Monday, 10 June 2013

Shouting at the TV

This has to be a sure sign of getting old - Sandra made the mistake of putting the news on TV. What can I say.

Contradictions and annoyances abound...

I love the quotes from parliament - accusations of using data on UK citizens gathered from US are unfounded, and any such data gathered is subject to strict oversight. Well, which is it? Are the accusations of gathering such data unfounded? Or have they gathering such data (subject to strict oversight)? Arrrrg!

They are saying they are claims that GCHQ acted illegally. I thought the claims were that they did this to bypass the law - i.e. acted legally in a way that allowed them to do what they are doing, but that what they are doing is bad.

Then some nutters jailed, and the judge blames "extremest" views available on the Internet. The butters shouted god is good or some such. It was religion that was itself the extremest views that caused them to do what they did (as well as being nutters), yet we routinely allow religion to indoctrinate people for millennia and even make it a protected right in EU law. I assume they mean that they don't want "other people's" religion to be available as they are extremest - right - that'll work. Arrrrg!

2 comments:

  1. I loved the "nothing illegal" but. Well, that's kind of the point yeah? They bypassed the law and achieved the same result as they would have if they just broke the law anyway.

    A little bit like companies who, quite legally, avoid paying much if any tax.

    As for being unfounded, well if your accusing then you are accusing of somebody doing something wrong i.e. breaking the law. But if the law is bypassed then the accusations are unfounded. What is not unfounded is the fact that it happened.

    It's just comical.

    I'll look forward to the next private eye's take on this ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. At least the tv can be turned off if you don't like the reply you get after you have shouted at it lol

    ReplyDelete