

UK Authorities Destroy Guardian's Hard Drives - spurgu
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/08/uk-authorities-destroy-guardians-hard-drives-force-journalists-report-nsa-stories-exile

======
jacquesm
The Guardian has been (together with the Scotsman by the way) a source of
inspiration over the last decade or more.

To see them intimidated like this by thugs that could have walked right out of
something by Bulgakov or even Kafka is a sobering prospect.

It translates into: the free press is now classed an enemy of the state and
equates to terrorism.

I've lived in Poland before the iron curtain came down, in the years when
Jaruzelski ruled the country and when Solidarnosc was just beginning to form,
the free press was classed an enemy of the state there as well. Mere posession
of an illegal book or paper could get you into a lot of trouble.

The state sanctioned media were extremely circumspect in their reporting of
what was going on in Gdansk and Gdynia but word trickled out and slowly Polish
people everywhere started to see light at the end of the tunnel.

Reagan, the Afghan war and Gorbachev all played a part in the fall of the
Soviet Union. But Poland and especially Solidarity, Wałęsa and Popiełuszko
deserve a good chunk of the credit too.

A not so visible part of all of this is that the free press in Poland (called
the samizdat) spread not only books but also 10's of thousands of copies of
the underground newspaper Solidarnosc, many of which were read by multiple
people, passed from hand to hand to trusted friends. These were the only
counterweight to state media (newspaper, radio, television) and the contrast
between the two was stark.

I wonder if the Solidarity movement would have gotten off the ground as well
as it did and whether Poland would have made the early move to freedom without
such a free press (and in some cases it wasn't even a press but simply hand-
copying or re-typing!).

It is the only historical change that I have had the privilege of observing at
very close quarters, so my experience is limited. But a free press to me is a
must have, it is as important as having a system of government, and to have a
free press we must have journalists and newspapers that are free to operate.

Otherwise one of these days we'll have to resort to underground presses like
in the days of communism in Poland, press freedom is _very_ important no
matter who governs you, and government officials intimidating the press is a
_very_ bad sign.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28Polish_trade_unio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28Polish_trade_union%29)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Popie%C5%82uszko](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Popie%C5%82uszko)

~~~
euroclydon
Shouldn't we be doing more to discuss the nature of classified material that
was exposed by the press, rather than just whether the "free press" is a good
thing? Isn't there a continuum between reporting on e.g. _D-Day invasion plans
two days before_ and _a judge who accepted cash to issue an injunction to stop
vote counting in a contested election_? And wouldn't the press be guilty of
treason for the former, but fourth-branch status for the latter?

~~~
ganeumann
So, discuss.

Why shouldn't we know about our own governments spying on us? Why shouldn't we
be informed about how our government is governing?

The US Constitution, at least, was written in remembrance of the privations of
an occupying army. The country was founded on the belief that the people are
sovereign. If the people are to be sovereign, then they need to know what the
government is doing. This is why we have freedom of the press, etc., and why
this right is more important than any short-term goal.

The governments of the US and UK are acting like occupying armies. They
disregard the rule of law, act arbitrarily, arrogantly, and without
accountability. Fixing this is more important than any marginal security the
NSA's secrecy provides. It's probably worth more than everything the NSA
provides altogether.

~~~
euroclydon
It's been said here on HN, that if the anti-surveillance crowd were really
serious, and constituted a good chunk of the voting public, then they would
get organized like: Pro-Lifers, the Pro-Choice, Pro Gun, Civil Rights, etc.
But it sounds like you are saying that your adversaries are agencies who by
definition must act in secret, and there is no amount of political advocacy
that can engage them on their level. It's only through some type of hacker-
war, which you analogize to the revolution, that your concerns can be
addressed?

~~~
ganeumann
I wasn't advocating a revolution, I think we can fix this inside the system we
have. But I think that because we do have the means to allow us to fix it,
like freedom of the press.

This episode bothers me in a different way than most violations of basic human
rights. Because the violation is around privacy/secrecy, the violating
entities have to attack the very means we have set up to correct violations.
It's like a virus that attacks the immune system, something to be taken more
seriously than the actual damage done, because it destroys the ecosystem's
ability to correct other violations.

In any case, I was simply encouraging you to actually say something, rather
than just say what sorts of things we should say, and then demonstrating what
I meant.

~~~
euroclydon
I don't see any progress toward fixing this from within the system. Snowden
and WikiLeaks are more analogous to an exiled resistance group than to people
trying to work within the system. MLK stayed right here and got arrested and
murdered.

Surveillance won't be a major political issue unless it tangibly affects a lot
of people in a negative way. That's just not happening now. Most people don't
care. But there are other things they do care about because they feel the
effects.

------
noir_lord
I'm going to take out a subscription to the Guardian.

At this point they are the only newspaper that seems to have the balls to tell
the thugs from Whitehall to go and fuck themselves.

This stuff is absolutely insane, We didn't behave like this when the IRA was
setting bombs off on a regular basis and shooting up the landscape.

It's always been obvious that the land grabs for power had little to do with
actual terrorism.

Pick up that can.

~~~
arethuza
I'm not sure I would pick the Troubles as an example of good behaviour by the
UK government. Not that long ago we had within the UK:

\- Large scale arrests and imprisonment without trial - "internment"

\- Massacres of innocent civilians by British Army soldiers - Bloody Sunday

\- Officially supported interrogation techniques that bordered on torture -
the "Five techniques"

\- Innocent people forced into admitting that they committed terrorist acts,
convicted and given long jail sentences - the Guildford Four

~~~
zimpenfish
Not just bordering on torture, actually called torture by the ECHR in 1976
(although downgraded to "inhuman and degrading" on appeal in 1978.)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius)

Not our finest hour, really.

~~~
corin_
If something is called torture and on appeal they decided that they were wrong
then surely that is the definition of "bordering on torture"?

~~~
zimpenfish
I'd say "inhuman and degrading" is more than "bordering on torture" but it's a
fair point.

------
spodek
From the article: " _forcing a newspaper’s editor into exile over a report it
doesn’t like sounds like a story from the 18th century reign of King George
III, not of a supposed 21st century democracy._ "

Sadly, as an American, I have to point out that the main impetus seems to be
coming from this side of the Atlantic this time and both places' governing
bodies seem to be complicit and stepping on the gas.

Citizens overcame the tyranny last time. Let's hope we can do it again this
time.

On another note: The government itself is showing either it has something to
hide, in which case it's showing that it's lying to us, or they have nothing
to hide, in which case here's your answer to "What's the problem if you have
nothing to hide?"

~~~
meddlepal
The citizenry will not overcome the tyranny because most of the citizens are
either (1) unaware of how the power effects them (2) do not understand it.

~~~
careersuicide
I think it's actually worse than that. Obviously I have only anecdotal
evidence, but as far as I can tell, a large minority (maybe even a small
majority) of people support what the NSA has been doing. They don't
necessarily understand the technical details, but they completely understand
the implications and consequences and they explicitly approve. When I go
outside of my usual online and real life social circles the attitude about
government surveillance is shockingly complicit.

I'm starting to believe the only way to change this isn't to get people
outraged or make them understand the effects of pervasive surveillance on
freedom. The solution is to instead make it clear just how ineffective it is
at its stated purpose of keeping us all safe.

~~~
GVIrish
I disagree, if you make clear how ineffective these surveillance measures are,
the natural response for the powers that be is that they need MORE power.
"See, if we were able to arrest anyone who spoke about terrorism online or by
phone, we could've prevented this attack." "If only we were allowed to jail
anyone indefinitely we could've disrupted this sleeper cell."

If anything, this is how this whole power grab got started in the first place.
"If we could spy on everyone we could've stopped 9/11."

------
Andrenid
Now that they basically consider journalism to be terrorism, if I subscribe to
The Guardian am I "funding terrorism"?

I've gone from angry, to completely and utterly 'defeated'. I think I agree
with Groklaw where the only way to win, is not to play. Get off the net and go
bush. Take up golf (I hate golf). No idea. It's like being back in school
being beaten up by the bullies for being a geek, no words can make it stop,
nothing I say or do will make a difference.

~~~
hahainternet
> Now that they basically consider journalism to be terrorism, if I subscribe
> to The Guardian am I "funding terrorism"?

Jesus christ could we cut down on the hyperbole a LITTLE?

~~~
enko
I know you think you're being very clever, with your disingenuous "A LITTLE",
but ironically it really is only a little hyperbole in the grandparent
comment. For fuck's sake, partners of journalists in the UK are being
intimidated by the government. If I was the journalist I'd be very hesitant to
travel at all. This is in bloody england, remember, the progenitor of
everything we think about when we think "the west".

Open your eyes. Look how far things have come. This is not about LOLPOINTS™ on
the internet, this is actually getting pretty damn real, and people are
worried.

~~~
hahainternet
If you think that equating journalism with terrorism is only slight hyperbole
then you have no place in reasonable discussion.

It is excessive hyperbole that helps nobody and serves only to polarise
discussions. In reality the statements so far indicate that they stopped
Miranda in order to determine if he was carrying information likely to be of
use to terrorists. This seems to be an illegitimate use of the powers, which
we'll find out soon.

That is a reasonable take on the matters, not 'JOURNALISM NOW IS
TERRORISM!!!!!'

~~~
joeguilmette
David was detained using a law explicitly written for use against terrorists,
to detain them in airports for up to nine hours without counsel. Also to not
answer questions would land him in prison.

So... it's not hyperbolic at all to say that journalism is equated with
terrorism, because the state us using laws designed for use against terrorists
against journalists.

Wake up.

~~~
hahainternet
> David was detained using a law explicitly written for use against terrorists

Incorrect, it is applicable to all travellers entering the United Kingdom

> to detain them in airports for up to nine hours without counsel

Incorrect, he refused counsel.

> Also to not answer questions would land him in prison.

There's no real evidence of this, there is a 'must not interfere' clause but
it has never been tested.

> So... it's not hyperbolic at all to say that journalism is equated with
> terrorism, because the state us using laws designed for use against
> terrorists against journalists.

> Wake up.

Could you use more of a cliché? It's hyperbole, you have just proven as much
by your complete ignorance on the subject.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Incorrect, he refused counsel.

If you aren't permitted counsel of your choice (and he wasn't) but only
counsel selected by the _police_ (which he was offered), then you are
effectively denied counsel.

~~~
hahainternet
What total nonsense. You may as well claim duty solicitors are in the palm of
the Police.

~~~
dragonwriter
> You may as well claim duty solicitors are in the palm of the Police.

While there is still a potential agency problem, duty solicitors (or, in
American parlance, public defenders) aren't an alternative to counsel of
choice, they exist to provide the choice to have _some_ counsel to people who
otherwise would have none, without denying them the choice of securing any of
their own to the extent they can.

Providing the option of a duty solicitor is not, then, at all the same as
denying someone access to willing counsel of their choice.

------
sailfast
This title is completely misleading and paints the government here in a false
light. It is clear to me from the original article that the GCHQ staff were
ensuring that hard drives ALREADY slated for destruction by the Guardian were
complying with their required destruction process for classified information.
They were not destroying hard drives owned by a private corporation without
their consent or seizing hard drives. I know it is tempting to read only one
side of a story and jump on reactionary headlines, but let's try to continue
giving benefit of the doubt to both parties like rational humans.

~~~
paradoja
I don't think it is. It seems pretty clear you misunderstood. As posted in
another comment, this Tweet shows that The Guardian destroyed the hard drives
at the government's behest:
[https://twitter.com/dansabbagh/status/369794535464767488](https://twitter.com/dansabbagh/status/369794535464767488)

~~~
kbenson
This is all very unclear to me. There's quite a bit indignation here which may
be clouding people's rational assessment of the situation.

The Guardian has clear motive to play up any interaction like this with the
government. That doesn't mean they would, but I'm not going to suspend
critical assessment of the situation just because it plays to be beliefs.

The ratio of verified information to editorializing rants is very low here, at
the moment.

------
mjburgess
All this Gaurdian praise neglects the fact that they have had all of their
exclusives handed to them over the past few years, from WikiLeaks to
Snowden... and for no good reason other than that's who it was given to last
time.

If papers such as the independent, etc. had been given this information, im
sure there professionalism would have been the same or higher. Outside of
handed-on-a-platter reporting, the Guardian has massively cocked up in the
past (leading to the arrest of sources, etc.).

