Military thinking is destroying our country and its economy

Passing on secrets is not necessarily the same as being honest. 

If I tell the other bidders at an auction what you are bidding, I'm telling the truth, but not many people would think it was a good thing. 

The secrets he passed on was evidence of their crimes, which no one seems to be accountable for. If you want another example then see the Labour Files from Al-Jazeera. If you want another example see the Horizon crime from the Post Office. I could go on indefinitely listing their corruption. The best MPs are the ones who stay silent. The others are on the payroll or dead.

I think more and more people are starting to realise that the problem is now so significant it is unlikely to be addressed by any currently available framework for reform. There is literally no polite means by which any agency could take the power to run the country off its current owners. We still have some of the rituals of democracy but more and more they are appearing to most as literally rituals - like a coronation.

How is this happening? - my view is that the pathology has been active for a while and gathering strength and it operates by a form of organisational psychiatric selection. The social atmosphere in our institutions has for a while favoured those who can repeat reality disconnected platitudes without blinking or embarrassment. The same psychiatric conditions favoured by this atmosphere disallow any reasonably complete understanding of complex concepts like democracy.

Take a look at what is happening in Ireland. Polls indicate that about 80% of the population are against reforms voted in by 90% of the government. You don't get that kind if imbalance by accident.

There was a good point mentioned on LBC the other day. It was said that after many examples of people in professional careers losing their careers over the slightest of things, like say non-PC, a minor criminal offence or even a police caution, that the only people who can afford to protest are those living outside of the system. They would be like say the unemployable or maybe the min wagers. Therefore even if we did have a government who reacted to protest in a vaguely democratic way, the people protesting are hardly likely to be the kind of people who could add anything intelligent to the debate on how we run the country. Those at the top of their career with the most experience and the most to lose would be too frightened to rock the boat. It's the exact opposite to how it should be.

You have done a good job here choosing an uncontroversial example. It needs to be uncontroversial because the issue isn't really the thing itself.

Such rules have an organisational effect -

They select for those who care little for reality and a lot for appearance, those who will repeat what they are told to repeat and feel no embarrassment

They select against those who insist on talking plainly and honestly and try to build genuine trust with others.

What we are seeing now is this subtle social policy bearing fruit.

Along with lefties like me saying enough, its become nonsense and harmful. If it were just people asking for the right to discriminate based on colour or religion I would say we were about the right place. 

Okay - this is going to be no fun at all if we keep agreeing with each other. Your intuitive position is not significantly different from mine.

However, there is a large problem with your position. Because 'discrimination' is largely a subjective matter, for you to get your way there needs to be a set of empirically enforceable rules about what discrimination is.

If someone told you that this rule you have just highlighted as silly, wasn't silly, but was entirely necessary - and that people who use the wrong terminology here are engaging a coded aggression against black people, how would you argue logically that this was not the case? How would you defend yourself from a charge of racism for using the wrong terminology? The only mechanism you would have is that of trust - you would be asking your accusers to trust your character. Notice that we are now operating completely outside the bounds of anything that can be demonstrated empirically and that you are now at risk. 

Further, if we are to do you want and apply an official standard, we need an army of 'experts' whose jobs is to define, identify and adjudicate discrimination. These experts are not at all interested in a common sense interpretation - their interests will line up with making the rules as obtuse as a possible so that more discrimination can be found and they can be paid to solve an 'ever increasing problem'. This is some significant fraction how we ended up where we are - there is more though.