Ed. I don't think I said that one shouldn't try to improve the situation, it certainly wasn't an impression I meant to give. I do however see it as a multidimensional problem.Free speech is important but I'm not sure I'dlike to see, to give an example, a situation in the UK where groups such as the KKK could openly campaign? I still maintain education is as important as free speech if only to teach that responsibility comes with freedom. (I'd accept there is a danger of using parallels between the US and UK as their cultures and history are different. )The UK electorate were given the opportunity to change the UK voting system to AV from FPTP but it was rejected by roughly ⅔ of the vote, although the turnout was only 42%! More of a resounding rejection than the EU!Johnson had a resounding mandate at the last election and now there's plans to change mayoral elections to FPTP.I'm not actually disagreeing with many of your points, I just don't understand what your ideas are for initiating the changes. I must admit I can't see a way forward given the voting records over the past decade, other than better education and awareness of issues? If that doesn't change people's voting habits then perhaps one has to assume they have the government they want? Do many care about Assange and his ilk? I'd agree they should but perhaps they need informing why it's important?As an aside, although Manning and Snowden aren't journalists, investigators such as Assange are dependent on such sources for information so perhaps whistleblowers need more protection.Yes, I suspect most governments - and oppositions who may see themselves being in government - aren't too keen on people like Assange; and, yes, the nature of the UK Parliament and law does help protect its politicians from prosecution although I think they are more exposed to international law unlike in the US which doesn't support some of the UN treaties in this area. Still, some MPs were prosecuted for fiddling their expenses ...
Michael Ixer ● 1674d