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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.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.
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 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.
Return to The Sleeping Dogs' Arms
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests