(www.bbc.com)

763 points tartoran | 2 comments | 23 Oct 25 14:25 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Show context

hirvi74 ◴[23 Oct 25 14:34 UTC] No.45682294[source]▶

Not that I agree with this decision, but is there any evidence that these reports yielded any consequences? Or rather, was it one of those, "After conducting an internal investigation, we have determined we did nothing wrong" kind of things?

replies(6): >>45682326 #>>45682397 #>>45682559 #>>45682834 #>>45683342 #>>45684098 #

1. dagmx ◴[23 Oct 25 14:55 UTC] No.45682559[source]▶

>>45682294 #

Even if the reports didn’t result in action, they would (in theory) leave a report trail that a FOI request could uncover.

There’s a lot of ifs in there though, and a lot of implied honesty just for record keeping. We’re all discovering (again) that implied honesty in governance will always be abused.

replies(1): >>45682916 #

2. daveguy ◴[23 Oct 25 15:23 UTC] No.45682916[source]▶

>>45682559 (TP) #

I don't think they understand the wave of regulation through constitutional amendment that's coming.

↑

US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces