Rampant Corruption - A Reality?

[Keef]

Nothing, if you're nice they just come to you.

[SteveT]

I think there is an irony here chair, you have successfully jeapodised this thread towards the lounge area as it has been taken off topic.

Sneeks off smirking smugly, cackling under breath heh heh

[The Chair]

Not at all, SteveT, informants are part of a corrupt society.

[Huguenot]

I'm quite grateful for Sean's views, and it's great to hear a voice of reason otherwise this could have the veneer of a rational debate.

Quite clearly any position that...

a) insists that something exists simply because there's no evidence for it not to exist is bonkers

b) insists that something exists because a vote will prove it is bonkers

c) insists that something exists because we're all anxious about demons in the closet is bonkers

d) insists that something exists because we don't have enough laws to prevent it existing is bonkers

I'm irrationally happy that Sean has let slip that his phone was tapped. Having lived in China for 18 months with my phone tapped 'live', I had calls terminated and interfered with on a constant basis. I was attacked by numbnuts for refusing to back off in the face of corruption. I don't know how many people on the EDF have experienced this.

It doesn't create a feeling of righteous indignation, quite the opposite. It certainly doesn't inspire cloak over the nose insinuations.

It does create a sense of personal impoverishment, a reckless finger-raising abandonment.

I've never felt this in the UK, and I struggle to believe it's because I'm not enlightened. It's because corruption isn't rampant.

[HAL9000]

This thread has been the subject of much misrepresentation and miscomprehension by one participant in particular. For the record, I copy here a post from the original thread for context lest new readers are misled by the many spurious Strawman Arguments appearing herein.

Re: Do you feel you can express yourself or is there a gagging order on society?

Posted by: HAL9000 August 07, 04:37PM

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In the wider debate 'rampant corruption' is a

> silly way to describe the UK. It's evidently not

> the best,

At the time - the mid-80's - the public's perception of honesty and integrity within the establishment were rather different. What I came to realise then was that the establishment was highly corruptible; it had various mechanisms and pathways built-in that enabled embarrassing or uncomfortable information to be easily suppressed across the board. Only the tip of the iceberg entered the public domain.

Needless to say, I have been actively monitoring the situation during the last quarter century. I still hold the view that only a small proportion of establishment corruption is exposed. Most of the self-preserving mechanisms are still in place or have been replaced by more sophisticated versions.

> but the coverage given to transgressions

> (for example police malpractice) must prove that

> it's pretty open here.

Things have changed recently. But the machine is still being run by an old school adept at enhancing its internal procedures to avoid further disclosures via the same route. It will soon be business as usual. We, as a nation, are far too trusting - or should that be gullible?

> Have you never been anywhere else in the world?

I have travelled widely as it happens. Just because blatant corruption is rife elsewhere doesn't mean it should be allowed to continue here. The tendency towards corruption is deeply embedded within human nature. We should remain vigilant.

 

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm irrationally happy that Sean has let slip that

> his phone was tapped. Having lived in China for 18

> months with my phone tapped 'live', I had calls

> terminated and interfered with on a constant

> basis.

What relevance do you think these revelations have to this thread?

[Huguenot]

Well it would depend on what you consider to be corruption HAL9000.

My original posting was about hyperbole.

I'd consider surveillance and interference in the private lives of individuals by either other businesses, or institutions of a one party government, in a totalitarian state, for reasons unknown to be corrupt practice.

If you don't think that's corrupt, then you won't think it's relevant.

It clearly doesn't happen to the same degree in the UK as it happens elsewhere, but if you've already used up 'rampant' and 'ubiquitous' on low level activity in the UK, what are you going to use when it really happens?

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... It clearly doesn't happen to the same degree in

> the UK as it happens elsewhere

According to my understanding, under ECHELON all UK citizens' electronic communications are intercepted by the government.

If you classify that as corruption then it is ubiquitous in the UK.

[Huguenot]

No mate, that's silly again.

Echelon has the capacity to collect and sort data traffic, flagging areas for concern. Nevertheless you seem to be conflating technology with the act. Do you propose putting everyone's eyes out because they could be watching you? Does literacy prove that someone is libellous?

If you can't tell the difference between Echelon and the comprehensive surveillance and related violence that exists elsewhere then you simply have no sense of perspective or proportion.

QED my point about hyperbole is made.

[HAL9000]

You appear to be losing touch with reality.

That if in my response implies a test of your own explanation - not without incredulity on my part, I might add.

And, no, you can't claim quod erat demonstrandum. All you've done is back peddle against yet another example of miscomprehension.

You are literally arguing with yourself. That?s quite an achievement. Well done.

[steveo]

Have you noticed how early Hal and Hugeunot get up in the mornings? Could this spat all be attributed to wrong side of the bed?

[HAL9000]

It's 6:30pm (SGT) on Friday evening for Hugeunot. He's posting from Singapore. I'm in London but I've been up all night trading the Far Eastern markets.

[HAL9000]

What is really going on in this thread?

In another thread, some weeks ago, I called Huguenot anal-retentive. I think he took exception to that. Frankly, I don?t blame him.

In retaliation, he may have sought an opportunity to deflate me by taking a comment I made in another more recent thread out of context and posting it as the title of a new thread.

Unfortunately, as anyone who has followed this thread will know by now, he has a very weak grasp of logic, so he inadvertently formulated an argument that depends on proving a negative ? a classic logical fallacy.

In order to make his case he has to ?prove? that something doesn?t exist ? an impossible task. Even more bizarre, the activity in question is always carried out in secret.

All I have to do is post enough evidence of corruption and my case is made ? in other words I could refute his argument. It is possible.

But he can never win his side of the argument let alone embellish it with QED.

I haven?t bothered to post masses of evidence because I?ve become more interested in Huguenot, or rather, why he can?t see that he is digging himself into the mother of all holes?

I?ve pointed this out to him on several occasions. His response? He has somehow twisted the argument to give the impression that I am trying to prove a negative. This is how he has framed his enantio-logic:

> Quite clearly any position that...

> a) insists that something exists simply because there's no evidence for it not to exist is bonkers

> b) insists that something exists because a vote will prove it is bonkers

> c) insists that something exists because we're all anxious about demons in the closet is bonkers

> d) insists that something exists because we don't have enough laws to prevent it existing is bonkers

In the case of item b, it?s based on his inability to recognise sarcasm. Well, one doesn?t often see four Straw Men in a row ? behold! Sadly, it is all nonsense.

Superficially, one might get the impression that Huguenot is very intelligent. He writes with a certain confidence that borders on arrogance using flamboyant phraseology augmented with lots of bluster. But when one filters out the chaff, one is left with a very muddled argument mired in the sort of logical fallacies that most schoolchildren are able to avoid.

That is why this thread is going nowhere in a hand basket. I can?t lose. He can?t win.

I'm just waiting for the penny to drop.

[mockney piers]

I know Huguenot very well and one thing he doesn't lack is intelligence or a grasp of logic, two things, two things he doesn't lack are intelligence, a grasp of logic and debating skills.

Three things, three things he does not lack are...

In all fairness he's making the point that you used ubiquitous and something else, escapes me now.

I'm really not of the opinion that this is the case. I've had to deal with endemic low level corruption in other countries, Huguenot has had to deal with both low level and high level in other countries. But here? Not so much by any stretch.

Corruption does of course exist here, you only have to read private eye each fortnight to realise how rubbishly self-serving, nepotisitic and generally stupid people in many walks of life are prone to abusing positions, responsibilities and power, Rotten Burpughs being particularly entertaining.

It is not Huguenots position to prove the lack of ubiquity or existence of systemic corruption, it's up to you to prove. So far I am utterly unconvinced.

I know he likes wordy fencing and sometimes overplays his ahnd but it's all based in pretty concrete rationality. You too are a capable and intelligent chap but so far you've been a bit donald rumsfeld about this. Gone on evidence, concrete evidence, and I'll require more than anectdotal, I can cite Tony's leaning on the police to drop investigations or on attorney generals to give wars the ok, bit I want ubiquitous, endemic and systemic corruption. Paying for travel visas, police turning a blind eye post payment as a matter of course etc.

[HAL9000]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It is not Huguenots position to prove the lack of

> ubiquity or existence of systemic corruption,

Do go back and read the first post in this thread, note the neat little premise posited therein and who posted it. Usually, when someone starts a new thread by stating a premise then they are expected to prove their argument.

> it's up to you to prove.

And what if I hadn't bothered to participate in this thread? Come on; don't start digging your own hole. If it was up to me then why did your champion invoke QED a few posts back?

This morning's incident where he claimed victory by negating his own argument has convinced me that a line should be drawn under this thread - he seems far too obsessive to quit under his own counsel. Let's just call a Stalemate and move on.

By the way, we now know that Huguenot had misunderstood the original context anyway (I think that applies to you, too), so it could be argued that this thread was invalid ab initio.

[mockney piers]

There's a story about local council workers digging holes. Passng man sees men, one digging a hole one filling it with earth. Passing man incredulously says, 'I can't believe what I'm seeing, our council pays people to dig a hole then fill it ?!?!?!'

One of the council workers looks at him seeng that the man is obviously deranged...'no mate, it's just the guy that plants the trees is off sick today'

[Huguenot]

Lol!

Are you so bereft of wit HAL9000, that you've resorted to copying and pasting the names you called me earlier?

Surely a gent of your insight could do better than that? ;-)

Anal retention is but a pipe-dream for such a frantic bowel as my own.

If ubiquity is now a matter of context, then shall I take that well-crafted oxymoron as a retreat on your part?

[The Chair]

This has now strayed too far into personal realms - at least please try to refer to the original question (however tenuously), or to the Lounge you shall go.

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lol!

>

> Are you so bereft of wit HAL9000, that you've

> resorted to copying and pasting the names you

> called me earlier?

In the interest of fairness, I have to own up to having cast the first stone.

> Surely a gent of your insight could do better than that? ;-)

Actually, I did hedge my position by going long rampant futures in London while shorting hyperbole on SIMEX. I'm well chuffed with the result.

> Anal retention is but a pipe-dream for such a

> frantic bowel as my own.

I hedged that one too with the reference to (verbal) diarrhea, just got the wrong end, I guess?

> If ubiquity is now a matter of context, then shall

> I take that well-crafted oxymoron as a retreat on

> your part?

Context is everything.

Yep, I'm done - we have well and truly flogged this horse to death! You've been a worthy and intelligent adversary (you'd benefit from a logic refresher, though :) ) No hard feelings I hope?

[Huguenot]

No hard feelings at all HAL9000.

I don't think you've earned the spurs to challenge my "logic" and certainly don't feel you've been a "worthy" adversary. I'm neither so presumptive nor so patronising. I think you're a willy. I probably shouldn't say so, so I retract. ;-)

[see what I did there? Just like you HAL9000 with your 'I don't want to offend" speech that's followed up with a string of copied and pasted insults. I didn't mean to suggest you're a willy. I mean, I'm sure you're not a willy. However, I'll graciously stand back and 'fess up, because I'm not so dishonest]

The case is simply this.

You described corruption as rampant, and when challenged you upgraded to ubiquitous. You have offered no evidence for either claim.

I think a fairer summary of your innuendo and Fisking (which was not a debate incidentally, more a second rate rebuttal) is this...

"I had a bit of a run in a few years back with an 'institution'. It may well be that I did something wrong, but I had good reason to challenge them. When I lost, rather than accepting it at face value I preferred to imagine they were corrupt. Over the years that was the story I told and my conviction stems from repetition of this tale rather than evidence.

"Adjusting that tale now would involve personal sacrifices I don't want to make, so instead I escalate. I extrapolate from my personal experiences to the larger picture and now see corruption in everything that happens.

"So that's what I do. I make vapid generalisations. When challenged I either pretend my knowledge is secret or play word games, because that way I'm not exposed. I can pretend that my case is proven because I've 'rebutted' those who challenge. I call them muddled or stupid, or anal-retentive because in an absence of empirical evidence that's all I'm left with.

"I can't back off. I accuse other people of the failings I see in myself. I escalate, always escalate..."

"...and then with an Alan Partridge crinkled rictus, I try to pretend that I was in control of the conversation all along."

I'm teasing you now HAL9000, because although you claim the debate is at an end, you always like to have the last word don't you?

[sorry about the willy thing again. Bit like your diarrhea comment wasn't it? I've repeated it again, about you being a willy I mean, but whilst pretending it was apology. About you being a willy.]

[The Chair]

To the Lounge, gentlemen, you will be far more comfortable there.

[HAL9000]

Do you mean that Big Willy that shagged you every-which-way over in the Drawing Room? So, what does that make you then?

BWAHAHAHA!

[SeanMacGabhann]

Hal. You're a grown man

[HAL9000]

I am addressing a child-like mind - what do you expect?

[HAL9000]

SeanMacGabhann:

Why are you deleting my posts to the Royal Mail Strike thread in the drawing room?

My last post was on topic and raised a valid point:

Re: Royal Mail strike

Posted by: immaterial Yesterday, 02:13PM

> immaterial Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No struggle, because I find it, like most of your (i.e Huguenot?s)

> points, to be naught but meaningless muddle.

Ha! Join the Club.

OB: The postal service is so bad these days it's difficult to tell whether it's on strike or working normally.