Interception Modernisation Programme

[Roland Perry]

In article <487A1DA0.7060706@callnetuk.com>, PeteM <otcbn@callnetuk.com> 
writes
>>  You are misreading the statement.
>>  "THE objective of the IMP is....
>>  "It [will] ensure ... A and B ...."
>>  But it will also ensure X, Y and Z.
>>  Perhaps you disapprove of it ensuring X, Y and Z, but it's not 
>>misleading Parliament to leave them out.
>
>Is it not? Let's substitute in some different values in for the 
>variables; instead of "IMP" we will insert "Invasion of Iraq", for "A 
>and B" write "Removal of illegal WMD"  and for "X, Y and Z" we will 
>substitute "Removal of regime disliked by Washington, advancement of 
>Western military control of the Middle East, securing of US access to 
>enormous oil reserves, improving Israel's security".
>
>It seems to me it clearly *was* misleading Parliament not to mention 
>these objectives, and therefore Roland's Theorem as stated above is 
>false.

The difference is that everyone knows the IMP X, Y and Z as a result of 
the RIPA debate [1], so failing to trot out a huge list every time you 
mention it, is not misleading.

[1] Have the consequences of such a regime ever been discussed as 
exhaustively?
-- 
Roland Perry