I'm leaving Digital Spy

A right load of bollocks...

I'm leaving Digital Spy

Postby 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.
Axtol
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:50 am

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Postby 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:
User avatar
jp761
 
Posts: 2458
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Postby jp761 » Fri May 26, 2017 7:17 pm

Welcome anyway. Even though I see you haven't just signed up.
User avatar
jp761
 
Posts: 2458
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Postby 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:
User avatar
Stooo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 75318
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:24 pm
Location: Eveywhere, like shit in a field.

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Postby Frosty » Fri May 26, 2017 7:33 pm

we are the shit after all....
:awesome:
User avatar
Frosty
 

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Postby 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.
Axtol
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:50 am

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Postby 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:
User avatar
Big Fat Frosty
 
Posts: 15194
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 4:51 pm

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Postby 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.
User avatar
NastyNickers
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:06 am

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Postby 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.
Axtol
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:50 am

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Postby 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.
User avatar
Red Okktober
 
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:37 pm

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Postby 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
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Postby 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'?
User avatar
NastyNickers
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:06 am

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Postby 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.
User avatar
Vam
 
Posts: 9696
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:57 am

Re: I'm leaving Digital Spy

Postby 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.
User avatar
jp761
 
Posts: 2458
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 7:01 pm


Return to The Sleeping Dogs' Arms

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests