302 karma · joined March 15, 2018
I really don't understand why you have theorised that a US attorney would allow attacks to take place.
Obviously an attorney is seeking closed prosecutions, and the article is about closing prosecutorial cases against people "plotting" attacks, and, therefore, no additional steps are required in order to obtain prosecution.
The furthest that the guardian went, was saying their claims of an FBI setup were "not entirely outlandish".
But then you introduced the story here as if the FBI "created the plot". That's not what your link said
It is a crime in the UK to send a malicious message contrary to that Act of parliament...
> Why would they even need to interview him to determine if it was a crime or not?
Lots of reasons to interview him, and you've given one here. Generally in UK, if someone complains that you've broken the law, you're given an interview to present your side of the matter.
UK is democratic and the elected reps' body is sovereign over law.
An Iranian cannot stand for election in her region on the platform of: I am going to repeal "Islamic" law.
A person can stand for election in the UK saying: vote for me and we'll repeat the 2003 Communications Act.
I don't think that you didn't know this, so I don't understand why you asked it really
Would this opinion change if you learned that in the UK people are generally trusted to make correct and true police crime reports?
Say you lived in a place where actually 100% of reports to the police, were truly people who felt like a crime had taken place. In that case, wouldn't we be fine with cops following up all reports?
So if people in the UK generally trust each other to be making true reports when they feel like a crime has taken place....why wouldn't brits empower the police to follow up on serious reports?
Ultimately it's a question of consent and the social contract. My answer, which you're critical of here, is that ultimately the government have consent of the people to enforce this law and therefore it's the government's business. It's consented by the Brits, there is not democratic clamour to rewrite that law, and it's not for other countries to impose their values here. I hope you don't think I'm being pedantic, I'm just trying to answer the question that was put to me; why, in the UK, is this a regulated behaviour
Not obvious at all. If you can explain to the cops why you found it offensive, it's conceivable to me that I'd be interviewed about it
Yes I absolutely do. Do you have some examples of the opposite to share?
As to why the behaviour needs legislating: because the British social contract required it, because in British society they're willing to trade the right to say grossly offensive things to people, for protection against hearing grossly offensive things. Lots of reasons, it's fine for them, you don't often hear clamour to repeal the law, they don't have the same issue with it that you do. So who are you to tell Brits that they shouldn't have a law?
I just think it's worth rebutting, that the police are not combing twitter for anything borderline.
These are complaints that the public are making to the police. There is a relevant law about malicious comms, so the police are obliged to open a case.
> this new woke era
Give me a break. Members of the public are taxed to provide a police service. If they feel like they're a victim of malicious communications, they're allowed to go to the police. Nothing to do with being "content to police non-crime" or being "woke".
A law exists in the UK about using public communications networks to send grossly offensive or indecent communications.
Somebody complained to the police that this chap had maybe broken that law, and from the embedded video, it sounds like he wasn't willing to come voluntarily to the interview room.
So what do the police do? Tell the complainant, sorry, you feel like you're a victim of crime but the alleged offender wasn't willing to be arrested?
Nobody is picking ideologies to enforce. I don't see how the content of the supposed offensive tweet, is relevant to the decision to interview this chap under caution.
Proponents: Are left broke and sad.
Author of this article: The critics are just "tricked into thinking they are were right all along, and they miss out on huge opportunities in crypto."
Oh, that tricksy crash in the price of beanie babies! Always confounding the silly critics who are befuddled into thinking that they were right all along, when they said the price of beanie babies would crash. Sure, they said it would crash and it did, they said it was useless and it is - but it's just a trick! Tricked you, haha! Now I'm broke and sad, but you silly critics have egg on your face!
It's a lot of work, isn't it? Why is this a more reasonable theory to you than simply: Assange is being extradited because the lawyers convinced a judge to agree to it - see how my theory involves no puppets, no deep state, no invisble powers...
> no plan, no leadership, no endorsement,
That's not the impression I've been taking away from the three congressional hearing so far. But there's not much point me talking about real world evidence to someone who believes in an imaginary world of deep state puppeting foreign judges to get a website operator extradited
Over 100% short interest doesn't imply anyone broke the law.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-10-19/matt-l...
