3 ms·

Furthermore, one UK head of state call everyone supporting encryption pedophiles https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1892972120818299199 https://x.com/BenWallace

Furthermore, one UK head of state call everyone supporting encryption pedophiles https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1892972120818299199 https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1892972120818299199

scott_w 2y ago
Just to be clear: Wallace is not a head of state, or even an MP any more. At one point, he was Secretary of State for Defence, a Cabinet position, however he resigned this in 2023. This doesn’t justify his position (it’s stupid) but he doesn’t speak for the current government.
- onei 2y ago
  To clarify a bit further, the UK head of state is King Charles III, as he is for a bunch of other countries in the Commonwealth. Head of state in the UK is a bit weird compared to countries that abolished or never had a monarchy.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    You’re correct, however I gave GP the benefit of the doubt and assumed they meant Secretary of State ;-) And, to be fair, while I’m generally a small r republican, I’m seeing benefits of having a non politically aligned head of state after J6. While the monarch has limited power, booting out a PM that can’t command the confidence of Parliament is one of them. The question of whether Johnson would accept being dethroned a la Trump was always silly given his consent was never needed.
    - onei 2y ago
      The UK monarch's power is largely based on convention more than active decision making. For example, a government is formed at the invitation of the monarch, but that's long reflected the results of an election. Getting rid of a PM generally happens when they run out of luck. That sometimes coincides with the ruling party/coalition imploding. The next PM is then shortlisted by MPs and selected by a minority of the electorate. I guess the US equivalent is the leader of the house being unable to hold their majority together. In some ways the presidential election feels more democratic if a relative outsider (like Trump was) can win. But a 2 year lead up is crazy.
    - worik 2y ago
      > And, to be fair, while I’m generally a small r republican, I’m seeing benefits of having a non politically aligned head of state One of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy is the head of state did not campaign for the position.
      - c0ndu17 2y ago
        I’ve become a bit of fan of it over the last few years. That said, I don’t think the UK can be replicated. It wraps ultimate power up in a contradiction, you have it but you can’t use it. Sure, technically you could but it would be your last act. Another important aspect, the for and against is currently split between parties, so there’s somewhat of unification factor between parties on that divide as well. It gets a lot of hate, because it is imperfect, but I don’t think it gets its fair shake. My views more of, if it ain’t broke is it really worth the risk changing it.
        worik 2y ago
        > Sure, technically you could but it would be your last act. It was used in Australia in the 1970s
  - ojhp 2y ago
    Technically we did abolish the monarchy back in the 17th century, but the replacement was so bad we brought them back about 10 years later, which I think makes us a minority of one and even more weird. Anyway, back on topic: this is a ridiculous law that is forcing services to erode their security while smart criminals can just use some nice free open-source software somewhere else for E2E communication. And a lot of this is definitely down to lawmakers not understanding technology.
  - ttepasse 2y ago
    The vast majority of democracies separated the roles of head of state and head of government.
dhdjruf 2y ago
[dead]
ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
https://xcancel.com/BenWallace70/status/1892972120818299199 https://xcancel.com/BenWallace70/status/1892972120818299199
- doublerabbit 2y ago
  Thank you.
mschuster91 2y ago
And that's why it is so important to nip this "pedo" / "think of the children" crap right in the bud. Obviously pedos on the interwebs are bad, but hey as long as it's just anime they're whacking off to I don't care too much. But the real abuse, that's done by - especially in the UK - rich and famous people like Jimmy Savile. And you're not gonna catch these pedos with banning encryption, that's a fucking smokescreen if I ever saw one, you're gonna catch them with police legwork and by actually teaching young children about their bodies!
- worik 2y ago
  > But the real abuse, that's done by - especially in the UK - rich and famous people like Jimmy Savile Jimmy Savile was a vile predator. He was protected by the inane customs of the British ruling class. He was not alone among the toffs of England. But do not be mistaken. It is not just the rich and powerful where you find sexual predators. They exist at all levels of society, all genders, most ages (I will except infants and the aged infirm....) Jimmy Savile was a symptom of something much darker, much worse and widespread.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    Yeah but if you sell the populace on the idea that pedos are only something that's a threat on the interwebs the populace won't care about all the other pedos, and if there is a pedo scandal like the next Savile the government can just go and shrug and say "we did all we could". And that is the point behind all that pedo scare.
  - bigfudge 2y ago
    Jimmy Saville was many things, but I don’t think he was a toff. His ability to abuse was about power, and perhaps gender, but not class.
  - kypro 2y ago
    Honestly if the UK wants to reduce sexual crimes against children and adults one of the easiest ways to achieve that would be to reform UK liable law. In the UK if you're raped by someone famous you'd be an utter idiot to say anything unless you're loaded or have a massive amount of hard evidence. You couldn't have a me to movement in the UK because everyone who came forward would be sued into bankruptcy. This is why so many people knew about Savile but no one said anything.
GJim 2y ago
> one UK head of state What on earth are you talking about? Charles III is head of state, and before that, Liz II. The monarch absolutely does not get involved in politics.
- sib 2y ago
  >> The monarch absolutely does not get involved in politics. The monarch picks the Prime Minister, no? That seems pretty involved.
  - polshaw 2y ago
    No, the monarch does not pick the Prime Minister. At all. They have a ceremonial role in confirming them. Like they do with every law that Parliament creates. If they ever actually practically exercised this theoretical power it would be the end of the monarchy.
  - GJim 2y ago
    Good Lord man! Where are you finding this rubbish! The Members of Parliament choose the Prime Minister. The role of the monarch in confining them is purely ceremonial.
hackernoops 2y ago
Ironic.

Furthermore, one UK head of state call everyone supporting encryption pedophiles https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1892972120818299199 https://x.com/BenWallace70/status/1892972120818299199

scott_w 2y ago

Just to be clear: Wallace is not a head of state, or even an MP any more. At one point, he was Secretary of State for Defence, a Cabinet position, however he resigned this in 2023. This doesn’t justify his position (it’s stupid) but he doesn’t speak for the current government.

onei 2y ago
To clarify a bit further, the UK head of state is King Charles III, as he is for a bunch of other countries in the Commonwealth. Head of state in the UK is a bit weird compared to countries that abolished or never had a monarchy.
- scott_w 2y ago
  You’re correct, however I gave GP the benefit of the doubt and assumed they meant Secretary of State ;-) And, to be fair, while I’m generally a small r republican, I’m seeing benefits of having a non politically aligned head of state after J6. While the monarch has limited power, booting out a PM that can’t command the confidence of Parliament is one of them. The question of whether Johnson would accept being dethroned a la Trump was always silly given his consent was never needed.
  - onei 2y ago
    The UK monarch's power is largely based on convention more than active decision making. For example, a government is formed at the invitation of the monarch, but that's long reflected the results of an election. Getting rid of a PM generally happens when they run out of luck. That sometimes coincides with the ruling party/coalition imploding. The next PM is then shortlisted by MPs and selected by a minority of the electorate. I guess the US equivalent is the leader of the house being unable to hold their majority together. In some ways the presidential election feels more democratic if a relative outsider (like Trump was) can win. But a 2 year lead up is crazy.
  - worik 2y ago
    > And, to be fair, while I’m generally a small r republican, I’m seeing benefits of having a non politically aligned head of state One of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy is the head of state did not campaign for the position.
    - c0ndu17 2y ago
      I’ve become a bit of fan of it over the last few years. That said, I don’t think the UK can be replicated. It wraps ultimate power up in a contradiction, you have it but you can’t use it. Sure, technically you could but it would be your last act. Another important aspect, the for and against is currently split between parties, so there’s somewhat of unification factor between parties on that divide as well. It gets a lot of hate, because it is imperfect, but I don’t think it gets its fair shake. My views more of, if it ain’t broke is it really worth the risk changing it.
      - worik 2y ago
        > Sure, technically you could but it would be your last act. It was used in Australia in the 1970s
- ojhp 2y ago
  Technically we did abolish the monarchy back in the 17th century, but the replacement was so bad we brought them back about 10 years later, which I think makes us a minority of one and even more weird. Anyway, back on topic: this is a ridiculous law that is forcing services to erode their security while smart criminals can just use some nice free open-source software somewhere else for E2E communication. And a lot of this is definitely down to lawmakers not understanding technology.
- ttepasse 2y ago
  The vast majority of democracies separated the roles of head of state and head of government.

dhdjruf 2y ago

[dead]

ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago

https://xcancel.com/BenWallace70/status/1892972120818299199 https://xcancel.com/BenWallace70/status/1892972120818299199

doublerabbit 2y ago
Thank you.

mschuster91 2y ago

And that's why it is so important to nip this "pedo" / "think of the children" crap right in the bud. Obviously pedos on the interwebs are bad, but hey as long as it's just anime they're whacking off to I don't care too much. But the real abuse, that's done by - especially in the UK - rich and famous people like Jimmy Savile. And you're not gonna catch these pedos with banning encryption, that's a fucking smokescreen if I ever saw one, you're gonna catch them with police legwork and by actually teaching young children about their bodies!

worik 2y ago
> But the real abuse, that's done by - especially in the UK - rich and famous people like Jimmy Savile Jimmy Savile was a vile predator. He was protected by the inane customs of the British ruling class. He was not alone among the toffs of England. But do not be mistaken. It is not just the rich and powerful where you find sexual predators. They exist at all levels of society, all genders, most ages (I will except infants and the aged infirm....) Jimmy Savile was a symptom of something much darker, much worse and widespread.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  Yeah but if you sell the populace on the idea that pedos are only something that's a threat on the interwebs the populace won't care about all the other pedos, and if there is a pedo scandal like the next Savile the government can just go and shrug and say "we did all we could". And that is the point behind all that pedo scare.
- bigfudge 2y ago
  Jimmy Saville was many things, but I don’t think he was a toff. His ability to abuse was about power, and perhaps gender, but not class.
- kypro 2y ago
  Honestly if the UK wants to reduce sexual crimes against children and adults one of the easiest ways to achieve that would be to reform UK liable law. In the UK if you're raped by someone famous you'd be an utter idiot to say anything unless you're loaded or have a massive amount of hard evidence. You couldn't have a me to movement in the UK because everyone who came forward would be sued into bankruptcy. This is why so many people knew about Savile but no one said anything.

GJim 2y ago

> one UK head of state What on earth are you talking about? Charles III is head of state, and before that, Liz II. The monarch absolutely does not get involved in politics.

sib 2y ago
>> The monarch absolutely does not get involved in politics. The monarch picks the Prime Minister, no? That seems pretty involved.
- polshaw 2y ago
  No, the monarch does not pick the Prime Minister. At all. They have a ceremonial role in confirming them. Like they do with every law that Parliament creates. If they ever actually practically exercised this theoretical power it would be the end of the monarchy.
- GJim 2y ago
  Good Lord man! Where are you finding this rubbish! The Members of Parliament choose the Prime Minister. The role of the monarch in confining them is purely ceremonial.

hackernoops 2y ago

Ironic.