HAL9000

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IRA bombings The irony is that one of the Birmingham Six - Paddy Joe Hill - is now a leading campaigner in the UK against Miscarriages of Justice as a founding member of INNOCENT, of which I am a member (we have meetings in London from time to time, if anyone is interested in attending please PM me). A quote from another member's recent press interview is revealing:- Campbell Malone, the lawyer whose work largely led to the release of Stefan Kiszko, said he believed there were a large number of innocent people in prison. "I believe we have a government that is positively hostile to the notion of miscarriages of justice," he said. "It would seem to be of the view that it would be better for the odd person to spend their life in prison for a crime they did not commit than to have the inconvenience of it being exposed." He added that there were "just as many" such cases now as in the 70s and 80s. -- 5 May 2009; The Guardian, Justice on Trial.

Probably depends on where the photos are stored: the SIM card, a separate memory card or a built-in memory chip, and, if the latter, whether it is non-volatile or powered?

LegalEagle-ish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... wondering why my farts always > stink so much ... Never mind why - just get yourself some Activated Charcoal pills! They work a treat. And open the window.

Several cycles of deep discharge / full charge can occasionally rejuvenate some ? but not all - types of rechargeable batteries - see Google: how to rejuvenate rechargeable batteries. Deep discharge is usually monitored with a galvanometer while a low resistance, high wattage shunt is placed across the battery terminals. It?s a dangerous procedure that should only be carried out by those who know what they are doing and have the right tools and equipment. However, some level of rejuvenation may be obtained by charging the battery then leaving the computer switched on - but with energy saving cut-outs etc turned off - until the battery is fully drained. Note the time to discharge. Repeat until the time to discharge remains the same.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I hear you Hal - but without substantive facts > it's all smoke and mirrors isn't it? Have you read this thread through? From an early stage I conceeded that it was a case of believe it or not. We've already covered this ground. Perhaps someone else with a similar experience (sans gagging order) might have chipped in - but no one did. > I'm an Irishman who has had his phone tapped in > the 80s. I know "they" can be paranoid and wrong. > But rampant corruption..? Even if everything you > know is true - that just amounts to a singular > case. Rampant corruption as you describe it? I > don't buy it... I happen to be personally acquainted with several other Irishmen and women who lost the better part of their lives to rampant corruption within the English Criminal Justice System. It seems to me such a pity that their plight has had such little impact on the English public or, it seems, their own countrymen. Note: I say "English" because Scotland has a separate legal system of which I have little experience.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To turn around and say "Everything I say is with > tongue firmly in cheek." is disingenuous We keep cross posting - let's try to synch up :) OK. Let me rephrase that - anything that looks like an insult or aggression is said tongue in cheek. The rest - the obvious "content" is as serious as the discussion merits. See - I can change my position!

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bigger point of RAMPANT corruption in the sense it > affects people's lives. My original comment was based on how Government and Judicial corruption had affected my life, the effects of which I've only hinted at here because there's a gagging order in force. What happened to me could happen to anyone involved in a mid- to large-scale business venture. It was never about Joe Public - that was H's misunderstanding.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At best, it's passive aggressive, at worst.. .well, less passive Perhaps you missed my note in an earlier post within this thread? End note: For me, this forum is a source of entertainment, amusement and fun. I don?t take anything too seriously and always intend my posts to be viewed in a light hearted and friendly way. But I realise that plain text doesn?t always come across that way, especially in the midst of a heated debate. If I?ve inadvertently upset or insulted anyone ? I?m sorry ? that was never my intention. I've been on forums for almost twenty years now. I'm aware that my posts sometimes appear aggressive - it's just the way I express myself, I can't help it. No aggression or hostility is ever intended. Everything I say is with tongue firmly in cheek.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hostility is coming from Hal tho - I mean > > It never occurred to me that you would take > > ?rampant? or ?ubiquitous? to mean literally > > throughout every level of society. > suggests a mis-understanding of "rampant" and > "ubiquitous" at best... Surely I am entitled to point out that my argument was taken out of context? Where's the hostility in that?

Well, I hope this debate has been as much fun for you as it has been for me. Notwithstanding it's contribution to global warming :) We'll just have to be more careful when defining words and arguments in the future.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Demolished by HAL9000? Chuckle :)) I fairly sure that was sarcasm. > Our ED community is corrupt too eh Macroban? No. It looks like you?ve missed the point here, again. > Anyone trying to calculate how widespread > corruption is need only review the hundreds of > transactions they make personally every week. From > buying a pint to hopping a ride on public > transport, I can't find any that could sensibly be > described as corrupt. It never occurred to me that you would take ?rampant? or ?ubiquitous? to mean literally throughout every level of society. This is what happens when quotes are taken out of context. I?ve been arguing within the original context: ?rampant corruption within the government and judicial system (of England and Wales).? Huguenot ? seriously, you have a comprehension problem.

angetastic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In most cases prison is neither a deterrant nor does > it rehabilitate. More like a no frills holiday camp. It is also a university of crime: a place where new techniques and technologies are shared and life long camaraderies established. Professional criminal gangs won't recruit new members unless they are known to have done time thus hoping to avoid infiltrators and informers. In response, undercover police and customs officers often 'serve' time in prisons befriending known gang members or gathering general intelligence. Some prison cells are wired for sound. Prison authorities maintain logs of prisoner relationships that are entered into the Holmes computer database. In short, prisons have become an important element in the fight against crime.

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > they also suggested cutting your saddle - and > mending with duck tape Perhaps it would be better just to use a strip of duck-tape to give the impression that the saddle is damaged rather than actually mutilate it? Replacements are quite expensive ? the cheapest I found was ?22.

Damian Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone in favour? I've long supported the legalisation / decriminalisation of most illicit drugs. Some hallucinogenic and disassociative drugs are extremely dangerous to the users themselves and anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity. I still think people should be free to experience them though, but only under supervision in a controlled environment. Perhaps at some sort of a private recreational-drug resort with medical staff on call?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I gently refer to my original request, furnish > your argument with evidence of ubiquity or fall > foul of hyperbole. We must remain vigilant.;-) I don't know who is the bigger fool, you for persisting with this or me for responding? Well, since you ask so nicely... In the previous thread, I elaborated briefly on why the true scale of corruption in the UK is so difficult to quantify - in my opinion. English corruption law is full of loopholes: few allegations or investigations ever lead to prosecutions. Those loopholes did not arise spontaneously - they were developed to minimise the exposure of corruption, an objective aided by a wide array of gagging facilities. It is only very recently that the authorities have been forced (by foreign pressure) to review the UK's arcane corruption laws - as the following two articles explain. OECD report attacks British failure to tackle corporate bribery and corruption UK bribery law reform ? Targeting corporate sleaze Given the nature of these complaints and the government's response, I think it is fair to conclude that corruption has been, and remains, widespread within the UK. Describing it as ubiquitous is not hyperbole, in my opinion. I have no doubt that you will disagree with that. Is it possible to prove one opinion or the other conclusively? I don?t think so ? but I?m open to suggestions. Perhaps we should put it to a vote? I've included this link for general interest. Police Corruption in England and Wales: An assessment of current evidence See 6. Conclusions and recommendations; page 51.

Huguenot: you are beginning to sound hysterical. Your last post is a mixture of Ad hominem augmented with bizarre Strawman-esque analogies, which, frankly, look like the ravings of a paranoid nutcase. The "not even wrong" comment refers to the "quasi-religious" characterisation of MY argument. It does not refer to your argument at all. Your repeated miscomprehensions have stifled the possibility of a rational debate, I'm afraid. The level of undetected corruption is always a matter of perception or opinion, which, in my case, happens to be based on personal experience. One can accept or reject such an opinion but to insist on quantitative evidence is simply moronic. In case you haven't figured it out yet; the level of undetected corruption is one of those issues where absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Recall my original comment: We must remain vigilant. Your last post contains no probative content whatsoever: the debate is over.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your argument is quasi-religious: "I have > decided that God/Corruption is omnipresent > based on circumstantial evidence and wilful > misinterpretation of the available > information. This is a conviction based on > faith. Unless you can prove he doesn't exist, > he does. QED". Who are you quoting here? If that represents your understanding of my position then ... let's just say it's not even wrong. I'm wondering whether this storm-in-a-teacup is down to my use of the word "rampant" or, rather, your aversion to it? "Rampant corruption" is a common phrase. Perhaps "pervasive" or "ubiquitous" may have been more acceptable? Matthew Norman, writing in the Independent, uses the latter in this article: Corruption in Britain? Surely not ..., for example. I agree that corruption should be defined properly. Also, there are many sources of statistics on the web: this international Corruption Perceptions Index places Britain at No. 16 as of 2008. It is interesting that the Index has been criticised; because corruption is wilfully hidden, it is impossible to measure directly; instead proxies for corruption are used, which neatly illustrates the problem inherent in any attempt to quantify undetected corruption.

Just heard - very sad news. In the 70s I worked with the multi-track / multi-head tape recorders he invented - the man was a genius. Lester William Polsfuss: aka Les Paul

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You've resorted to calling me ignorant? No. An ?argument from ignorance? is a type of logical fallacy, as I?m sure you know. By the way, did you not see the smiley? > How your friends must admire you. Your Ad Hominem comment > pasted merrily over your own ruddy countenance methinks. Oh, I see. That wasn?t a misunderstanding; you were just trying to set up another straw man. > I notice you've also resorted to fisking, Your posts are sitting ducks ? I can?t resist. > and I'm intrigued to see that (compared with my ignorance) > you consider that the highest form of debate. May I remind you: you started this thread. The onus is on you to prove your point. My original comment was covered by a caveat: I can?t talk about it because of ongoing legal issues. It was always a matter of believe it or not. Under the circumstances it is unreasonable to expect me to debate the matter further. > Your position is ridiculous by your own source: "a > logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a > premise is true only because it has not been > proven false" Talking of fallacies ? is this an Appeal to Ridicule? You?ve chosen to prove that something doesn?t exist because you don?t know anything about it ? go ahead, I?m not stopping you. > You insist on the existence of corruption in the > UK precisely because you have no evidence for it. On the contrary: nashoi has posted a link (above) to a site where a huge government corruption scandal involving the then Prime Minister (and her son) is documented in great detail. Those files demonstrate how different agencies act together to cover up inconvenient cases ? exactly what I was alluding to. A Google search reveals the scale and scope of UK corruption already in the public domain. No. Evidence of corruption is ubiquitous ? the question is: what proportion of all corruption enters the public domain? I said/say ? based on personal experience mind, not wishful thinking or pure guesswork - only the tip of the iceberg. You say ... to be honest, I?m not sure what you are trying to say? Corruption doesn?t exist? Only corruption that you know about exists? What is your point? > You cite court cases and 'D' notices as if to > impress the little ones in the playground (and > then we discover 'D' notices are no more binding > than a girly squeal). Once more, no evidence. I imagine you would feel differently if you were arrested and interrogated for several days incommunicado under the PoTA and then dragged through endless trials and court actions over the next twenty years with no end in sight? > If you have evidence of 'rampant' corruption > ('extending unchecked or unrestrained and > frequently or widely'), then really, where is it? Are you asking me to post evidence of corruption that hasn't been detected yet? How would you know it was genuine? Are you willing to underwrite Admin?s libel risks and mine? See - that?s why I can?t take you seriously. > Or are you just an old man with foil on his head > going "woo woo" round the campfire? My tin foil hat looks rather cool, I?ll have you know. Woo woo! > HAL9000, I'm sure you're a nice bloke. Don?t jump to that assumption ? I might not be. > Really mate, take on someone more your own size. I?m sorry, had I realised you were an intellectual midget, I would have been gentler. (Come on - you set yourself up for that one! :) ) End note: For me, this forum is a source of entertainment, amusement and fun. I don?t take anything too seriously and always intend my posts to be viewed in a light hearted and friendly way. But I realise that plain text doesn?t always come across that way, especially in the midst of a heated debate. If I?ve inadvertently upset or insulted anyone ? I?m sorry ? that was never my intention.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can doctors be bought or conned by wealthy people? > eg Saunders. Medico-legal opinions have long been a commodity. Court-approved experts have immunity in respect of their testimony: they can say virtually anything within the bounds of possibility in the certainty that their reputation will not be impugned even if their opinion is challenged. Money can usually buy a favourable opinion if one shops around - something denied to those relying on a state funded defence, who have to disclose any opinions paid for by public funds - if they can get funding for even one opinion, in the first place. (Caveat: that was the case when I was a campaigner against miscarriages of justice until a few years ago - things may have changed since then.) > If their release in on the basis that they are ill > and they are only being released on these grounds > then it should be subject to regular post release > reviews to ensure the Ernest Saunders' of this > world cannot buy/con their way out of justice. Given that this avenue is only open to the very rich, any attempt at reform is likely to fail. It is often said: British Justice is the finest that money can buy - in my experience, that's true.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't know where you're coming from HAL9000. It?s self-evident, surely? I simplified the argument (developed within the thread up to that point) in order to check whether its reasoning was circular? > If you're referring to my own views, No. I think what happened is that someone took what I said in another thread out of its original context and posted it as the title of a new thread - this one. > I can assure you that corruption I've encountered is neither particularly secret, If you're not a participant and you know about it, it isn?t secret, is it? > nor do successful practitioners always avoid prosecution. In which case they aren't successful practitioners, are they? > As for low exposure equating limited practice, hardly. That?s my point - we agree ? where?s the problem? > Even so, what do you mean by exposure? Entering the public domain - as defined in the original thread, you?ll recall? > You seem to be setting up straw men? ?A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.? Where have I misrepresented anything you have said? > Unless you can cite some of this massive > corruption in the UK - perhaps putting Tony Blair > in line with Bobert Mugabe and stealing half the > country's GDP - Now that is a straw man argument ? I haven?t claimed anything of the sort. Just to clarify, I said ?rampant? which, in its original context, is usually taken to mean: extending unchecked or unrestrained and frequently or widely. > I just don't have any 'control' sample > apart from the ravings of paranoiacs. Those who find themselves clutching at straws often resort to Ad hominem. However, I?ll just take this as an admission that you are arguing from ignorance :)

Let me summarise this thread so far just to make sure I?ve got the gist of it: Corruption always takes place in secret. Successful participants don't get caught. A low exposure rate is evidence of low corruption. Is that right or is it a circular argument? Oh yes, almost forgot: One should be completely convinced by the argument that the British couldn?t possibly do corruption better than their counterparts in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Chad, El Salvador, Southern Sudan, Paraquay, Mexico and most African countries? Or have I missed something?

I'm sure you're quite capable of compiling such a list yourself. Anyway, for example, any classified details about any of the following (amongst many others): encryption algorithms / protocols / frequencies used to communicate with nuclear missiles / missions design / geometry of the latest MIRV or other classified thermonuclear warheads location of / numbers of / yields of warheads / missiles / strike forces misplaced / lost / stolen NBC weapons covert foreign agents / spies suspected spies / terrorists undercover operatives / operations covert (defensive / offensive) chemical or biological weapons programs funding / training / arming of foreign insurgencies / terrorist organisations political assassinations surveillance frequencies / stations / satellites / techniques submarine movements / capabilities / patrol routes / support facilities advanced weapons / development / research space-based nuclear weapons thermonuclear torpedo / artillery shell / briefcase warhead design / geometry Apollo moon landing hoax how to knock out US defence computers from a bedroom in North London contact with aliens / UFOs Edited because, apparently, this one has been declassified: laser uranium enrichment technology

There may be more to this case than meets the eye. McKinnon may have accessed highly classified information without realising its significance. The American security services may feel the risk that he might inadvertantly convey it to an enemy agent to be unacceptable - especially given his abnormal mental state. Offhand I can think of a dozen or so pieces of information that would make him more dangerous than Bin Laden in the eyes of the US.