> Short interest can exceed 100%—as it did with GME—when the same shares are lent multiple times by successive purchasers
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-retail-trading-shortselli...
> HOW CAN MORE THAN 100% OF A COMPANY’S SHARES BE SHORTED?
> Once the short seller borrows the shares from the lender and then sells them back into the market, the new owner of the shares is free to lend them out, just as the previous owner did, and have no idea they are on the other side of a short sale.
Also, the reason the buttons were taken off the app, was because RH were having to post extra collateral due to volatiltiy. RH had to draw down extra loans to pay the collateral. For one broker, the collateral was 100%. The memeing was not sustainable for RH. There was no conspiracy.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-28/robinhood...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gamestop-trading-restrictions-b...
[See? It's easy to make a wild conspiracy when I get to put words in your mouth, and I never have to prove anything. Don't be critical of my methods, boomers]
You didn't provide any sources, but if I extend the benefit of the doubt.
1. Sounds like they didn't need to raise the rate in may. Not suspicious.
2. The markets react. Not suspicious.
3. Sounds like they did need to raise the rate in June. Not suspicious.
> They don’t need to whisteblow when they are convinced a healthy stock market is a healthy economy. Why is Powell bringing up the stock market when his job has nothing to do with the stock market at all
I dont know why - but it's you saying that, not him. You're convinced that green hats are useful for baseball pitchers, but baseball stats have nothing to do with your job. See, I can make up conspiracy theories too. Did you see how much the stock value of green hat companies rose recently? Rather coincidental for your pitcher theory, isn't it? Mindblowing.
Yes, I think so. For many reasons.
1. People tend to have pride in their work and can typically be relied on to follow their job description.
2. Someone would blow the whistle if the Fed was self-dealing.
3. A politician or auditor would have made plenty of hay if the Fed was self-dealing.
4. Running a central bank is incredibly difficult. Doing it while self-dealing, I imagine, is impossible. For evidence - Elvira Nabiulina is the central banker for one of history's worst Kleptocracy. Not only is she regarded as a clean-hands technocrat, she's also not really allowed to quit her job.
5. I need more evidence for a conspiracy theory than "imagine the numbers they deal with".
> That is the reason for us having >5 percent inflation for 6 months
You are saying that the Powell conspiracy is the cause of high inflation? And not all the other reasons?
The Fed's governors are appointed by our voted representatives and are responsible to them.
When they adjust the dials of the US economy, it's usually because sound financial theory says they should.
What you have presented is simply a conspiracy theory. The boomers of HN aren't keeping you from explaining why you think any move by the Fed is designed to enrich it's chairman. The boomers aren't keeping you from developing a theory on why the interest rate move is to prop up equities. You just feel like you're very correct and if others don't agree it must be because they were born shortly after ww2, is that right?
You've said you think other governments are doing the same? But you're somehow sure that in this case, it's the Jews.
Your post is a testament to a conspiratorial worldview that I don't follow. The simplest explanation for why two shills for a fascist government presently engaged in a genocide have been removed from a platform, somehow involves the Jews.
I'm done here, there's something broken in your head and I don't wish to engage further
So let's see. You're saying that there's a secret conspiracy run by a Jewish organisation to remove donation buttons from media companies who criticise - not Judaism, not the state of Israel, but the state of Israel's foreign policy.
This secret conspiracy are scanning the internet for publications who have taken an anti-israel's-foreign-policy stance, and then they inform their colleagues at PayPal to remove such publications' ability to receive donations.
Does that make sense to you? Does it sound like a rational argument, given the facts?
Is it just incidental that the two publications here are shills for a fascist genocidal government, and their real crime in PayPal's eyes is offending some Jews? Like I said, this is all so problematic, and yet you want to double down?
By the way, it's considered bad form here to suggest I didn't read the article. Yes, I did, and you'll have a better time on HN if you don't bring that up again.
Edit to add - this article itself literally blames the jews. It's all so problematic