PRISM: HACKER HAGUE, LEVESON & YEO, PLAY LOOSE WITH THE LAW....AGAIN.
HAGUE: HACKER EXTRAORDINAIRE
The people now fully understand, that Leveson, followed by the Snoopers Charter, was intended to use celebrity to disguise the fact that everyone was - already - being illegally hacked.
When you see the payouts the celebrities got over Leveson, you can see the magnitude of the payouts the government were trying to avoid giving an entire population.
If the involvement of the U.K State in Prism, were ever found out.
And the U.K state faced the mother of all class actions.
Because it is the case, that the U.K Police State have been hacking into pretty much everyone's communications, to try and manipulate and control what everyone says and does.
These are desperate times for corrupt states.
Wee Willy has admitted (in slimy legalese) that the U.K State is using Prism against anyone.
When Hacker Hague said law abiding citizen's have nothing to fear, Hague was admitting the U.K state use Prism to hack, whoever, they like.
GUARDIAN: "LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR".
Which is why Hague then goes on to use the secondary slither of a) neither confirm or deny b) the old chestnut of "security" issues.
GUARDIAN: "The foreign secretary declined to say whether he had authorised GCHQ's use of the Prism system on the grounds that he never comments on intelligence."
Hague knows that actually he would have to clarify the use of a system that - does not - comply with existing U.K laws.
And the desperate attempts of politicians of all shades trying to bring in a Snoopers Charter is all the evidence you need before a jury in a proper court of law, to show they knew Prism was illegal.
Then because Hague knows he may get caught out lying over the fact that Prism has been used on whoever they like, he introduces another quick caveat called damage limitation.
GUARDIAN: "But he indicated that he may have done so, though only a modest scale...."
Of course, the media are in on, and helping to manage the whole game. That is why the Conservative's online goose Guido Fawkes was publishing purported information about a D- Notice.
A D-Notice does not apply to Prism, because the government did not have a law, to cover the use of Prism.
Which does not mean to say that media and government do not want to manage it together, rather than see it on an online Wikileaks scenario.
Both the media and government know in legal terms very precisely what the media and politicians are saying in any legal sense.
They want to know what the people are going to do about it.
There are three very important points to make about what the U.K government mean by the word "criminal", in order to know what to do about Prism.
1. Whatever old rubbish the government hide behind Parliamentary priviledge to publicly announce, is quite different from what they can say and how it is, in a proper court of law.
Of course, ever since they first created a far from legal system, one can be sure they have been trying to make sure there are no proper courts of law.
2. The U.K state's abuse of the word "criminal" means they are saying anyone is a suspect.
Therefore, a possible "criminal".
These are the far from legal "grounds" the government would use in a court of law to try and hide behind, ie "justify" using Prism against ...anyone.
3. In echoes of Erdogan, many of our mentally challenged dear leaders, like Hague, call those who - legitimately - oppose the state, ..."criminals".
By calling innocent civilians, "criminals", the U.K Police open a pandora's box to any and - all- forms of state abuse.
Until you can get a precedent in a High Court and above, that the state must stop.
Wee Willy could for example publicly say he used Prism against me, because he says I am a "criminal".
Ultimately in court he would lose.
But Prism, like everything they do, is to inflict as much damage as possible, outside of any proper court.
As they seek to delay and prevent precedent.
While we do not yet know the real reasons, Prism leaked, it remains it must be challenged.
Because of the fact.
The U.K state are once again, the real criminals.
Therefore, Prism needs to be legally challenged on a number of grounds. The U.K had not yet (for a number of reasons) created the same legal charade Obama is currently trying to hide behind.
A finding against the state in a court of law, will not always stop the state, and definately not on this issue of "command and control".
But it will slow the state down, because once they have been found against, they know that they themselves, will have to look for alternative ways to circumvent ...the law.
Which they will.
However, secondly, what will continue to happen is that - the people - having seen (what will be shown to have been) the involvement of Google & Co. will find alternatives and safeguards within the use of information technology.
NB: To prove the point that there is no honour among thieves, Guido Fawkes boasts online, over how he is going to grass up Yeo (for brown nosing points with the public of course)
Going to talk about war crimes anytime soon ?
We actually say the starting point must be, no politician should be able, while they are a politician, to claim an income from outside ....employment. And if they don't like their wages and expenses as Parliamentarians which is really where they are going with the whole Yeo etc story, then they can fuck off. The point is they need to take the role of being a Parliamentarian seriously.
See: "ROBBIT": THE POLITICAL GREED OF GOLLUM & CO. (We showed Yeo already had listings on the Members Register that were dodgy that no-one challeged) The - problem - is all outside "employment" for - all - politicians.