makes a serious allegation if they aren't willing to show us someone to back it up. And I fully understand they can't show us everything, but they could manage to find SOMETHING.


I find your comments on the Manchester bombing thread as baffling as everyone there did. why would they need to officially release anything to 'prove' they have foiled attacks? Surely any information released could prove useful to someone intent on causing us harm? Better to release nothing if you ask me. I don't think the public really need to be privy to such things.

I'll take his word for it because he's a high ranking police officer that knows his shit.

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post by Big Fat Frosty » Fri May 26, 2017 9:22 pm

DS is owned by hearst publications
the same hearst who Alfred Hitchcock said was the most evil man alive
and went as far as making a movie about him
shit u not
the same firm who gave u reefer madness
the movie that made pot illegal
all paper was made from hemp
school books bibles.. wotever
till this motherfucker came along
with his big oil buddies..
made hemp illegal
so he could sell his mates wood pulp
i shit u not
weed is illegal because of paper....
:off head:

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post by Axtol » Fri May 26, 2017 8:50 pm

jp761 wrote:Well, a fair number of those, who you may be pissed off with are on here. Either under their DS name or as a guest.

I'm afraid, I do believe what Mark Rowley says though. :pmsl:


People are saying I'm accusing him of lying etc, I'm not. All I said was that I don't think it makes sense to automatically believe someone who makes a serious allegation if they aren't willing to show us someone to back it up. And I fully understand they can't show us everything, but they could manage to find SOMETHING.

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post by Frosty » Fri May 26, 2017 7:33 pm

we are the shit after all....
:awesome:

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post by Stooo » Fri May 26, 2017 7:18 pm

Axtol wrote:I'm pissed off with some of the posters on Digital Spy so I'm getting the mods to unregister my account. So I'll be spending more time here on Dogs Sleeping.


Any specific reasons?

I do like a nice flounce so don't hold back :mrgreen:

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post by jp761 » Fri May 26, 2017 7:17 pm

Welcome anyway. Even though I see you haven't just signed up.

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post by jp761 » Fri May 26, 2017 7:16 pm

Well, a fair number of those, who you may be pissed off with are on here. Either under their DS name or as a guest.

I'm afraid, I do believe what Mark Rowley says though. :pmsl:

I'm leaving Digital Spy

Post by Axtol » Fri May 26, 2017 6:19 pm

I'm pissed off with some of the posters on Digital Spy so I'm getting the mods to unregister my account. So I'll be spending more time here on Dogs Sleeping.

Top