74 posts • joined Thursday 4th October 2007 01:10 GMT
SCC - too confusing, or what?
Smallflaccid have a history of going for useless bloat (it almost seems like they can't help themselves), so I suppose the pithy term 'SCC' was eventually too much(?) for them.
Consign the two names to the 'stuck loop'.
Integrity, logic and all that stuff
Re: AC "Depends on your location" - yep, a sensible and valid point which I hope to see in any report or enquiry into the use of tasers in the UK.
[Integrity, logic and all that stuff]
The 'volunteer' part of "experiments on human volunteers" indicates to me that members of this self-selecting group probably felt pretty confident of their health and fitness. One has to wonder about the scientific integrity of an experiment that takes data about such a select group and, with no apparent caveats, extrapolates it to the whole population.
And I think we can guess that the pigs who were tested were not volunteers so, barring they were rejects as heart donors, could have been more representative of a general population.
Let's face it the general media reporting of science leaves it wide open for 'scientists' to conduct 'experiments' to produce the results they want.
Far better, I think, is the testing schedule put forward by Dave P, which makes the taser supporters the guinea pigs rather than the general public. I would add that mandatory retesting should be performed after every 10 times tasers have been used against members of the public.
Finally, as this article started the warped logic, this phrase - "marked decrease in the number of injuries inflicted on police officers by civilians since its introduction" - simply sounds like a good reason for ME and the rest of the non-criminal population to have a taser as we're not partial to being injured either, and most victims of violent crime are civilians not police.
[/Integrity, logic and all that stuff]
Gotta make a start somewhere
John your comparison is poor, though a good starting point for discussion. Remember that Brown-Harman-Speaker attempted to exempt MPs' expenses from the FOIA, remember that after that failed (thanks to Cameron and Clegg) they were going to heavily edit what would have been disclosed by the HoC and hide a lot of relevant information - I'd say that indicated unrepentant, organised fraud.
What shoud not be forgotten is that not all MPs were involved in such snoutery, and even some who claimed large expenses supported the FOIA and transparency of MPs claims (admittedly probably under Cameron's and Clegg's instructions).
Some media correspondents and some clean MPs probably had a good idea of what was going on, and the public certainly had strong suspicions that government under Nu Liebor was corrupt and self-serving, but what was to be done when this government appeared willing to cynically manipulate laws, police and media to hide or distort evidence on so many issues of importance to our nation?
It is a great pity that the HoC could not come clean about their expenses if they sincerely thought they were in some way justified. We have only been able to discover the evidence through extra-legal means because Nu Liebor have subverted the rule of law. Are we supposed to ignore evidence of corruption when we at long last get our hands on it?
We have seen the politicalisation of the police - how they were prepared to cover their identities when attacking protesters, and use 'anti-terrorism' legislation as a catch-all to intimidate and to prevent people recording evidence.
We have seen our Ministers and their officials failing in their duty to protect the helpless from the violent, yet at the same time happily distort the law to force through mechanisms to spy on the non-criminal citizenry.
Reporting by the BBC seems largely a publicly-funded unquestioning regurgitation of government propaganda.
This suspect government gives public money to unelected bodies such as quangoes and the ACPO yet they are unaccountable; do you really think this is for the public good or are they serving this government's grubby purposes?
As we had to rely upon extra-legal means then are the laws already flattened? How long before the brick hits a head rather than a window, and what will a jury decide about such an attacker? If it is to be seen to reassert the rule of impartial and fair law then the HoC needs a shake up to reassert its independence from the Executive, and Nu Liebor are clearly not the party to do it.
Re: chocolate bubblebaths
I'm sure you deserve the best, but take it up with Lester's expense account for his byline "Women coppers eager to drop trousers".
El Reg knows we're only going to go down from there.
Re: removal of the 10% tax rate
Yep, epic fail and indicates he can't even use a spreadsheet (hmm...might explain a lot).
No point arguing IR35 with those who haven't had to seriously consider its business consequences.
I spy some lubbers talking through their reAARRs matey:
Skulking below decks - Permies who feel an entitlement to the same rewards as a contractor, but unwilling to actually make the jump and take on the risks and extra work.
In the barrel - Nu Liebor fan bois, talking bollocks & stirring it up.
backtracking to an old backup?
Old news, but I still have hopes that somewhere there is a 'backup' copy that will make its way to the Telegraph.
May 18, 2008 - 'Tony Blair’s expenses shredded'
Extract = "The documents, itemising Blair’s claims for household expenses during a year of his premiership, were destroyed in the midst of a legal battle over whether they should be published."
Extract = "The shredding of the files has emerged in documents from the protracted legal battle over MPs’ expenses. So far the efforts by the Commons authorities to block disclosure have run up legal bills likely to cost the taxpayer about £150,000."
As others have mentioned and as this link supports, without the leak to the Telegraph it seems we would not know the truth about MPs' expense claims.
Professor Plum in the Library with a usb stick
Quote (steogede) = "That means that there may be certain MPs up to all sorts of dirty tricks, who the Telegraph chose not to name and shame - which we will never find out about."
That is one of the pleasant aspects of this situation - the HoC now have to be very careful about what they release because if they leave out anything the Telegraph has (but does not print yet) then the HoC will be in the firing line for another front-page savaging.
Also, one of the main reasons they want to catch the leaker is that they want to know exactly what information has been passed on so the HoC won't get caught out later.
To this end I think we should help the HoC by listing the possible suspects. I'll fire off a few off and perhaps some of you have some ideas as well:
- the staff at the Fees Office are most obviously in the frame;
- probably their relatives, lovers, teenage children as well because any of the Fees Office staff could have copied this info for later pension or book use, but have had it copied by someone they trusted (the irony!) and can't come clean 'cos they'd be fk'd;
- perhaps it is no co-incidence that the police were recently granted access to HoC (gasp!!);
- I could imagine the Speaker making a copy (politicians always like to have a bit of leverage) and absent-mindedly leaving it in some expensive hotel;
- the overnight cleaners have got to be contenders - some of them are bound to be ex-IT.
Approx 1000 words for evasion, misdirection and ad hominem attacks; IMO that make you a political troll.
Evasion - CP is intended to contain details of ALL children; I got that from the Reg story - comprehension, innit? You support CP and are unwilling to be specific about this particular requirement.
Misdirection - Before being killed Victoria Climbie HAD been seen by social workers, police and medical staff, and there HAD been interaction between them. The same applies for Baby Peter. Yet here you are trying to make out your CP would have made a difference - from what political party have we heard that lying propaganda before?
ad hominem - Well thanks for the condescending attack - again a familiar methodology. I thought if I mentioned Hodge's past I would get a rise from the usual suspects. Political-fish in a barrel.
For anyone who wants to argue with this guy I recommend you also make an effort to write (on paper, not email) a letter to your MP about it - IMO Alex won't want that, but chances are that at the moment your MPs will be eager for anything significant to take the heat off them.
Who is it you expect us to trust with this unnecessary level of intrusion Alex?
A little reminder how our political elite actually value and care for the vulnerable over whom they have power.
'Hodge apologises to abuse victim'
Extract = "Mrs Hodge led Islington Council from 1982 to 1992, when it emerged that children in the council's care had been abused.
She has been accused of failing to act, despite receiving warnings - an allegation she denies."
Extract = "Mrs Hodge was in her final year at Islington when, on October 6 1992, under the headline The Scandal at the Heart of Child Care, London's Evening Standard newspaper alleged that young people in Islington care homes had "descended into a life of degradation and exploitation". It said suspected pimps were having sex with children and that youngsters in care were being seduced into drugs, homosexuality and prostitution."
You really don't seem interested in constructive solutions at all, just in pushing the idea of this shiney-wonderful database and 'won't someone think of the children'.
As has already been pointed out more than once, the only children that may need to have their details on such a system (for the purposes of co-ordinating services from different organisations) are the one that have been identified as being at risk.
Your take on this appears to be that ALL children must go on the database, so IMO choices appear to be:
- you think ALL children are at risk (makes you a fool!);
- you think ALL children must go on the database so that when a 'John Smith' is identified by one agency as being at risk little Jonny can be confused by the same and other agencies with 40 other 'John Smiths' (makes you a management consultant);
- you think ALL children must go on the database, apart from the children of the rich, the famous and the politically connected of course, so the government can do their job by compiling a list of children to go on the NIR at some point regardless of increasing the risk to these children (makes you a sick political creature).
Tell us Alex, specifically what is your reason for putting ALL children on this database?
tainted, in so many ways
Copied (slightly edited) = "Despite serious and widespread concerns about the security, integrity and necessity of this database, minister$ seem determined to bulldoze it through."
It's typical shabby and self-serving behaviour of Nu Liebor to use *child victims, who they have already badly let down, as an excuse for social scheming. Co-ordinating the various services involved where a child is known to be at risk does not require the setting up of a directory of ALL children and their details, unless it is so pedo's can find their ideal victim.
* Scandlous (and IMO criminal) events involving Hodges and Haringey (multiple) are the ones that immediately come to mind if Nu Liebor trolls want some reference.
Any idea if the phasing out of the 9 inch is related to the number of cracked screens being reported for both eee & aspire one?
Despite being marketed as portable devices it appears they may need more care than your average laptop, so I've reluctantly gone back to my sturdy old Jornada 720 for 'chuck in a bag' needs and (now more carefully than before) use my AAO for browsing/email /typing in front of a telly.
@ Ponder Stebbins Posted Monday 6th April 2009 15:50 GMT
Quote = "Having the freedom to do something (smoke) does not also automatically give you the right to harm others (secondary smoke)."
True as far as it goes, but I can't recall that I've ever been in a pub where smokers were FORCING non-smokers to inhale their tar-&-nicotine laden respiratory wastes (secondary smoke).
I know a lot of non-smokers, like me, would go to some pubs because the attractions of those bars (such as lively social scene with lots of good-looking smoking young women) could outweigh the unpleasantness of the smokey atmosphere & the smelly clothes the next day. I was making a choice which suited me, regardless of whether it would suit you or get your approval.
If the UK is supposed to be a tolerant, freedom-loving democracy then I don't understand why we cannot allow pubs to choose to cater for smokers or non-smokers.
As to the balance between smoking-tax and NHS usage, simply do the sums to find out how much extra must be paid into the NHS for ALL the self-harm we indulge in (alcohol, obesity etc - not just smoking) and tax accordingly, making sure the money isn't diverted away from its intended use.
(First they came for the smokers...
Then they came for political-bloggers/ fetishists / pr0n-enthusiasts / unapproved-though-harmless-minority)
@reliable prints? by AC - Posted 3rd April 15:04
Perhaps you were thinking of the Shirley McKie case?
If so, this link to the story may be useful, and more detail can be found through the other URLs on this web page:
Here is an extract from that news item for those who can't be bothered to link (I find especially disquieting 'the obdurate and arrogant stance' of officials) :
<Quote> The MacKay report gives a detailed account of how the misidentification of her fingerprint occurred.
Mr MacKay said "institutional arrogance" in the fingerprint service had led to a criminal course of action.
The report also states: "Clearly the errors were capable of admission at various stages in the process with minimal impact on those making them.
"The police service has a culture of openness, honesty and integrity and in such situations, while I believe there would have been frustration by management, there would have been no recriminations in a mistake being made.
"It is the obdurate and arrogant stance which prevailed through the chain of events contributing in the conviction of David Asbury and the prosecution of Shirley McKie which transferred both misidentifications from an error status to a criminal action with dire consequences." </Quote>
@david wilson, 2
As an isolated or independent post I could regard your comments about 'bystanders to a fight' as reasonable, but someone reading them as you have posted might think they actually relate to the experiences I described above.
Not wishing to risk being misrepresented, I'd like to make clear that for your comments to relate to my post you would have to:
- Remove the term altercation, as I described no arguments which could have been defused or aggravated - just imminent physical danger, armed threat in the pursuit of a robbery, and an attack on a much weaker victim;
- Replace the term 'bystander' with 'viewer' or 'onlooker', or something approaching the comparison I made about people choosing to watch tv;
- The word 'fights' might be taken as all parties involved being to blame - 'attacks' would be the more accurate word unless you think I am culpable in some way.
- Remove your phrasing about piling in to stop fights, as if that was the only option. I'm pretty sure I didn't even imply that direct physical action was the only option - shouting a warning or turning up to the coroner's court, calling the police on their mobiles, yelling out that they were witnesses, or even just hanging around to speak to the police as witnesses, well, these would all have been a big improvement over the watch-and-fuck-off in which they indulged themselves.
The IT angle = Binary?
One or zero, reason or force?
I don't necessarily go along with everything this guy says, but I do think he puts forward quite a good argument which is relevant to the situation of a wheelchair-bound elderly woman being attacked by a criminal.
Quote = "But nor would people generally opposed to retribution, or in favour of weapon control - most people would just pile in with whatever they had."
David, you seem sincere, but I know from bitter experience that is simply not true, having over the years:
intervened when someone's life was in danger (sadly they later died from their accidental injuries),
been threatened with weapons when preventing a young woman being robbed,
been attacked in the street for not according some violent twat the 'respect' wanted.
(My attacker was younger and much larger, naturally and I'm short, pudgy, unfit and was at the time on my way to hospital for treatment of a long-term illness - so I'm not going to take any guff from the likes of the 'oh-so-virtuous' AC who seems to think people going about their normal business are 'asking for it'. What a prat!)
In every case there were many other people around, of various ages, and every time, every single fricking time, they just stood around gormlessly as if they were watching tv.
And I didn't escape violent injury by being nicey-nice, but by convincing those who threatened me that I wouldn't be the only one to be injured, and by physically resisting the man who attacked me.
David I know I can offer only anecdotal evidence, but for me they were real heart-in-mouth experiences. So, in time of trouble my approach now is only to aid family, friends or those who will act to defend themselves (regardless of age, sex, race etc - its the attitude that counts). I'm sure the politically-correct ACs will once more be able to pontificate - I just hope that sometime they are directly on the receiving end so they are that the ones that suffer for their uselessness.
Depending upon the legal system to remove personal involvement from punishing attackers may be worthy of discussion, but clearly even in the UK such a system does not itself actually protect or defend.
DNA database = guilt equivalence?
Quote = "The figures are broken into age groups and show that with the highest number of profiles is 25-34 with 1.56m. It is followed by the 35-44 group with 1.10m.
The breakdown by ethnic groups is dominated by north European whites with 3.99m."
And this analysis is useful because?
So now age and ethnic profiling from the DNA database is being published, would someone please explain what useful correlations can be made if this database includes the innocent as well as the guilty?
WTF?? - it even includes victims - for an example search for the phrase 'barrister of 43' on the following link:
Crime and Punishment
So how will Wacky punish him - deny him sex or <shudder> oblige him to perform?
Obvious excuse = "I was told to research effects of a physical stimulation."
Fiscal stimulation, geddit? ( probably causing, fittingly, a chorus of groans)
I'm interested in what they DON'T say.
HO Quote = "Together We Can End Violence Against Women And Girls".
Subtext = and keep violence against anyone else because they don't matter.
It's rather like equal rights. If this needs to be supported and enforced then it should be for everyone in our society, but no, it's only 'equality for some' (?? WTF) that requires funding for special interest groups. If you don't have a Gov't approved special interest group then forget any chance of equal treatment from Gov't, its laws and its minions.
Anyway, I'm sure we can rely upon Jacqui Loadsamoney Smith and her posse to 'round up the usual suspects' while making some rather sizeable expense claims and consultancy fees.
As regards HO consultations, they only seem to be available when they support the Gov't ideology. Some years ago there was one exploring violence by adults against children, and IIRC in summary most sex offenders were men, but most violence was performed by women. It stuck in my mind because I remember wondering if there was any correlation between the amount of time an adult HAD to spend with children and the number of violent incidents, as overall women have to spend more time with children than men do. Lo and behold, when I went back to check more thoroughly the document had been disappeared. (Who'd 'a' thought it?)
Democracy and the UK seriously damaged!
Damage by terrorists = !!!
Damage by ZaNuLabour = !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I won't be doing anything that would possibly have been considered dangerous, harmful or illegal 20 years ago, but I now realise that sometime over the next few years I'm likely to be criminalised. (Camera, computer, brain - I'm dangerous, me.)
Still, musn't grumble.
(There'll be a law against it.)
What's taught is not always what's learnt
Some teachers like to have a communication gap between themselves, the pupil and the parents if the school system permits it. It seems to allow some teachers to distance themselves from what, if anything, has been learnt as they have 'taught' the lesson.
