Reply to: New law for leakers?

[Lucifer Box]

Well you tell me why you think the goons who have been deliberately underminging the investigation in to the brazilians shootings are whistle blowers and not malicious leakers?

Mailman

Come on, Mailman, get with the programme. Just a cursory glance at the thread will tell you that I did not say that, so putting words into others' mouths isn't the way to go.

The whole point is that it doesn't matter whether they are "leakers" or "whistleblowers" as that is a subjective point of view. You cannot legislate against "leakers" without legislating against "whistleblowers" as well and most freedom loving citizens would rather have a few leakers as the acceptable cost of encouraging whistleblowers. There is plenty of legislation already in place to prosecute a malicious leaker and no new laws or approaches are needed.

[Rebecca Loos]

Well you tell me why you think the goons who have been deliberately underminging the investigation in to the brazilians shootings are whistle blowers and not malicious leakers?

underminging..... quality!!!

also, what are they undermining, if not a cover-up? These "leakers" have been highlighting an attempt to cover-up the misfunctioning, if they are undermining anything, it is the cover-up, not the investigation (rest assured there would not be any investigation if the Met thought that they could cover their tracks with no one being the wiser)

Mailman, you are blinded by your attachment to Blair's (both Blair actually) policy in Iraq and subsequent support for GWB's war on terror. I happen to kind of agree with the war in Iraq and all that but as an excuse to shoot innocent people and trying to pretend it's "just one of these things"? No chance! Remember, next time, it might be you

[Mailman]

Get a grip, Mailman, you are talking utter bollox. So who decides who's a "whistleblower" and who's a "leaker"?

Well you tell me why you think the goons who have been deliberately underminging the investigation in to the brazilians shootings are whistle blowers and not malicious leakers?

Mailman

[threaded]

Well I guess they could submit whatever document they want to leak/blow to a review commitee, and then the commitee can, after due deliberation, decide.

This would of course be a totally impartial commitee made up of loyal party members selected for their adherance to the party line.

[Lucifer Box]

Get a grip, Mailman, you are talking utter bollox. So who decides who's a "whistleblower" and who's a "leaker"?

[Mailman]

Mailman,

Are you thick or what? What's the difference between a "leaker" and a "whistleblower"? Just depends on which side of the fence you are. From the general public's point of view there's no difference. The more the merrier - then we can see what happens ...

Lucifer's posts sum it up well.

I think the thick one here is you if you cannot tell the difference between a whistle blower (someone who squeals on the poor running of a hospital) and a leaker (someone who deliberately leaks a document/report in an effort to derail any justice process that is still churning over).

I dont blame if you if you cant tell the difference because you have grown up in the English system that encourages you not to think for yourself

Mailman

[Mailman]

Why just not go the whole hog Mailman and quash the freedom of the press entirely, then freedom of speech and eventually freedom of thought - good plan...............you plonker!

Crickey, you might be on to something here!

England would most certainly benefit from some kind of media watch dog...then we couldnt get contrived stories such as Sven being set up in Dubai.

Mailman

[John Galt]

Actually this is probably the best description of the people who have been leaking the IPCC's progress on their investigation since it started...malicious leakers!

Mind you when you think about it I dont blame these people as they are nothing more than the stooges for the tabloids. I wonder if the government passed a law that forced tabloids NOT to pay for stories how quickly these leaks would dry up?

Mailman

Why just not go the whole hog Mailman and quash the freedom of the press entirely, then freedom of speech and eventually freedom of thought - good plan...............you plonker!

[sasguru]

Mailman,

Are you thick or what? What's the difference between a "leaker" and a "whistleblower"? Just depends on which side of the fence you are. From the general public's point of view there's no difference. The more the merrier - then we can see what happens ...

Lucifer's posts sum it up well.

[Mailman]

All the mechanisms are already in place to prosecute malicious leakers. Nothing should be changed lest it discourage whistleblowers.

Actually this is probably the best description of the people who have been leaking the IPCC's progress on their investigation since it started...malicious leakers!

Mind you when you think about it I dont blame these people as they are nothing more than the stooges for the tabloids. I wonder if the government passed a law that forced tabloids NOT to pay for stories how quickly these leaks would dry up?

Mailman

[AlfredJPruffock]

Aye, Alf. It is a dangerous government that legislates in matters of conscience.

Aye LB

On second thoughts LN, perhaps we ought to just turn ourselves in ?

All of us.

[ratewhore]

Of course, the leaked report could in itself be a load of bolloxx...

Who do you trust to tell the truth, the govt? the media?

Me, I don't trust any of them so take everything I read in the papers, or see on the news with a pinch of salt. Even the posts on this board...

[Lucifer Box]

Whistleblowers must have protection to provide the checks and balances to counter the abuse of power.

Aye, Alf. It is a dangerous government that legislates in matters of conscience.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Whistleblowers need to be encouraged, not threatened with jail. Everything is in place already to penalise malicious leaking. If it is a state secret you could very well go to jail, if a commercial one you will likely lose your job and livelihood.

One thing we do not need is more feckin laws.

Well said LB.

Whistleblowers must have protection to provide the checks and balances to counter the abuse of power.

[Lucifer Box]

Whistle blowers are completely different from leakers. Leakers do so because of an underlying agenda whereas whistleblowers do it because they have uncovered something that needs to be sorted out (which has so far not been sorted).

The people who leaked the report to the media arent whistleblowers, they are operating under their own agenda to subvert the course of justice. Actually, they probably only released the report because they dont like this government.

Actually...there should be an open inquiery in to the menenzes shooting. But that inquery should be around how the IPCC seems to have more leaks that a boat in the royal navy!

Mailman

So who should decide who is a "whistleblower" and who is a "leaker"? The police? The government? The tabloids? Mailman, you are living in AtW's fairy world this morning.

All the mechanisms are already in place to prosecute malicious leakers. Nothing should be changed lest it discourage whistleblowers.