~~~
knotty66
All the other UK papers (and the BBC) have barely even REPORTED on any of
these issues, exclusives or not.

To look at those papers you wouldn't suspect something of this magnitude is
even going on.

~~~
anon1385
They were 'requested' not to report it by the government: [http://order-
order.com/2013/06/08/d-notice-june-7-2013/](http://order-
order.com/2013/06/08/d-notice-june-7-2013/)

~~~
gsnedders
As that rightly states, D-Notices are requests to not publish. They have no
legal standing, though they are frequently obeyed. (One relatively reason
example was the D-Notice concerning Prince Harry's military deployments — for
the sake of his safety and of those serving alongside him.)

What's really disconcerting is that the other outlets have decided this isn't
sufficiently "in the public interest" as to disobey the notice.

------
Shish2k
This seems like the digital equivalent of adding skulls to your officer's caps
-- how have these guys not realised that they're the baddies yet? (
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU)
)

edit: less-copyright-blocked link:
[http://www.snotr.com/video/3167/Are_we_the_baddies](http://www.snotr.com/video/3167/Are_we_the_baddies)

~~~
vonmoltke
So the Queen's Royal Lancers[1] and the USMC Recon Battalions[2] are baddies
as well? How about the dozens of other units that used it?

I'm not saying this action by the British government isn't troubling, but
there is no single symbol of being "the baddies".

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Royal_Lancers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Royal_Lancers)
[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_Reco...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_Reconnaissance_Battalions)

~~~
walshemj
The use of skull and death motif goes back the Napoleonic wars with Brunswick
Hussars. Hitler and the Nazis where very good at nicking their imagery - I
suspect Hindus are still at bit pissed off over the swastika

~~~
vonmoltke
Actually, it goes all the way back to the War of Austrian Succession and
Prussian Husaren-Regiment Nr. 5.

As a long-time student of history I get very annoyed when Nazi symbology is
presented as something they invented, particularly when used to demonstrate
that we should have known they were evil to begin with. They ripped all their
shit off from someone else, and some of it is only viewed as evil today
_because_ of them.

------
randallu
To why they didn't go to court:

@dansabbagh "Reason Gdn destroyed the computers was to avoid a lengthy legal
UK battle that wld have prevented more reporting of Snowden files."

[https://twitter.com/dansabbagh/status/369794535464767488](https://twitter.com/dansabbagh/status/369794535464767488)

~~~
foobarqux
How would it have prevented more reporting of Snowden files? Rudsbridger said
the US division will continue publishing.

In another comment in the Guardian Rudsbridger mentioned only the potential
liability, not the impact to reporting.

~~~
legutierr
Perhaps if the issue was brought to the courts the Guardian may have become
subject to a court order (let's say, a gag order), which even if violated in
the US could have lead the Guardian to be in contempt. I think in this case a
small retreat was more effective than a direct confrontation.

------
harshreality
What is this trying to accomplish? Did they really think the Guardian has the
only copy of that data? They couldn't really believe that, could they, after
the Guardian pretty much explicitly told them it wasn't true. So they're just
government thugs playing whack-a-mole? Confiscate some usb sticks here, smash
some Guardian storage devices there...

If they can't ask the Guardian to overwrite the drives a few times and expect
the Guardian to comply with that, what good does physically destroying the
drives do? The Guardian could download the encrypted data from some (backup)
cloud storage location and have it back in an hour.

~~~
nullc
> What is this trying to accomplish? Did they really think the Guardian has
> the only copy of that data?

Of course not. The idea was to frighten people who haven't been obedient and
to create a lot of costs to reduce the profitability of running stories on
unwelcome subjects.

~~~
jccc
"One U.S. security official told Reuters that one of the main purposes of the
British government's detention and questioning of Miranda" [note: using a
clear abuse of a terrorism law] "was to send a message to recipients of
Snowden's materials, including the Guardian, that the British government was
serious about trying to shut down the leaks."

[http://ca.news.yahoo.com/britain-forced-guardian-destroy-
cop...](http://ca.news.yahoo.com/britain-forced-guardian-destroy-copy-snowden-
material-222933670.html)

Whenever anyone asks this kind of question, please give them citations.

------
rokusho
Can someone remind me, since when did "journalist" become synonymous with
"terrorist" again?

