Whistleblower jailed

[Nearly Sane]

Of course



http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/27/hsbc-whistleblower-jailed-five-years-herve-falciani

[Hope]

Rather than saying'Of course' and leaving it at that, how can folk like ourselves do something to overturn, or at least challenge this decision?  Are 360 or Change.org planning to run a campaign?

[Nearly Sane]

Rather than saying'Of course' and leaving it at that, how can folk like ourselves do something to overturn, or at least challenge this decision?  Are 360 or Change.org planning to run a campaign?

I would suggest that you don't make any assumptions about I may or may not be doing. That said, given this is a Swiss decision, I doubt that folks like ourselves having a campaign will have much impact based here.

[Leonard James]

How very dare anybody uncover the unsavoury dealings of the moneyed classes!

Worshippers of Mammon don't allow such heresy ... and Mammon rules!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How very dare anybody uncover the unsavoury dealings of the moneyed classes!

Worshippers of Mammon don't allow such heresy ... and Mammon rules!

I agree.

[Shaker]

Rather than saying'Of course' and leaving it at that, how can folk like ourselves do something to overturn, or at least challenge this decision?  Are 360 or Change.org planning to run a campaign?

That's what we need ... more slacktivism.

[Hope]

I would suggest that you don't make any assumptions about I may or may not be doing. That said, given this is a Swiss decision, I doubt that folks like ourselves having a campaign will have much impact based here.

Aren't 360 and Change.org international groups?

[Nearly Sane]

Aren't 360 and Change.org international groups?

The point is what someone in the UK signing a petition on the net will achieve in relation to a decision of the Swiss courts. This isn't something where this sort of stuff works. Go and talk to people you know are in Switzerland. Only am internal change will work on this.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

Thank you, one of the main reasons I am on this forum, to learn.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/asher-wren/slacktivism-technology_b_5077194.html

With recent technological advances it is easier than ever to disseminate your message. However, with that power should come great responsibility, to paraphrase Uncle Ben's famous homily. In this case the responsibility is to engage your critical faculty and to research stories before advocating them. Let us not mindlessly believe and regurgitate everything we read, like some faux-enraged marionette theatre. We live in an age where #nomakeup selfies are regarded as activism, where you can accidentally adopt a polar bear at the click of a button, where Twitter can be misappropriated to orchestrate riots throughout the UK, and where 300,000 people are eagerly anticipating a White House response to an 'Extradite Justin Bieber' petition. We have to ask ourselves: with such incredible tools for societal advancement at our disposal, can't we do better?

Dear Sane,

The point is what someone in the UK signing a petition on the net will achieve in relation to a decision of the Swiss courts. This isn't something where this sort of stuff works. Go and talk to people you know are in Switzerland. Only am internal change will work on this.

Yes! clicking on a mouse is sometimes not enough, ordinary angels.

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

The point is what someone in the UK signing a petition on the net will achieve in relation to a decision of the Swiss courts. This isn't something where this sort of stuff works. Go and talk to people you know are in Switzerland. Only am internal change will work on this.

So, in your view, there is no point someone seeking to change policy in a nation that they are not a member of?  Isn't that what a lot of international discussions are all about?  Think about the Paris Climate Conference.  Are you saying that my showing support for people who are seeking to reduce emissions throughout the world (and not just the UK) is pointless?  Or what about people here in the UK seeking to encourage the Ugandans to change their attitudes to homosexuals; are they wasting their time?

[Nearly Sane]

So, in your view, there is no point someone seeking to change policy in a nation that they are not a member of?  Isn't that what a lot of international discussions are all about?  Think about the Paris Climate Conference.  Are you saying that my showing support for people who are seeking to reduce emissions throughout the world (and not just the UK) is pointless?  Or what about people here in the UK seeking to encourage the Ugandans to change their attitudes to homosexuals; are they wasting their time?

No, that isn't what I am saying, I am suggesting that in this case the best activity is to talk to people you know in Switzerland to get it changed. This is a court decision based on existing law, and changing it is not a simple process of just getting rid of the law.

A petition in this case is, as Shaker has already raised,  slacktivism. If you want to pat yourself on the back for signing a petitioning you go, but it will have no effect here as it's not the easy case of a purely immoral law.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Hope,

Sane is big enough and ugly enough to take care of himself but.

(I'll be down Cardiff Bay later demonstrating in support of far stronger Climate Change reduction mechanisms)

I think he is saying exactly what you are doing.

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

A petition in this case is, as Shaker has already raised,  slacktivism. If you want to pat yourself on the back for signing a petitioning you go, but it will have no effect here as it's not the easy case of a purely immoral law.

I would question Shakes' assertion that signing a petition is slacktivism, NS, so I would also disagree that doing such has no value in the country being targetted.

[Shaker]

I would question Shakes' assertion that signing a petition is slacktivism, NS

Go on then.

[Hope]

Go on then.

I have already done so, SDhakes.  You have quoted the post in which I did so.

[Shaker]

I have already done so, SDhakes.  You have quoted the post in which I did so.

No, you said you would question my assertion that signing a petition is slacktivism. So go ahead and question it, providing reasons, instead of pulling your usual trick of claiming to have done the work when you haven't.

[Hope]

No, you said you would question my assertion that signing a petition is slacktivism. So go ahead and question it, providing reasons, instead of pulling your usual trick of claiming to have done the work when you haven't.

Sorry, Shakes, but stating that I question something is to question that thing.  If you want reasons, that's a different matter, and I'm quite happy to provode them for you, but don't try to show your superiority by making such a basic linguistic error.

[Shaker]

Sorry, Shakes, but stating that I question something is to question that thing.

No, that's the lazy bastard's version, akin to Bashful Anthony's/the Black Knight's routine of winning arguments by merely saying that he has won. Why do you question it? What are your reasons? If you can't put the work in, fine, go and play with your trains and leave forum posting to those who can.

[Hope]

"signing a petition is slacktivism" - so claims Shakes.

Over the past 20 or 30 years, I have signed a number of petitions in regard of Climate Change and what the world's governments need to do about it.  In some cases, I have then taken heo text of a petition that I have signed and written a personal letter/email to the then Prime Minister of the UK, or even the First Minister of the Senedd or Scottish Parliament explaining in more deatil why signed the petition.  I have also taken to the streets to demonstrate for the view that I espouse.

The advantage of signing a petition is that it can provide an easy reference for the authorities as to the extent that opposition to or support for a given position exists.

However, I would also agree that simply signing a petition can be even less than slacktivism - especially if one does nothing to follow up on your signature.  It can sometimes be the equivalent of giving money to a charity - perhaps via a collection box on the street - and doing nothing else; more of an exercise in guilt-money.

[Hope]

No, that's the lazy bastard's version, akin to Bashful Anthony's/the Black Knight's routine of winning arguments by merely saying that he has won. Why do you question it? What are your reasons? If you can't put the work in, fine, go and play with your trains and leave forum posting to those who can.

OK, I assume that you will be leaving the forum soon, since you spend a lot of time using garnd sounding - often Latin - terminology without making any attempt to explain why you believe that what you are countering is actually wrong or untrue.  For instance, you have never explained why science has to be the only way by which we can gauge that something is valid.  You have tried to on a number of occasions but never satisfactorily - other than in your own eyes - which are no less susceptible to confirmation bias than anyone else on the board.

[jeremyp]

The title of the thread is wrong. The whistleblower has not been jailed. He has been sentenced, but he is currently living in France. It's right there in the article.

[Shaker]

OK, I assume that you will be leaving the forum soon, since you spend a lot of time using garnd sounding - often Latin - terminology

Goodness me; using proper terminology, especially if it's in a language other than English, really does put a bug up your backside, doesn't  it?

For instance, you have never explained why science has to be the only way by which we can gauge that something is valid.  You have tried to on a number of occasions but never satisfactorily - other than in your own eyes - which are no less susceptible to confirmation bias than anyone else on the board.

Very simple, really. Scientific reasoning is the only form of rationality (aside from mathematics) where there's a methodology for being able to sift the right answer to a question about the world from the myriad of wrong ones. There's a way of being able to distinguish accurate beliefs about the world from false ones, or at least ones that can't be shown to to be accurate and have to go in the 'pending' tray. My current signature encapsulates this.

You regularly imitate a desk fan waving your hands around and bloviating about "the rest" of reality that science supposedly can't tackle, but whenever you're asked to provide a methodology for your stance which does what the scientific method does - sorts the true from the false - you always find something better to do somewhere else. I know because I've asked umpteen times and so have many others. You've seen ours, which we know works; where's yours?

[Gordon]

For instance, you have never explained why science has to be the only way by which we can gauge that something is valid.

Do you have at your disposal a non-scientific way 'by which we can gauge that something is valid'?

[Shaker]

Do you have at your disposal a non-scientific way 'by which we can gauge that something is valid'?

We'll never know

[BashfulAnthony]

We'll never know

I have become a whistleblower:  I've got a recall whistle for Meg.  It works beautifully.