Leverage from Intelligence from the Street

VaughanJB

VaughanJB

Scrappy VIP
Yesterday I was watching an interview with a guy who used to work for the Police in London. This included work in a lot of major crimes, you imagine it, he'd been involved.

Something he said stuck with me. To paraphrase: "Things are more difficult now, because you can't get intelligence from the street. We used to have leverage if someone was homosexual, but not anymore. We used to have a level of control if someone was caught having an affair, but that's not such a big deal now. We used to have people over a barrel if we knew they were taking illegal drugs, but no-one care about that anymore. So it's much more difficult to get leverage on someone."

I expect we all remember days when there'd be huge headlines because actor A was caught out with another woman, or smoking some dope in a night club. But you don't really see that now. Ones sexual preference is mentioned in passing, but it's no longer a career ender.

Is this progress, or regression? Should these things matter more, or did we over-react in the past?
 

There are still some career-ending behaviors to exploit, but they seem to be used at higher strata of society. I think some of them were more "protected" in the past, and today such "protection" is selective based on allegiances.
 
I don't know if we're being numbed to bad behavior, but it seems to me that no one is speaking up about it because we're trying (or being forced) to be politically correct. Inside we might be screaming about certain behaviors but on the outside....:censored:
 

Today it seems to be all people care about are tweets from 10 years ago. I do wonder what anyone can truly do to offend the public these days. There are always hordes wanting to jump to someone defense. I'm thinking of the Jake Paul and his brother - massive celebrities - who have ripped people off through the sale of NFT's. No-one really cares.

It feels as though there are no standards any more. Perhaps it's because I'm too old to get it. I remember my father being outraged over the Sex Pistols! Goodness knows what he'd of made of rap!!

Perhaps the bigger question is - what could someone do to offend the majority of the public today?
 
Paco Dennis said:
It is blackmail.
Click to expand...

Why is that a problem? Do you think intelligence services shouldn't be able to blackmail a terrorist in order to prevent an atrocity? You're talking about criminals giving information on other criminals.......
 
Bing Chat...

"Informants might lie to protect themselves or their associates from legal consequences, or to avoid retaliation from the criminals they are informing on. They might also lie to exaggerate their importance or value to law enforcement, or to get more money or benefits from their cooperation. For example, in the case of Mohammad Hammad, a defense attorney suggested that he was motivated by money and lied about the involvement of four men in a terrorism plot1.

Informants might tell the truth to reduce their own criminal charges or sentences, or to get immunity from prosecution. They might also tell the truth out of a sense of duty, remorse, or justice, or to help law enforcement prevent or solve crimes. For example, in the case of Alex Diaz, a former drug trafficker who became an informant for various agencies, he claimed that he was motivated by a desire to atone for his past and to make a positive difference2."
 
Robb.hisself said:
It is a good point. We are no longer put off by bad behavior that someone practices. A good example is Trump. For all that he has done there are many who would ignore it all and still vote for him. Not many are aghast at such behavior and values. Your thread addresses this very issue. I used to think it was just an issue of his charismatic magnetism. But, your thread means we've simply become numbed to bad behavior and are accepting it, tolerating it, or maybe even forgiving of it since we see so much of it everywhere today. Our societal values certainly have changed in the short span of my lifetime. My grand parents would have been screaming their heads off to such behavior. Not today.
Click to expand...

Does anyone else think our agreement about no POLITICS should apply to this statement?
 
Paco Dennis said:
Does anyone else think our agreement about no POLITICS should apply to this statement?
Click to expand...

I think the move today to censor everything and anything political is a stain on the site. There's a balance, which is where the site should sit. Amazingly, in the examples I've seen, it's people on the right who want to employ the cancel culture. There are a lot of pro-censorship people on the right in the forum. I had a suggestion I should be censored because I wrote "ring wing radical" today. :D

It's okay to read something and to ignore it, you know.
 
I think my remark could be seen as criticizing a political figure. And, for that could draw a contrary remark. So, if I had chosen a different person in a different field or notable for something different than politics, it would then have been judged as o.k. Would that have made my remark within the rules? If so then the rule is that no political figure can be named in any discussion. Is that the rule? Remember, I am a new member and am trying to figure this place out.

Remember, there are both Americans here and those from the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. So what is political is really hard to define. For example, is mentioning the King political? I really don't know. Is it? Is mentioning political parties political?

Can we discuss events that occur within a political party? Can we discuss situations or events that can be traced back to a political party that is in power and is sponsoring the situation or supporting it? I really don't know. What does the no political discussion rule apply to and how narrowly is it defined? I think you can see that simply naming a political person and his political character requires the rule be narrowed down to considerable smallness. If we are going to say the name can't be mentioned then just how far does the rule go? Well someone tell me the answer? Remember, I am new here and trying to figure this all out.
 
Last edited:
Can we, perhaps read the comment from a 50,000 foot view?

No details - but it seems clear that nothing can sway the belief of some people. Proven criminal acts, on record discretions. None of it matters.

So the question is - is there NO limits? If so, then how does one choose one over the other? Forget the leaning, does anything matter?
 
VaughanJB said:
True, outrage hasn't gone out of fashion. But the half-life for a specific bit of outrage seems really short. I do agree, some people are outraged all the time. :D
Click to expand...

Some people become outraged at the sudden realisation that they haven't had the opportunity to be outraged that day. That just seems outrageous to me.

It's a marvel then to witness a manufactured outrage of their own making that they award to themselves as a consolation prize. It has the makings of becoming an Olympic Sport.

"Speed Outrage," where competitors race to find something to be angry about in the shortest time. Extra points for "Triviality Outgrage," where competitors see who can get the most worked up over the smallest issue. Disqualification if the competitor suddenly becomes angered by something that actually matters. Then there are points for 'artistic merit' to consider.

Points deducted if someone gets pissed off before the competition starts. There should be a specific phrase for it; something like Pre-Compatition Rage. Or some similar phrase, that I can't think of at the moment.

Maybe they could have a Time-Out period if they only become 'mildly annoyed' during the competition, although in doing that the competitor might be accused of unsporting behaviour.
 
Last edited:
The way this is presented made it seem like a strong arm by LE. Reality has changed as many simply don't care what secrets are shared unless it cuts possible time/ charges .... but that lately has backfired as eager prosecutors promise get out of anything free to people who in the end have nothing helpful to close the loop on others like they promised.

It is just a fact that people simply do not care what they look like or are perceived.
So what seems to be the attitude ...... if they are having affair / doing drugs whatever because if outed they simply claim victim status and enter some pretense at rehab or changing.
 
VaughanJB said:
Yesterday I was watching an interview with a guy who used to work for the Police in London. This included work in a lot of major crimes, you imagine it, he'd been involved.

Something he said stuck with me. To paraphrase: "Things are more difficult now, because you can't get intelligence from the street. We used to have leverage if someone was homosexual, but not anymore. We used to have a level of control if someone was caught having an affair, but that's not such a big deal now. We used to have people over a barrel if we knew they were taking illegal drugs, but no-one care about that anymore. So it's much more difficult to get leverage on someone."

I expect we all remember days when there'd be huge headlines because actor A was caught out with another woman, or smoking some dope in a night club. But you don't really see that now. Ones sexual preference is mentioned in passing, but it's no longer a career ender.

Is this progress, or regression? Should these things matter more, or did we over-react in the past?
Click to expand...

It's a mixed bag, but in a way, it might lead ultimately to regression. The examples you mention given by the police officer don't seem like a big deal these days, and they are not a big deal to me either, but I might have had a strong sense in my own mind of them being a big deal when I was younger.

But where then does this lead to in the future -- a greater sense of a collective society's lack of individual responsibility and accountability for one's actions. A society where anything goes and no-one cares? Where might that ultimately lead to? A greater sense of individual entitlement at the expense of others. Are many areas of society already there?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top