(As one boy had not submitted several homework assignments, over a space of several months, a member of my family eventually met with a Design Technology teacher at the school. He then had to help his boy catch up. He told me the assigments made no sense at all, and if he as a qualified engineer couldn't make sense of what the teacher provided then his teenage son had no chance, and was unsurprisingly pissy about the teacher and the subject.)
Most parents who are interested would like to have available the subject curriculum, class progress, and homework assignments with due dates. Some schools make this information available on the web, as well as printed homework assignments given to the pupils. Some, instead, only verbally give homework assignments with variable due dates at the end of a class (when pupils are likely to be noisy, distracted or bored senseless). Which would you regard as more helpful to the parents, and beneficial for the pupils' education?
Quote (modified) = "But encryption (/ www / computer / camera / brain) is the tool of peado's (sic) and needs to be banned!"
A progession inevitably leading to 'won't someone stop them thinking of the children'.
Sadly, most politician's need the clarity of a lead-pipe explanation before they understand that (some criminals use tools) doesn't equal (all tool users are criminals).
Re: Jesus Christ...By Anonymous Coward
Quote = "... somebody needs to get these clowns out of office (preferably against the nearest wall and shot) as soon as possible.
/black heli and anon ... for obvious reasons."
If that's the Duke of Edinburgh again I can only suggest that you take the matter up with your wife.
Psychiatrist req'd (or Vet?)
If the Gov't and its lizards can't distinguish between what is imaginary and what is real then I think we have found an explanation for their policies and laws.
It also explains how they could present documentation on imaginary WMDs to the HoC, and then ask for a real war.
Would someone please diagnose and treat appropriately. ASAP!
(I say put them to sleep. It's only the humane thing to do.)
Re: 'Man hating feminists'
I see the thinking. So, as some cheap clothing is produced through economically vulnerable or virtually slave labour, and some criminals make profits, we can expect a law telling us to get naked?
Or maybe all just wear the same approved boiler suits? Look the same, think the same - one of us, one of us?
Why not go after the criminal exploiters? It seems to be a tactic of ZaNu Labour and their ilk to instead target a convenient sub-group, currently non-criminal, who do not fit with their social ideology. I guess real criminals are far too problematic - <irony> they are, after all, victims of society. </irony>
And I know some people would not like the squishy icky sex things I might like to get up to, but that does not mean that my consensual adult partners are only joining in because, as 'the virtuous' believe, they are incapable of thinking properly or enjoying themselves.
Tartan man/totty ban = Talliban?
Why don't they just get on with it and outlaw any sex act unless it is purely(?) for procreation and performed fully dressed, masked and with a partner you find unattractive, and ban ANY erotic depiction including this?
We'll obey that law just as much as the Extreme Pr0n.
Pathetic interfering weirdos!
Paris, because I look forward to the MAD-style folding pictures of her we'll be seeing in the future.
we'd all LIKE to do things
Davenport Lyons (DL) quote = "You may treat this matter as closed. We would like to apologise for any inconvenience or distress this matter may have caused."
Did DL apologise to John? I'm not sure they did. I'd like to ask out the new cute receptionist, but I know I'd be leaving myself open to trouble of one sort or another if I did. Did DL "like to apologise" in a similar way?
DL formally, and in a legal manner, contacted various organisations to pursue John, with possible unknown but troublesome consequences for his reputation now and in the future. If DL were truly apologetic wouldn't they have again been in touch with those organisations to make equal or greater effort to clear John's reputation and restore his status, and also contacted John to confirm this? I hate to think of the emotional disturbance and stress John must be suffering and, of course, the unjustified threat that now hangs over his work and personal relationships.
(I'd LIKE to give BT a bollocking as well for giving out personal information without letting the actual person know what's going on; I'd like to but I can't as BT don't have any.)
Re: huh??? - By Throatwobbler Mangrove
Throatwobbler Mangrove = "What - you mean like comparing the time of the last sent text message to the time the accident actually occurred?"
Where, exactly, is there an independant and accurate source for timing when the accident occurred?
Are we to take Ahmed's 999 call as the time of the accident? Would it have been like this?
"Yes, just ploughing into some poor bastard that other drivers avoided and thought I'd let you know immediately before falling unconscious, making a dazed recovery, getting my-fat-self and the ladies out and herding the hysterical bints to relative safety - you know, the usual quick exit from a crumpled car.
And, by the way, it didn't have anything to do with my previous texting as I certainly wasn't composing yet another text message at the time."
The legal thinking seems to be that if he had transmitted a text at the precise second of the crash (still needing an independant timer here) then that would be related to the crash, but if he is engaged in a series of long text exchanges prior to the crash we can take a Lord's word for it that he wasn't distracted preparing to send anymore, honest!
I just wonder if there was a two or three minute gap between any of the previous messages transmissions, as they were being read or prepared? Still, I'm sure we can rely on the police, CPS and unbiased Judges to do a technically proficient job on anything relating to IT - I'd let them work on my network anytime (not!).
(PS, and not related to you TM - I see the Liebor supporters are out in force. Good on you, lads, coming out en masse when there's a message to be pushed. I swear it's nearly as good as a fire alarm.)
the IT angle - such convenient precision!
Quote = "...Ahmed’s text messaging had finished two minutes before the accident took place..."
I suppose the judge could be simply taking Ahmed's word that such was the case but I'd like to think that for such an important legal decision there was some precise way of establishing that two minute gap, some technical method of accurately measuring the time between when a text was sent and some other indicator/activity from the mobile.
In fact, I'm sure there was but we probably can't know about it for security reasons!
And it certainly wasn't "Yes, yes, I sent him a text just now, let me try to get the text up on the screen and I'll read it to yaaahh!!!", or a 999 call made one second after the impact. No sirree, Bob.
(Have to admire the BBC 'investigative' reporting, i.e. bland regurgitation, 'cause it's all for the good of the 'community'.)
Quote = "Although rates have undoubtably fallen in recent months, a 15 per cent cut seems like a big jump to us."
So will the 15% come off the amount the client is paying the agency, or will it be 15% off the amount the agency passes on to the contractor?
I know this might seems a bit cynical, but providing the agency is originally on less than 33% margin, then CG will still get a saving of over 10% which seems a more realistic target.
The agency is unlikely to want to risk having their contractors replaced so this might be a good time to ask to see the contract addendum which specifies what CG is paying the agency (so the contractor can make his/her best offer, naturally).
Unsporting Jacqui frowns on ten tackles.
Quote Luther = "Jellyfish in Paris. Jellyfish getting up to no good. Especially in Paris."
Steady, lad, steady; you're flirting with Jacqui's Extreme Porn Act!
...and we pay their salaries!
According to the survey report, "there is still confusion and uncertainty, particularly regarding the belief that individuals will be required to carry their identity cards with them at all times". Some 69 per cent of respondents believed this to be true, but according to the Home Office pollsters "it is in fact false".
Absolutely. We won't be required to carry ID cards
- in a CAT scanner
- in the shower at home
- in a police cell.
Here is my poll.
Pick the option that will best benefit Britain, and protect against crime and terrorism.
1 - ID cards.
2 - Tattooing an identity number on peoples foreheads.
3 - Rioting in the streets.
4 - Hanging politicians from lamp-posts.
5 - Other (please state your opinion while you can).
I don't want to get too technical
...but have they tried switching their PCs off and then on again?
Re: Where do you get your information from? by Cal
[quote from article] even their own armies often seem less than pleased to have them around.[/quote]
Possibly from 'A Rifleman Went to War' by H. W. McBride, as something similar is mentioned.
IIRC - During WWI static trench warfare sometimes sections of the line on one side would fire enough shots/shells to satisfy administrative demands, but would deliberately aim off so as not to cause casualties on the other side; and in return the other side would also adjust their aim so as not to inflict casualties. With this unofficial co-operation they would reduce their chances of death or injury. Then a sniper team would be assigned to that part of the line and after a few deliberate sniper shots/kills real hostilities would kick off again.
Quick note, small change
Briefly looked for BBC news articles regarding cocaine traces on pound notes.
From 1999: "More than 99% of the banknotes in circulation in London are tainted with cocaine, according to a study. "
From 2006: "Traces of cocaine can be found on 94% of euro banknotes circulating in Spain, a study has suggested."
And from 2007: "Scientists in the Republic of Ireland have found traces of cocaine on all the banknotes they tested."
Dear me, is the UK losing ground to our European rivals? Well we took the lead (2006 - UK is 'European cocaine capital') ...and held it (2008 - UK top of European cocaine league.)
Here are the links, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6177098.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7714519.stm.
Mine's the coat with pockets full of small change.
Quote TeeCee = "You can certainly say that you've heard of "the Jack the Ripper murders", but you cannot say that you've heard of the criminal responsible. Just because you can get away with slandering the dead doesn't make it right."
What are you on about? Or just, what are you on?
"Jack the Ripper" was not originally a label, it was used as an alias or assumed name; in some of the correspondance claiming to be from the killer some were signed as "Jack the Ripper".
Killer or hoaxer, if the police could have caught him they would have pressed criminal charges as far as they could, as they were under pressure to make any sort of progress.
The police files referred to the Whitechapel Murders, not "the Jack the Ripper murders" as you make out, but the name has been made infamous through the media and the person using that name committed criminal acts of one level or another, and was never caught. Hence my perfectly valid example.
Back in your pram, youngster.
show us yer cities? Paris & Vegas
This cast list might challenge the writers and bring in some new viewers:
New Doctor = Johnny Vegas
Assistant = Paris Hilton
Sonic Screwdriver = Rabbit vibrator
Maybe it could be like 'Have I Got a Bit More News for You', and have an extended repeat to include the less subtle rude bits? I'd probably watch that (at least more than I can watch the RTD stuff, trying to remember where the plot had been taken from).
Walter Wolfgang a terrorist? Nonsense!
Quote = 'the dividing line between political activism and involvement in Terror is increasingly fuzzy'.
Gone beyond that I think.
This is a government plan, right? So surely we should be a bit more precise, and be asking about Jacqui Smith's need for a GIMP (Government's Interception Modernisation Programme)?
Does she really need a gimp, or is it just some incredibly strong and perverse desire? We already know that Hollywood films influenced other parts of government thinking about IT.
Quote = Smith was clear that she won't take "no" for an answer.
(Cue the rhohypnol.)
So, Jacqui's determined push it through and fully implement the gimp; that's got to be expensive.
I eagerly look forward to finding out more about this; for instance, is she interested in only criminal activity or is it more a dominance/discipline thing? And I think we need to know more about Jacqui's "restrictions" and "naked propaganda".
Keep it up, El Reg!
Keep It Simple
I'm not of a violent temperment so would not be inclined to hang the pirates; just sink their vessels with an overwhelming amount of fire-power and let them walk home.
@Obviously faked by Matthew
Spot on Matthew!
This can't be Croydon - no dog turds!
It's not even the UK - steering wheels are on the left.
Hang on though, two of the coppers have their guns in their left hands - what have they been doing with their right hands? Not the old dance number 'this is my weapon, this is my gun...'. Sick bastards.
More Blears please?
Quoting AC above:
"...but do I have to see a picture of that ginger dwarf on the El Reg main page?"
Sorry AC but I'm beginning to think we should see more of her <shudder>. She should be on cctv full time, the same for all our politicians and senior civil servants, recording their every word and move - for their own protection, of course.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!
Again, I'm so reassured
"...the contents of the PC are protected..."
What are the odds they'll have to admit a rather significant yellow sticky is also missing, it's contents not so protected?
Quick, everybody to the 'government laptop' section of Ebay.
I'm so reassured
Just as reassuring really as:
- 'Education, education, education'
- That dossier on Iraq's WMD threat capability that was presented to parliament, and
- 'There will be a referendum on the EU constitution'
Apparently he is aware there are some 'bad' people around (he managed to get the word 'moral' in) so this is justification for routinely spying on ordinary people instead.
I was watching Brown on tv make this speech and when he spluttered a few times I wished I'd been there to 'help' him, though I'd probably have to explain myself as clearly as the politicos do:
"This is a new form of Heimlich manoeuvre, it only looks like I'm punching him in the stomach!"
- IT bloke publishes comprehensive maps of CALL CENTRE menu HELL
- Nine-year-old Opportunity Mars rover sets NASA distance record
- Analysis Who is the mystery sixth member of LulzSec?
- Prankster 'Superhero' takes on robot traffic warden AND WINS
- Comment Congress: It's not the Glass that's scary - It's the GOOGLE