I hope that Fawkes does sue her, heâs perfectly within his rights to do so and given her position I think it would be a sensible reminder to politicians that theyâre just people, mostly out of touch jobsworths, but people none the less; and that even they are subject to the shit they keep pushing trough parliament.
Hope she gets fired 
Unless she can prove that Guido paid someone to hack her website, which would, of course, be a serious criminal offence, sheâs going to be paying him some money soon. The fact she has effectively accused him of a criminal act means that he doesnât have to demonstrate any damage as a result of the claim. Even if she thinks she has a leg to fight the case on, any proceedings will drive media coverage (Streisand effect etc) and will raise the stakes for the politician. Fawkes, on the other hand, is pretty immune to bad press. It doesnât look good.
Sheâs gotta be fired. I donât want people like that representing me in governmental matters.
By like that, I opine âwet behind the earsâ, and ânone too cleverâ.
Twitter is such a boon to lawyers. It might be hard for the more challenged amongst us to transliterate the phrase âengage brain before opening mouthâ into the age of electronic communication.
This MP is officially a Parliamentary Private Secretary - effectively, a glorified âbag carrierâ, as someone has put it - for the the Minister of Defence. This MP thus has no stature, and no remit in regard to the Internet at all. That the government has decided to but such a clueless person in such a position is telling about how dangerously technically illiterate - and worse, dismissive - is the political class of the UK. Frightening.
Oh please. It was a funny hack, a funny report from Fawkes and a bewildered reply from the MP. Then people have to drag it into the mud by talking about defamation, lawsuits and lawyers.
Remember that the libel laws in the UK are evil, particularly when used against hapless Tweeters.
Yep. And therefore, the more clueless MPs that are hoist by that petard, the better!
Even under the comparatively enlightened standards of US libel law, accusing somebody of âsponsoringâ a website defacement(which, while relatively rarely caught and prosecuted, is probably eleventy-billion CFAA violations plus some copyright infringements for the porn used) would probably be an uncomfortable day in court, unless that person were deemed to be a âpublic figureâ for which the standards are generally considerably higher(which is why, say, our cottage industry of wild conspiracy theories about politicians doesnât spawn much legal action).
I hope he bleeds the ground red with her checkbook.
To quote Ian Hislop: âI hope they both looseâ
Why would you waste an actually-powerful henchman on moralistic noisemaking when a peon will do?
As the revelations concerning the NSA and their colleagues overseas has demonstrated, the competent attackers of the internet are already burrowed in and quietly feeding on virtually anything large enough to be worth the trouble.
Anti-smut crusading is a pathetic intellectual backwater, where people who think that their ability to feel very, very strongly compensates for their incompetence make noises to appease voters even dumber than they are.
Yeah, the laws are evil, which is all the more reason to use them against legislators. Then maybe they will get the message.
Please tell me Iâm not the only one refreshing this page to see if this has been edited. My OCD is kicking inâŚ
You know, thatâs actually a fair point.
Mmm I reckon it was a âkeep our hands clean while swagging some votesâ exercise by DC & Co
Oh dear, Cory. Claire Perry may well be technologically illiterate but Iâm afraid you are just illiterate. The word âarchitectâ is a noun, not a verb.
Yeah, the laws are evil, which is all the more reason to use them
against legislators. Then maybe they will get the message.
This. The libel laws are so pathetically tilted against free speech in the UK, I feel giddy at the thought that an MP will soon be on the receiving end of them.
The word âarchitectâ is a noun, not a verb.
Itâs both, actually. Perhaps a closer inspection of the definition?
Another day, another person complaining about which part of speech a word is. Youâre driving me nuts. First of all, architect is listed as a verb in both Merriam-Webster and the OED. In fact, the OED has says that it is a verb specifically in reference to computing, so the usage of it as a verb here is extremely appropriate.
But perhaps more importantly, if the usage of the word conveys a clear meaning to you then itâs doing its job. Itâs okay to use words in novel ways, and it is irritating when people complain about others doing so. Plus, every time you do so you open yourself up to be out-snobbed by someone who knows better, as you have been here.
Must not forget to download some more ârape simulation pornâ (aka bdsm porn) before it becomes illegal in the UK.
I think we should just spell it âloozeâ from now on. We canât win this fight, we can only looze.
âGuido Fawkes?â Really? The guy should do hard time just for that pseudonym.
