×
all 29 comments

[–]7NTXX 16 points17 points  (1 child)

Read Blair's notes for a year and had the government on strings. Did ye aye?

[–]Carroadbargecanal 24 points25 points  (0 children)

He was so successful that he only needed another 10 years of Labour government and the biggest financial crash in history to get an advisory job in the Education department.

[–]InterstitialLove 42 points43 points  (8 children)

I'm incredibly skeptical that that's really legal

Basically, if someone tried to press charges, it would come down to a court decision. For things like "stealing someone's trash to spy on their confidential correspondence in ways relevant to the highest levels of government," there are just sooo many crimes and/or torts you could potentially be committing, and beyond statutes it's probably a matter of common law

1) Ultimately it's a matter of predicting how a trial will go, so "this is legal" is always a probabilistic claim (though sometimes the probabilities are near certainties) 2) There are so many angles to attack this from, and a judge only needs to rule against you on one charge for it to be "not legal," so the odds stack up 3) Judges aren't stupid. If you feel the need to tell everyone that something obviously illegal is technically legal, you're probably not acting in good faith. "He's just using a loophole to dodge the system, don't let him get away with it" is in fact a legitimate legal argument

Rifling through garbage is actually legal (at least in some jurisdictions, if done correctly), but the motivation here is so ethically dicey, and the people you're doing it to are so particular, that I just don't think you can claim to predict how that trial would turn out

[–]PolymorphicWetware 13 points14 points  (3 children)

At the very least, I'm curious to see what Gould and Blair themselves would have to say about this -- even if they somehow don't have any legal recourse at all, and Mr. Cummings is legally in the clear, I'm sure those two can come up with something of their own...

(Also, now I'm wondering if this means that there are actual spy agencies out there doing this, eavesdropping on the highest levels of the British government by just... rifling through one man's trash. Is Mr. Cummings really the only person to have ever thought about trying this?)

[–]Th3_Gruff 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Well there’s a bit further down in the blog where he talks about half expecting his guy having to wait in line behind the Russians and French! And that British intelligence might be on top of it. Of course nobody was…

[–]sp8yboy 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I thought Gould was dead. Could be wrong

[–]PolymorphicWetware 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Huh, you're right. Well, that means Tony Blair is on his own in this, but that's still a man with plenty of old favors and political connections he can pull on to get revenge.

[–]sourcreamus 15 points16 points  (2 children)

In the US it is a well established principle that once you put something out for trash you can no longer claim ownership. The case is California vs Greenwood.

[–]zapitron 3 points4 points  (1 child)

That might cover charges of "you can't take that, because it belongs to someone else" but it wouldn't help him on charges of "you can't take that (or even look at it), no matter how you got it, even if it's due to someone else's carelessness, because of national security or some other reason."

[–]todorojo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The case isn't about possession, it's about unreasonable search and seizure. The ruling was that you don't have an expectation of privacy in things you put into trash. This ruling was about government action specifically, but it was subsequently extended to rights of privacy. I'm not sure how it would apply to rules about government secrets, but my understanding is that those place burdens on the caretakers of those secrets, but if, say, the press obtained a copy through otherwise legal means, they could not be prosecuted for publishing it.

[–]JoJoeyJoJo 18 points19 points  (0 children)

It's a standard tactic of the British Tabloid Press, unfortunately.

So probably legal if you're on the side of the Establishment so they can look the other way.

[–]TheMeiguoren 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Lessons on the importance of having good OPSEC, and also not assuming that others do as well.

[–]flagamuffin 29 points30 points  (7 children)

mighty onerous work abundant reach cooperative ripe fanatical ghost illegal

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[–]I_am_momo 15 points16 points  (6 children)

He's got his head on backwards, but the lack of filter and the position he was in makes for interesting insights to what was happening behind closed doors quite often.

Just wish that information was coming from a less garbled mouthpiece.

[–]Proper-Ride-3829 11 points12 points  (5 children)

He’s basically a political martian but everything he says is fascinating in some way. Although sometimes that’s fascinating as in a car crash.

[–]7NTXX 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Get the feeling there's nothing really under the hood with Cummings - big on chatting Silicon Valley whamology, very short on structural impact on the process of government when he had a unique position of power and influence.

Not that I can criticise one man for failing to innovate the civil service and apparatus of UK government - one has to be realistic. But he doesn't seem to have what it would take to seriously engage and implement at this sort of level. Is that what you mean by political martian? An outsider with some wild takes, but can't really integrate, lead, and change things.

[–]Proper-Ride-3829 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Well I’m quite empirically minded. He won the Brexit referendum, he won the 2019 election, and he’s correctly concluded that Boris Johnson is a fucking moron. I don’t have to admire someone to admit they may have some insight that has escaped more congenial political commentators.

He didn’t reform the civil service that’s true but given the circumstances ie: horrible boss, global pandemic, thrown out after a year for pissing off Carrie, I can’t really attribute it to his own failings.

[–]flagamuffin 9 points10 points  (1 child)

humorous edge attempt dime gray person bear square fertile carpenter

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[–]MrStilton 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What policy changes did he implement?

[–]I_am_momo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Get the feeling there's nothing really under the hood with Cummings

There's not really. But there doesn't need to be. All we need from him is to continue to be pissed off at Boris and the current conservative party/parliament and to continue pulling insider knowledge out of his vault. The information is the juicy part, his "analysis" is the unfortunately shit encrusted side dish that comes with it.

[–]PipFoweraker 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Intelligence applied to a set of rules often seems like cheating.

[–]sp8yboy 8 points9 points  (0 children)

If it’s true, which I doubt, it’s resolutely on brand for Cummings. Not a genius just another morally bankrupt nationalist.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (3 children)

I don't care what anyone says I love him.

[–]No-Screen-7870 12 points13 points  (1 child)

why?

[–]TheAncientGeekAll facts are fun facts. 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Another reason to hate him. The difference beteeen him and Nixon is that Nixon was elected.

[–]PlasmaSheeponce knew someone who lifted 15 points16 points  (6 children)

they hated him because he told the truth

[–]thicknavyrain 17 points18 points  (5 children)

"Brexit was the right choice for the UK!!" - guy who cost nation £40Bn a year: https://obr.uk/box/the-latest-evidence-on-the-impact-of-brexit-on-uk-trade/

Mr Archetypal Bayesian Rationalist himself is totally unable to update his beliefs in the face of data... colour me unimpressed.