Wednesday, 15 December 2010


I have been asked to say where I stand on the present Wikileaks revelations, and have given it some thought. Trying to articulate my standpoint I find that one of the comments to a previous post does the job perfectly and I will simply quote that contributor.

""They too were done under that Free speech banner, but could've caused chaos on a global scale that would've perhaps even caused lots of killings and heartache everywhere, or damage to the trust between allies, or enemies" - I simply do not accept such rationalisations as a good enough reason to argue against the likes of WikiLeaks.

All of the conditions that you describe (global chaos, killing, heartache, loss of trust, etc) - all long predate Wiki.
For far too long we have trusted leaders (such as Blair) when the record shows time and time again that a healthy skepticism would have been far more appropriate - for example, remember all that tosh about WMDs - the 45 minute strike capability, etc?

In my opinion political factions might develop a more creative approach to solving various conflicts if there was MORE rather than less openness.

If we look back at the 'cold war' for example, we can see that paranoia was driven by secrecy, and all for what, eh - for the Russians to be hosting the 2018 world cup (sobs silently)

the a&e charge nurse


  1. He hee - cheers, Dr Z

    the a&e charge nurse

  2. Mind you, I bloody hate football.