[tweet]1417508266616266755[/tweet]
Daily Mail article so won't read.
Daily Mail article so can't trust.
The example specifically given in the article is if someone publishes the names of British spies and puts their life in danger.[tweet]1417508266616266755[/tweet]
I read the Mail when there's one lying around just to see what they're up to. It doesn't strike me as the most untrustworthy of papers, merely one that I disagree with, but acknowledge it's extremely effective at what it does.
Will the following do?
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ng-home-office-public-interest-whistleblowing
I read the Mail when there's one lying around just to see what they're up to. It doesn't strike me as the most untrustworthy of papers, merely one that I disagree with, but acknowledge it's extremely effective at what it does.
Will the following do?
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ng-home-office-public-interest-whistleblowing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1989
Pretty much been a law since 1989. Reveal any dirty secrets and you might find yourself in jail.
[tweet]1417508266616266755[/tweet]
Only have to look at Assange to see what happens to you when uncomfortable truths about governments are revealed....
or jump bail of course.
I read the Mail when there's one lying around just to see what they're up to. It doesn't strike me as the most untrustworthy of papers, merely one that I disagree with, but acknowledge it's extremely effective at what it does.
Will the following do?
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ng-home-office-public-interest-whistleblowing