~~~
jacquesm
Probably around the time that journalists decided they would write what they
think rather than what they are told to write.

Journalist is a risky profession, even when you're not going into some
warzone.

------
nwh
Can't imagine how this went down in person. Group of police turn up and tell
you that they're going to destroy all your working media. How would you even
go about authenticating such a ridiculous claim?

It's like they've never heard of off-site backups.

~~~
Terretta
In all seriousness, though, reading about the smashed MacBook Pro has me
reviewing our Chubb business operations and equipment insurance.

It excludes acts of terrorism and terrorism related activity. If jackboots
show up demanding to physically demolish servers in any of our dozen
datacenters around the world, claiming Section 7 or Patriot Act, will our
insurance replace them? A government's categorization of data as terror
related could quickly put a cloud provider out hundreds of thousands or
millions (mass video storage is expensive) in unrecoverable costs.

We're covered for business continuity if the DMCA or SOPA troops show up and
make off with servers like with Mega. But looks like we're not covered if the
insurance company can prove a government called the destruction terror
related. Ugh.

~~~
nwh
If the iTunes agreement contains a clause about not using it to make nuclear
weapons (it does), you can be sure as anything most insurance policies are
void if you lose things to government action. I had a flick through mine some
time ago, the only ones I can remember are falling spacecraft and floods.

------
shocks
All this tells me is that our government are doing worse things we don't even
know about yet, and they're doing everything they can to keep it quiet.

------
mcv
Thugs. That's the first thing in my mind. The UK government employs thugs to
intimidate people and destroy property.

This kind of subject makes it really hard not to Godwin the thread right
away., because you know what other government used thugs to intimidate and
destroy.

~~~
epo
The American government?

------
solistice
It might be worth checking out the killed journalist meter by Reporters
without Borders.

[https://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-barometer-journalists-
kille...](https://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-barometer-journalists-
killed.html?annee=2013)

They may not even provide the most throughout look on these things, but they
seem to cover most incidents regarding persecution of journalists.

------
cenhyperion
Am I the only one that finds this part more Orwellian than any of the actual
leaks? To me there's a fundamental difference (though I hate both) between
collecting data, and attacking people who politically disagree with you and
attempting to destroy data you don't like.

Book burnings general don't end well for the party in power.

------
ash
It's unfortunate Guardian didn't force the government go to court over this.
It would increase publicity.

~~~
randallu
Maybe they already did? Seems like the current government have introduced
secret courts recently... [http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/14/what-
are-secret-c...](http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/14/what-are-secret-
courts)

Also the Guardian hasn't stopped printing these stories in the UK or online.
They've been staffing up in New York (including Nick Davies who brought down
much of Rupert Murdoch's print empire last year and crucially prevented
newscorp from buying the rest of bskyb).

It's interesting to me that the US has a better low-level legal framework for
a free press, but it's not plain sailing at all (i.e.: the nytimes and
washington post "asked dad" before looking at wikileaks files; judith miller
and now james risen have no shield laws).

~~~
ash
Maybe they did. But the man who was contacted by UK officials about destroying
the data, Alan Rusbridger, didn't say they went to court. He said (in reply to
a comment) he doesn't see the need for it:

    
    
      AlanC said:
      If you meekly give into their demands without insisting   that they 
      take you to court then you've as good as admitted that they can do 
      whatever they like as far as the UK press is concerned. ...
    
      Alan Rusbridger replied:
      Play out the scenario for me in which fighting this case in court would
      have enabled us to do a better job of reporting the Snowden documents.
      I'm not sure I quite see it...
    

[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-m...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-
miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters)

------
lifeisstillgood
To subscribe to the Guardian :
[http://subscribe.theguardian.com/](http://subscribe.theguardian.com/)

To send Alan Rusbridger an email of support: alan.rusbridger@theguardian.com

I'm drafting an email here
[http://blog.mikadosoftware.com/2013/08/20/supporting-a-
free-...](http://blog.mikadosoftware.com/2013/08/20/supporting-a-free-press-
by-paying-for-it/) but send something - a few people standing up are worth
supporting.

~~~
foobarqux
Please don't do that. As I described in another comment Rusbridger didn't do
anything courageous, quite the opposite.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I'm struggling with this - he is the editor, he supports his reporters when
they are harrassed, he throws an idiotic government move into sharp relief, he
is still pumping out page one stories when the rest of the press think "Prince
says baby son is rascal" is news.

We are not living in 80's Poland, or 30's Russia, or modern Iran / Syria. So
on the spectrum of courage-shown-by-news-editors he is never going to choose
between his family and his editorial page, but he is doing better than all the
rest of his peers - and we sorely need it.

~~~
foobarqux
Maybe he does more than some of his peers but the qualities you describe
hardly meet the bare minimum of what the public should expect from an editor.
And, while exceedingly few, there are reporters who are head and shoulders
above Rudsbridger and who report in service to the public at great harm to
themselves and their family, Greenwald being an example at hand.

But no one asked Rudsbridger to sacrifice his family nor was he at risk to. As
an editor he should have demanded a court order before destroying source
material. He should not now pretend he is a courageous government-defying
reporter when he has minimized risk to himself.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
> qualities you describe hardly meet the bare minimum of what the public
> should expect from an editor.

Or from head of MI5, head of Civil Service, Attourney Generals, Prime
Minister.

There is a lot unknown here, but I think you are assuming he allowed the
destruction so that it could not be proven they had it in the first place
(making him safer).

There are other explanations - including a desire not to let UK courts have
jurisdication over his sources. He is moving the entire reporting to NY -
thats a pretty clear indication of his thinking. Choose your jury wisely.

~~~
foobarqux
> I think you are assuming he allowed the destruction so that it could not be
> proven they had it in the first place (making him safer).

No, what made him safer was obeying the government and also, I presume,
removing himself from direct involvement in reporting the story.

That's why the portrayal of courage and rebellion is laughable.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
He has removed himself and _any reporter not based in New York_. He knows the
strength of the first amendment in US courts, National Security letters or
not.

No UK reporter will do any work on surveillance any more, simply because the
UK has too much power over the press when it really wants to. Going to court
in the US gives him a near certain win, going to court in the UK a near
certain loss.

To paraphrase Napoleon: I would rather have a clever editor than a brave one,
and a lucky editor than a clever one. He got lucky with the UK destroying the
disks in a heavy handed manner.

~~~
foobarqux
Fine, describe him as clever or lucky but not courageous or standing up to
power.

------
TomGullen
I am starting to seriously despair at the state of the UK.

~~~
kamjam
Me too. But don't be fooled into thinking anything different would have
happened elsewhere, this definitely would have happened in the US, and I doubt
he would even have been allowed a lawyer and most likely held indefinitely.
And we have already seen Europe close off their airspace to the Bolivian
presidential plane due to suspicions Snowden was on board.

------
Shish2k
I know that wikileaks' "torrent the encrypted archive, have the decryption key
on a dead man's switch" approach didn't _exactly_ work as intended, but it's
starting to seem like a relatively good option again IMO :S

~~~
jacquesm
It's worked just fine so far, Assange's hide-out still hasn't been stormed and
he's safer where he is than Snowden.

~~~
ash
How do you know Assange's hide-out is safer than Snowden's?

It's also interesting that Snowden likely has more freedom. At least he can
move around Russia, while Assange is stuck inside a room. (security vs
freedom)

------
orestmayski
'God Bless' the Guardian..

------
frank_boyd
Don't be fooled, events like this one _will_ have their repercussions.

~~~
kaidajekri
I truly hope so, but who for and what are they likely to be? When many people
in the UK read what the tabloid media writes, without questioning it or taking
biases into account, if the events are even reported at all. An uninformed
electorate is a dangerous thing.

------
unz
David Cameron is going to have answer about this at the next election. He
should be trembling in his boots.

~~~
gmac
Well, maybe, but the Guardian's circulation is only about 200,000, and I doubt
more than 1% of its readers would have voted for Cameron anyway. (Or was that
heavy irony?).

