Poirot you do me wrong.
I have no problem, zero, with women behaving as you say, and as they do.
My problem is with liberationists who refuse to see they do.
And that being female is reason enough not to be judged on their own actions.
Birth control pill long ago saw a balance return to sexual relations, all I ask is that being male or females not reason to be guilty by association.
My football code, got flogged but no one wanted to hear the female involved then was predatory.
in no way is it only men who are so in sexual matters.
This young girl did not act wisely but she has not done anything thousands of young men/women do every day.
She reminds me why a woman scorned is a thing worth remembering
and being careful of her actions are not unusual for such, out off control and a bit mad.

PaulL, One of the dilemma's for me is that we have politicians (and others) hiding behind a pretense of "national interest" to protect their personal interests. At a state level cabinet secrecy has become a joke.

I'd proposed previously in a discussion of freedom of information (state level politics) that before any document could protected that agreement should be required from the premier and leader of the opposition (or their delegates). It would be better of a third player was involved with no direct party political stake in the issue but I'm out of idea's on how to avoid that becoming politicised.

Not bombproof but it might be a start as an approach to working out what should legitimately be protected and what should be available to the public.

I don't want the situation which seems to exist at the moment where those most likely to gain from inappropriate classification of material are those able to make the decision to do so. Power corrupts etc.

The wiki-leaks approach has some big risks associated with it but at the moment it seems like the best thing going in terms of making politicians a little more careful about what they do out of the public eye.

R0bert

Pelican,

You are all over the place,

You claim that the public has a right to know everything it wants. But earlier you say “ .. information might need to be kept secret … For example some of the information in relation to wartime strategy, troop placements and other national security instances”

I agree that national security requires secrecy. I also believe that diplomacy cannot be effectively achieved by broadcasting everything to the enemy. And that to a large extent, diplomacy deals with issues of national security.

I would fully support Assange if he was releasing information which caught the US, or Australia, in a lie. But this is not what he is doing.

Assange is saying that ALL information, especially national security information, should be available to the public. He has denied that diplomacy ever requires secrecy. This is an indefensible position for anyone who agrees with our liberal democratic system.

In no mainstream newspaper in the country will you find an editorial which supports a blanket right to know. No such right has ever existed because it is fundamentally flawed. You yourself can think of at least three instances where the right to know needs to be abrogated in the public interest. I’m merely pointing out to you that the public interest is not served by the mass release of confidential diplomatic communications, purely on the basis that they should never be private.

BTW. Despite your fallacious attempt to define my position, I don’t think the public should be kept in the dark as much as possible. I never said this and I defy you to present any proof otherwise.

I think public officials who lie to us deserves to be caught and severely punished. I simply don’t accept that therefore there is no place for secrecy in diplomacy. I also don’t accept that Assange is looking for the truth. He KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt that these leaks will tighten up the flow of information within gov’t. This is his goal and if you read his writings you will see this.

Robert,

I fully accept the truth of this. Politicians can sometimes hide behind the national interest to protect their narrow political interests.

If Assange was exposing this type of wrongdoing, I would support him. But he's not

But he is saying that ALL information should be public. This is NOT a defensible position for anyone of moderate intelligence.

Not all over the place PauL. You asked a question in what instance might it be valid to keep information confidential. Anyone of moderate intelligence would understand that not all information can be available at all times such as in those examples provided, however to keep this information protected after the event serves no purpose.

But 'everything' else - well why not. You have provided no good reasons for why information should be concealed. It is not just about revealing deception although transparency is a better tool against deception than thinly veiled 'national security' interests.

Even Wikileaks edits some of the material where there is a perceived risk. Certainly people make judgements about this even within government - however those judgements are not always done in the national interest as RObert writes but for more personal or political interests.

What is the danger in people having access to more information in terms of strengthening accountability including access to more detailed financial information.

In one department I worked staff asked for access to the financial records because basically there were so many cuts we did not know where the money was going (other than suspicion) and the repercussions at the coalface failed a duty of care and increased risk. We were told this information was not accessible. Remember we are talking about public monies, not requesting information about individual's private finances.

The reason why many people, including public servants are so supportive of Wikileaks is they are fed up with the culture that pretends to serve a greater purpose but does not always live up to that ideal.

Wikileaks isn't exposing this corruption that you speak of, however. As I said, if it was, I could see the point to it.

But Wikileaks is about the Public's right to ALL information. Wikileaks is about the hackers philisophy, that there is no right to privacy. And that was predicated on their desire to see whatever they fancied, because they could. Not from any superior moral philosophy.

How can diplomacy take place effectively under these conditions of full disclosure? It can't.

And diplomacy, among other things will be a casualty of this blanket policy of preventative exposure. You say Even wikileaks have expunged personal information when it may lead to harm to individuals. Only after their naievety was pointed out. And I wonder how you expect gov't could function if they had to do this with every document they produced.

But Assange cloaks himself in this veneer of truth seeking. My problem is that I don't accept that this is his goal, and I struggle to believe that there aren't intelligent people on the left who can't see this too.