Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>Endorsed by the home secretary, Priti Patel, the consultation argues that press disclosures can be worse than spying, because the work of a foreign spy “will often only be to the benefit of a single state or actor”.

tl;dr Priti Patel thinks embarrassing government leaks are worse for her than actual espionage and so wants to criminalize them.




Disgraced Home Secretary, Priti Patel*

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41853561.amp


No she's the current Home Secretary.

You could argue that she's the 'disgraced' Secretary of State for International Development if you wanted to.


> No she's the current Home Secretary.

She can still be disgraced, though, no? Not least because she's been pretty disgraceful as Home Secretary.


Disgraced X means they were X but have fallen from that position. You can’t be a disgraced X if you’re still an X.


Using the OUP definition via Google, "having fallen from favour or a position of power or honour; discredited."

You are claiming that "fallen from a position of power" is the only valid meaning but "fallen from a position of favour" or "discredited" are also valid for Priti Patel.

See also, e.g., Collins, Cambridge

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/disgrac...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disgrace...

Perfect example from the second link: "Many thought the disgraced president needed to resign."

[edit: added pertinent example]


She hasn't fallen from her current position of favour - she still has the PM's favour - and she hasn't been discredited - she still has her credentials as Home Secretary.

I'm sure she doesn't have your favour, but you could find someone who doesn't like any politician, but we don't call them discredited because some angry person doesn't like them any more - that's just not what the phrase means.

> Perfect example from the second link: "Many thought the disgraced president needed to resign."

In that example they're doing what you're doing and arguing that you think she should be discredited, or you'd discredit her if you were the PM, not that they actually are discredited - because clearly neither were.


> she still has the PM's favour

Which, as you know, is not the only kind of favour that exists, especially in a political context.

> and she hasn't been discredited - she still has her credentials

Again, you're taking a very limited and specific meaning of the word to bolster your position - you can easily be discredited with the wider audience and still be in your position (cf Boris Johnson for a prime example.)

> you could find someone who doesn't like any politician, but we don't call them discredited because some angry person doesn't like them any more

No, we would not. But if many angry persons disliked them because they continually displayed verifiable traits like lying, cheating, corruption, etc., we could perfectly well call them "discredited" or "disgraced", yes.


Many angry people dislike any politician.

And of course we all know the real reason why Priti Patel rubs so many people up the wrong way... she's a non-white daughter of immigrants.


Funny you should say that. I have a friend in the UK army and his army colleagues are some of the most racist people you'll ever meet. The army is seemingly a hotbed of nick griffin/farage supporters.

They're fans of priti patel too. The British racist far right really like her immigration policies if nothing else.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/does-nobody-talk-raci...

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-do-those-who-abuse-p...

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/howard-beckett-labo...

I think whatever your politics we think we should stop and challenge when angry white men are calling for a white minority woman with immigrant parents to be deported, or similar obvious whistles or abuse, because they don't like her opinions.


It's completely self evident that as the person responsible for untold suffering through the UK's increasingly punitive immigration policies they'd like her to see her face a taste of her own medicine.

It's equally predictable that the British right and far right would try to deflect this criticism by playing the race card.

I think whatever your politics we should stop and challenge when an angry white man tries to use cynical, performative, pearl clutching trumped up false accusations of racism to deflect criticism away from vicious and entirely real kind of racism they enthusiastically endorse.


> It's completely self evident that as the person responsible for untold suffering through the UK's increasingly punitive immigration policies they'd like her to see her face a taste of her own medicine.

Yes that was obvious to anyone with common sense. But when challenged they denied that's what they ever meant! Dog whistling. And rightfully called out as so by others on the left.


He didn't deny that was what he meant.

It was "called out" by Chris Bryant - a member of Labour Friends for Israel and thus very much a pretend member "of the left".

This is the same group that sent a delegation to Isaac Herzog, a party leader who is unapologetically and publicly racist to apologize for "anti-semitism" in the Labour party that barely existed.

This is, again, how racists protect each other - with false accusations of racism against anti-racists.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: