May 17, 2015 12:00
spying,
ohforfuckssake,
virtualreality,
computers,
technology,
media,
death,
society,
cia,
thefuture,
brain,
misogyny,
journalism,
exercise,
usa,
money,
internet,
environment,
logic,
republicans,
psychology,
food,
bias,
happiness,
abuse,
children,
libdem,
links
Leave a comment
But then stuff does come out where civil service people are leaking information to the press and announcing that because they _really_ didn't like the idea of independence, the normal rules of impartiality didn't apply. And then I wonder if sometimes I'm too anti-conspiracy!
Reply
In a different universe where the vote went the other way there might be people thinking "why on earth wasn't I aware of that information before the vote?" (I mean if the RBS did have plans to leave then actually, I think that certainly should be brought to people's attention because it is really important and will influence how people vote... whereas I assume you think it should not in case it influence the vote.)
We all view the stories through our biases.
Reply
"The communication was also issued while the RBS board was meeting to discuss the matter and before the bank had first made a statement to the financial markets, breaching trading rules. "
I wasn't trying to say "That information should have been hidden", I was saying "There was a deliberate move by people who should have been independent to hand any information which would be useful to the No campaign to them."
Reply
That is the nature of the whistle-blower/leak debate certainly cf Assange, Snowden, Manning...
There was a deliberate move by people who should have been independent to hand any information which would be useful to the No campaign to them."
There was a move by people to release information which proved true and which we do not know would otherwise have been released. If it would have been released before the vote anyway then the net effect of the vote is nothing so they did no harm to the vote. If it would not have been released before the vote then we both believe it should have been.
Reply
"LEAKERS PROVE THAT RBS WILL FLEE IF YOU VOTE TO DESTROY SCOTLAND!" has a different impact than "RBS confirm that they have plans in place to ensure that your money is safe, in event of Yes vote."
(Note: I work for a company who thought that they were releasing the latter, and were most upset to find it spun as the former - minus the "leaks" bit.)
Reply
Reply
(Rather than this being an unusually large bit of business planning for dealing with a change in regulations, by a company that is already dealing with numerous borders, what with being a massive multinational.)
Reply
Maybe the information would have got out there in the end, perhaps before the referendum vote... and maybe not.
Reply
You can hardly expect RBS to announce new plans they haven't finalised yet!
Reply
Reply
And you're still missing the basic point here - which is that lots of people were dismissive of the idea that the civil service were involved in the No campaign at the time, calling it tinfoil-hat nonsense, and later on it turned out that, yes, actually, there were senior members heavily involved. Whether you approve or disapprove is beside the point!
Reply
Reply
No, no, and no.
And you now seem to be actively ignoring what I'm actually saying for reasons I really don't understand, arguing against something that I never started talking about.
Reply
Reply
Because that is not the discussion I am having. It has never been the discussion I am having.
I am having a discussion about people believing in conspiracties or not, based on what evidence there is, how some people think there is a conspiracy when there isn't, and how I may actually have tuned myself to the point where I fail to spot conspiracies when they are actively there.
That's the conversation I was having here, and it's the one I've been trying to have ever since.
I am absolutely not debating whether people should or should not leak things, in what circumstances - because I frankly don't have all the information on that particular leak to hand, and so am not qualified to talk about what happened in that particular circumstance, aside from the fact that everyone denied at the time that the civil service was involved, and that they were claiming impartiality, and later on turned out not to be at all so.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment